That's what I missed most after I left Germany, the "just take my money" option. That WAS very convenient, also when shopping online. Here you have to make a complicated contract for auto payments which I use only for regular bills like phone, power or rent. But as you said, Paypal made that obsolete for online services.

It's not stainless...

... Steam's just big enough that most users don't care.

Steam had the vision to pioneer digital distribution and became ubiquitous with PC gaming -- a virtual monopoly. It's this ubiquity that now shields them from most gamer issues.

But no one stays at the top forever.

I am honestly afraid of what ever will replace Steam.
Yes, some day it will cease to exist. But what will replace it?

We will either have a massively fractured market, where each and everry major publisher has it's own launcher. That is already starting, but can get a lot worse as it is now.
Or we will go to subscription models like the XBox Gamepass where you will not be able to buy games anymore.

IMO consumers are primarily convenience-minded. If the market gets fractured into "a million" launchers, many consumers will just stop buying.

As for subscriptions...

... that's where the industry is headed. You subscribe to play but ultimately own nothing.

If consumers can subscribe to a convenient service that provides access to almost every release (ie Steam), they will give up what little ownership they already have (sadly).

If Valve was a dance, it would be the lambada

.

I agree the future is going to be a more fractured model although not as extreme as streaming because Japan isnt really into PC. I dont see Nintendo or Square making their own platforms (Nintendo wont release their games on PC and Square is still Japan focused and Japan doesnt play PC as much it seems. May be due to limited space to place a big desktop and PCs being quite expensive relative to consoles). I honestly thinknthe only other launchers could be from Sony and Microsoft (which makes sense. They already produce most of the AAA games and why lose out on 30% revenue to steam).

If the market does become fragmented enough, you may be right that companies will try to rope people in through subscriptions but I think in reality, few can. Xbox pass works because Microsoft makes bank through Office but I dont think other companies have that option. If they do go that option, there will be more exclusives by service and to make up the fact that they need to produce a similar number of quality games with less revenue per game (since you get access through subscription). Either they do something like pay an extra 20 to play this AAA hot release right now or wait a year or several until its free (like what Prime does with movies like Black Widow or Free Guy). Or, games make up that revenue through microtransactions, being even more justified since players are technically getting the game for free.

Movie ownership is basically dead now with streaming services (which is a bad thing since many good shows arnt accessible without owning them) and video games could go that way. Honestly would be terrible imo because although in the short term it may be cheaper, in the kong term you are going to be losing out on gems and maintaining old games with all their content since the games are owned by the company. Think GTA definitive edition and pulling down the originals. If you dont like the remaster, too bad.

Services will have quite an impact also on the movie industry. We already saw some games where music was cut out afte some years.
But the same already happened with movies. The Blu-Ray releases of some TV shows or movies had toe be altered already because the rights owners didn't have the rights to some music (for example "Love and Marriage" was replaced in "Married with Children", "Brown eyed girl" was replaced in "Fatal Instinct"). Now that everyone is streaming, they can do that "on the fly", many old/original versions will be lost.

Yep, services are the way to go, not only in gaming, the whole software industry tries to go that way.
There will always be a market for "buying" and "owning" stuff, but the options become fewer every year.

I guess it is wrong to totally focus on Itch.io, but that was the only name that came to mind and I sort of took a punt with it. However it wasn't the only one I mentioned, though the only one by name.

Indie games have been around for a long time, well preceding Steam, and I don't deny that Steam did have some of the better respected or resourced ones, but like the Wikipedia page says in regard to "Shifting industry and increased visibility (2005−2014)", they started appearing in stores LIKE Steam ... they not being the only one. But yes Steam was one of the stores that helped with boosting their visibility and thus access etc ... but a brave claim to say if not for Steam.

I still believe that Indie games did not really come into their own until around the advent of Itch.io and others, where they then became a bit more mainstream, and also increased in significant numbers at Steam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indie_game

Honestly Xbox Live Arcade might have been their biggest boost, with Steam soon after. That's just my perspective though, I respect your alternative view. I would guess Steam dominates indie sales by a huge margin now though, on PC.

No worries and probably ... though Itch.io has done some big promotions for itself doing those Aid and Equality bundles, so gamers are perhaps more aware of them now, and perhaps have more reason to visit them. Personally I get overwhelmed by the amount of Indie games at both Steam and Itch.io, and I am glad that GOG at least, has some restraint.
Sorry I just realized I had forgotten to add your name to my reply to StingingVelvet, but I guess you would have read that and maybe understood.

I'm not sure anything will ever replace Steam, not likely for a decade or more anyway, and unlikely to be a single entity in any case, which some would see as good others bad. We are yet to see the result of the Epic Steam War, but at best I am guessing Epic will just gain themselves as a somewhat good contender, like GOG kind of is in a way. Most gamers I imagine will still prefer to get all their games in the one place, and perhaps it takes a significant draw card to lure them to other game stores. Though does any publisher/developer not release a AAA or very desirable game at Steam eventually? Not many investors would be happy at the loss of profits by ignoring a release through Steam.

Hard to tell at this point about subscriptions, and no idea how successful Microsoft have been selling games through their store.

Like many though, I personally think diversity of stores is a good thing ... especially if some support DRM-Free.

I would have thought the skin gambling controversy would have tarnished their reputation.

Fortunately Gwent is the only thing that GOG could corrupt in such a fashion.

Good thing for GOG, Gwent isnt strictly tied to GOG.
I will say one thing Im disappointed with GOG is they dont seem standardized and alot of amazing classic games are missing, notably NES and SNES games.

Not liking that Witcher 2 has no achievements here but on Steam and that GOG is missing classics like Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy, or Persona.

I think the lack of DRM makes GOG bought games superior to steam or epic due to the ability to mod, pay offline even if servers are down, and ensure these games remain accessible and playable 10 or 20 years down the line (cause great games still hold up no matter the time period hence why remasters are so popular). I do think GOG’s biggest drawback is the smaller game library and poor community building relative to steam though.