Are they gatekeepers though? It's not like they own Windows or Linux and stop you from using any other store. Just having the biggest audience doesn't make them gatekeepers to the market.
I never see people talking about what valve should change other than lowering the 30% cut, but arbitrarily forcing that would set a bad precedent.
Instead of virtue signalling here's reasonable things Valve could do:
allow developers to chose what features of steam they use for each game, allowing them to lower the cut by individually opting out of forums, workshop, cloud saves, achievements, inventory items etc
offer a purchase = one time download with no drm (still legally one copy) for the closest thing to "owning" a digital game
allow someone to inherit a steam account
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure proton is free to use and you can install stores and games not from steam on a Steam Deck, so again I really don't know what they're gatekeeping.
For specifics, I'd like to see consistent, transparent censorship standards, and Steam Workshop files made publicly available.
Steam's censorship issues are only going to be more of a problem as the Japanese PC market continues its explosive growth. The platform's inconsistency is surely frustrating Japanese developers, and the lack of transparency is giving fuel to a (not unearned) narrative that its content reviewers are arbitrary and xenophobic.
The Workshop matter is far smaller in comparison, but Steam is gatekeeping crowdsourced work product.
The workshop is an interesting topic and one if like to see a larger discussion around - theoretically people are free to upload their workshop content outside of Steam altogether, but arguably it's on developers to support importing non-workshop content.
Censorship is definitely something that needs sorting out. I hadn't heard of much censorship going on but I can definitely see it happening, giv n Japan's standards can differentiate massively from America's. Clear rules need to be laid, and I hope clear reasons are given when it occurs.
I find it really interesting how Valve hired Yanis Varoufakis to analyze the markets that were spontaneously emerging from games on their platform, and how he went on to write a book about the feudalistic nature of internet platforms that is being referred to here. I wonder what Gaben thinks of that and what Yanis thinks about Steam.
Then there is the aspect of Valve being a flat company, no hierarchy, and how Gaben has talked about avoiding rent-seeking that other companies were taking part in, how he wants to make good products for gamers, doesn't look at sales numbers.
Valve has some really great philosophy running behind it, and then there is the fiefdom of Steam extracting rents from publishers.
I think their market dominance makes it an uphill battle for a dev to not put their games on steam. I don’t think that’s much of a problem right now because Valve has been reliable, but all it takes is a bad turn of events at Valve leadership for that to change. I think they are a gatekeeper only insofar as they have market dominance and a platform with games with DRM
I agree they’re at the top for a good reason, and as it stands they’re not a problem. I’d just love for more of that 30% to go to the devs over expanding Gaben’s knife collection.
As a gamer, there isn't too much I can do about it, except buy games from other stores where the developers offer their games. As a developer, if I'm worried about Valve becoming abusive, it makes sense for me to use more than one marketplace, or a different marketplace than Valve altogether. Since Valve doesn't seem to have a lot of exclusivity deals, this either means it costs more for developers to maintain multiple distribution channels, or they don't think it benefits them to have multiple distribution channels. That said, the continued existence of those other distribution channels leaves the option to leave if they don't like Valve's behavior.
As a gamer, all I can do is support other stores, and I do.