Still drinking Kool-aid that Microsoft is not even selling any longer, many people are under the impression that the Xbox One as it was originally conceived was an excellent idea. A handful of people think that with DRM, Xbox One would have managed to lower prices and have better sales. The prices would even be on par with Steam. But the fact of the matter is that Xbox One was never going to be like Steam and consoles themselves will never mimic Steam.
What is a console? It is a closed platform. That means that Microsoft (in the case of Xbox One, which supposedly would have been the bringer of Steam-like service for consoles) manages everything and makes money off of everything that passes through it. It also means that there is absolutely no "internal" competition; once someone buys an Xbox, they have one source to buy digital games and one only; XBL. You don't like the price of the game on XBL or how they serve it? Too bad.
What is Steam? It is a game service on an open platform. That means that Valve does not control where you buy games when you buy a computer (other than titles brought to you by Valve and games that just happen to be exclusive to their service, but that's digressing). In order to keep customers, they must compete with other services, as there is plenty of "internal" competition within the platform of the PC.
On one platform, there is infinite amount of incentive to keep prices low. On the other, there is little incentive (other than the potential to get you to ultimately spend more with good deals, but the gaming industry doesn't seem to get this concept anyway). You don't like the prices on the console? Your alternative is having a massive paperweight; console manufacturers know that you have no other option once you've spent the money for the system. You don't like the prices on a specific PC game service? You find another; game distributors know that you have loads of alternatives.
It is business 101; if you control the supply, you can control the demand. Consider diamonds; they are far from rare, but one company controls about 80% of diamonds worldwide and has perpetuated the belief that they are valuable (and the other 20% takes advantage of being in a position of selling something that the western world has been convinced that you can't prove your love without). It is very similar (to a smaller scale, obviously) on consoles; they have no reason to charge you less if they control their economy/supply of digital games.
I hate to burst anyone's bubble, but consoles will never be Steam. There are fundamental differences in the infrastructures of a PC game distributor and a console and they do not favor consoles in prices.
Review - Scott Whiskers in: the Search for Mr. Fumbleclaw very much puts the heart back into point and click.
"The Paris-based (France) indie games publisher Twin Sails Interactive (the publisher of “Gloomhaven” and “Ember Knights”) and L.A.-based (the US) indie games developer Odinsoft, are today very glad and proud to announce that the full version (v1.0) of their single-player survival game “Survival: Fountain of Youth” (which is set in the 16th-century Caribbean islands), is coming to PC via Steam and EGS on May 21st, 2024." - Jonas Ek, TGG.
Duuro says: "Max Mustard proves that taking classic platformer fundamentals and crafting memorable VR mechanics on top makes for an incredibly fun experience."
While digital is on the rise, console still rely on physical format for most of its sales. The physical format is probably the sole reason why price drop couldn't happen. Also probably the sole reason why console will never be like Steam.
A $60 physical games when broken down
-Retailer Margin $15
-Return $7
-Distribution Cost $4
-Platform fee $7
-Publisher $27
Out of $60 a game publishers only get ~$27. Drop the price of the game to $40 dollars and now the publisher would get ~$18. The amount other four also decrease.
The reason why Steam is a popular platform for publishers is because they don't lose cash from the middlemen(Retailers, Distribution and Return).
Nice write-up. I like Steam, but I also use several other game services (mostly GoG) when I can.
It's true: even if a console matches Steam feature for feature, the competitive nature of the PC's open platform can never be replicated on consoles. That's why I don't understand DRM on consoles. The console hardware itself IS the DRM. Why add an extra layer (other than to just milk money)?
Very Nice!!! I have said this many times, though not as eloquently as you, and faced hundreds of disagrees. I fully understand that digital is the "future". However, there must be a plan that is beneficial to console gamers and not just a cash-in for the console makers. I read somewhere that if MS or Sony discounted their games by $5 it would cut into their bottom line as much as %10. We might scoff at that percentage, until we realize that be are talking about out of a possible BILLION dollars! Companies are NOT charities. No one expects them to be. It's about the continuous give-and-take that the consumer/business relationship should be about.
I'd just like to add that retail partners are also a reason consoles will never be like Steam. Stores like Gamestop make their money off of used games. Unless they are willing to undergo an infrastructure change and create some method of buying/selling used digital games, then they have to rely on physical media to make money. Not only will they threaten to pull support if publishers like MS charge less for digital games than they (Gamestop) have priced for physical games; they'll also fight tooth and nail against an all digital solution because it will put them out of business.
This would mean they would not stock the consoles that are threatening their business which would hurt everyone. There's no way around needing a console to sell your digital games on unless companies like MS want to switch to PC, which they won't because they want to dominate the living room.
So as we can see, there will never be a Steam-like service on consoles, and anyone that believes there will be is naive and blind.
I disagree with this article. I understand your points about consoles being a closed off platform and content going through MS. But we have already seen a shift in their policies of self publishing which if I'm not mistaken will include self pricing and marketing.
If anything this could have extended also to the digital downloads. And in time with all these games and their game companies competing on a platform we might have seen a lot more sales or "humble bundles" occurring more frequently for consoles.
I think MS goal was to get a Steam like environment. This of course couldn't be done over night but in time it might have been on par or better than Steam.
The fact is we will now never know, so to say that MS's DRM would have never worked is reaching and jumping to conclusions with little to no evidence.