🔋Ugreen Nexode 100W Charger(41% OFF 7/16-7/21) amzn.to/3WcFUFX 🔋Ugreen 145W Power Bank(33% OFF 7/16-7/21) amzn.to/3W5BuAH 🔋Check out Ugreen Prime Day Deals, Up to 41% OFF amzn.to/3VVrUzo

rare case of a company dominating its competition by genuinely offering a good product

Valve has merely set a very high bar. They didn't do it overnight. It took them 20 years. When other companies like Epic complain about it being unfair and a monopoly, what they're really saying is that they want the bar lowered to make it easier for them, which would make everything worse for everybody.

I think what makes Valve appealing to gamers is the fact they have very consumer friendly practices and the most robust launcher feature set on PC. The refund policy is excellent, they push PC gaming forward as a medium with VR and Handheld, the launcher is great and the overlay has some great features. Combine that with great sales and the fact they have been around for 20+ years, and they have built up a lot of trust in the community. I'm someone that if I'm going to buy a game on PC, I would MUCH rather own it on steam.

Steam Deck is another big reason I don't buy anything on other stores. It's way less convenient to use other launchers on the deck

keep in mind the player count in steam is not even counting offline players playing offline games with their steam deck or laptop

Me in 2004 loading up Half-Life 2: WTF is this Steam business?! I gotta tie my game to an account??? Ugh. Me in 2024 with Steam Deck: Omg I love Steam so much this is the best thing out there.

"Companies are not your friends" is important!

Epic Games and such refuse to add and do what Valve does. It's not Valve's fault they're so big. It's other companies refusing to compete.

I love the new format, I would only suggest not fading your voice in or fading the transitions music earlier so we can hear you. There were a few times it was louder than your first two words. That said I really love this new format, chill with the couch and microphone!

Minor correction: Valve didn't launch Steam alongside HL2, it just seemed that way, because HL2 drove a ton of signups/installs. Steam launched September 2003, HL2 launched November 2004. I got my current account December 2003, because it was the only way to play CS post-1.6.

The most scary thing about microsoft and internet explorer was that microsoft could undermine the internet open standards in a way that only IE could run many pages correctly. That would ensure dominance for a lot more years and nobody could compete with that. There is no comparison with microsoft monopoly dangers and valve as a danger.

The biggest monopoly is companies such as Google and Apple's stores. Regarding Valve, MS has been kicking themselves for sitting on their butts and not putting a good store on Windows years ago.

What steam offers to the consumer is simply unmatched. They were here first and planted that foothold in the late 00s. And now 20 we years later can buy heavily discounted games for our absurdly feature rich portable PCs and buy with confidence knowing I can refund what I dont enjoy. Even just the ability to refund within 2 hours of gameplay is a complete (literal) game changer as a consumer

They do not have a monopoly. But, I fear the day when Gaben steps down (because old age or whatever). You never know how that could change the behaviour of the company, given the dominant position they have in the market right now.

Basically Valve/Steam are entitled to charge publishers for access to it's market. If you want to trade in a city centre on the main street you expect to pay a higher rent and taxes.

I shop around for cheap keys so they don't have a monopoly on me 🤷🏽‍♂️

Quick Answer: No

I''m really loving this format with the handheld mic on the couch! I think it gives it a cool alternative feel. And it sounds great.

I can't compete with them so they must be a monopoly!

Two issues with charging less, then charging more, then charging less, are it will make people mad and it's confusing. People don't understand "I'm getting charged less overall", instead they tend to think "Why did the price 'increase'?" If anything, it will make people who didn't know about Steams pricing before, not want to put their game on Steam. Also, I'm happy to wait a year for a game to come out on my preferred platform, because what will happen is that most of the game-breaking bugs are found and fixed.

I don't own a Steam Deck, but regardless it is so much more convenient to own games on steam. It's just a more user centric launcher that does everything better. They have set the bar and as long as nobody else tries to do it better they don't deserve the market share they want by trying to limit steam by saying they're a monopoly. As long as steam is user centric first I'm fine with them growing by their own success. I can only see it as a problem when Gabe steps down and someone takes over the ship. Steering it into a business centric direction.

Valve isn't fighting to have Steam installed on every PC, and they don't lock you into their store on their own products. It's common to see people using other stores, even if not as much, and that's all because those stores simply aren't as good. That's not a monopoly to me, that's consumer choice. The actual monopolies are Apple, Microsoft and Sony on each of their own platforms, giving you no way to purchase anything digitally outside their stores. The fact that Epic can't convert people claiming free games into paying customers, or even to _playing games on their platform_ says everything about Epic. And I really do wish they would just implement the most basic of features to make their launcher usable.

Another excellent video Bill! 👍 The maths are a bit off when you calculate the daily active players though (5:00) Valve had 69 million daily active users when peak concurrent was 27.4 million. The correct number using your calculation going from 27.4 million concurrent to 36.9 million concurrent should be 92.9 million daily active users, not 47.9 million daily active users.

