>The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not.
Why does this distinction make a difference in how anti-consumer it is? The store owner or Valve's (lack of) control doesn't make it any better for me as a consumer.
To summarize my position here to avoid more confusion: Exclusives deals don't make exclusive games any more anti-consumer. Because the deal or lack thereof doesn't effect me as a consumer.
So my original reply is that all of these exclusive games are the same level of anti-consumer. But you only notice when it's not Steam exclusives, because that's your platform of choice. I'm not blaming Valve for anything, I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
I'm just using games on their store as an example of games you don't think of as exclusives or anti-consumer.
Deal or no deal is not relevant to the consumer.
>Exclusive deals are extremely different from a game simply releasing on one store out of convenience.
I know they're not the same. But a game released on one store out of convenience is just as anti-consumer as an exclusive deal.
The former are in Valve's control, the latter are not. Valve can't help it if they're the best in town and no one else is able to compete at their level.
> I don't understand your point though. Are you saying no one should compete with Steam because users will pirate the games?
My point is that Steam offers a better service than piracy, which is very hard for a digital storefront to compete with. They achieve this by being more than a storefront. The way they conduct business is reasonably open and any funded competitor could emulate their success over time with careful design and engineering. Part of that is being consumer-friendly and having an open culture.
> I don't think that's a good reason to give Steam a monopoly.
No one gives them a monopoly. I don't follow your argument here, because you seem to be suggesting that we should handicap Steam in some kind of Harrison Bergeron scenario.