2:48 Holy cow this sound scared the heck out of me. Why was it so loud compared to your voice?

no

Most of the reason Valve treats their customers better is because they are a privately owned company rather than a public corporation. Once you have shareholders, money now > more money later, even though that doesn't really make sense.

I disagree with the percentage cut increasing when sales get better. Its just punishing success. I get the sentiment to help smaller devs but at that point the best way to side step this is to make it a flat fee again. Personally I just hate the thought of punishing people for being successful.

What people forget is that value is owned and ran by gamers. Even if the end goal is money. They constantly ask themselves, how would i feel if i had to use steam or the steam deck? Its why its a fun experience, its why the steam deck is bulky and comfortable not slim and sexy.

Correction for the segment at around 16 minutes in. The issue isn't the consumers are failing the stores, it is that the stores are failing consumers. When I got into PC gaming, there was other stores. I have accounts with EA, Ubisoft, GOG, and Itch. The latter two have their uses, but the other two were always something I dreaded opening because the experience of using them was so much worse than Steam, or GOG. As a result, after years of giving them chance after chance to improve, I just said screw it and choose to ignore them now. When Epic came out with GOG in 2018, it was so far behind the quality off Steam and arguably even Uplay at the time that it's easy to see why nobody really wanted to use it. Epic decided that rather than improve their store, they would try to entice users over by giving them free games. The end result (at least as of now) is that 6 years after launching, EGS is still not much better than what it was when it first launched and is even further behind Steam in quality. What's more, the free games did not seem to have the effect Epic wanted. People largely just log in for the games, some don't even do that anymore. I've seen many people who own games on Epic choose to buy them on Steam instead of installing from Epic's own launcher. Users who want to get the most out of their Epic account often choose to use a third party launcher instead. Most of their biggest fans refuse to actually buy anything and get mad when a freebie is a repeat. It's kind of funny, Epic built a userbase on entitlement, which is fitting because Tim Sweeney has whined and whined and acted like he's entitled to the success that Valve earned over the course of 20 years, only Tim wants the success in a fraction of the time and with a fraction of the effort. See businesses aren't entitled to success. In a proper working market, success is earned by providing quality service and products at a price people are willing to pay. Whereas bad quality is punished until things are corrected. Yes, a big part of Steam's success came because they were early and built up a large userbase, but as I mentioned, they weren't the only ones. Hell they weren't even the first one to provide digital downloads, they were merely the first ones to do it correctly. Since then the competition still hasn't really figured out how to compete with steam. The closest is GOG, which is interesting since it's owners CD Projekt aren't particularly that wealthy. The others have plenty of cash in their pocket, which is why they seem to always prefer strategies where they throw money at it, which is pretty much always going to be a short term strategy. Tim Sweeney is unique in that he is the first one to really bring up Steam's customer base as "the problem". So of course his solution to the problem was to throw money at it by offfering freebies. He can only do this by paying publishers, and this money mostly comes from Fortnite, not EGS. Same for the exclusives. The issue is that he tried so hard to act like EGS was better based on the price cut, which was another factor in why so many publishers signed up with him. Unfortunately, they gave away that it was all a sham. There's no incentive for consumers to use EGS over Steam. The store sucks, and the lower price cut that EGS offers Without Fortnite, they would never be able to offer a 12% cut. And even with Fortnite, they have admitted that their price cut is unsustainable. Then there's MS. Another correction here: They only reduced the cut for apps on the windows store. Games are still 30% on the xbox game store and xbox itself. And it's likely MS could reduce their cut because nobody buys anything on the Windows Store anyway so they weren't giving up much. When it comes to this situation, I would rather the winners not be the one with the deepest pockets. And if even Epic cannot sustain a 12% cut then what hope would a store like GOG have? They often barely stay in the black as it is and have had to drop services because they couldn't afford to provide them. Anyway. A market is at it's most healthiest when companies have incentives to compete. IMO, Valve antis always seem to think that the solution for stores like the EGS failing is to hurt Valve in some way, such as forcing them to take the same cut or stop providing certain services. But this would actually disincentivize actually competing since all a company would have to do is wait for regulation to hurt their competitors. And since most of these competitors to Steam are actually bigger, it isn't the David vs. Goliath that antis paint it as. Valve is a rare example of a company that earned success and yet provides a ridiculous amount of value to it's customer base. Should we really be punishing that? Should we really be rewarding companies like Epic just because their anti-consumer business tactics failed them in taking down Valve?

There is a difference in being a monopoly (the question asked in the video) and having too much power (the title of the video.) I think Valve is not a monopoly but are about as close as you can get, essentially toeing the line. So I think the answer to the title question is yes. The big difference between Valve and other companies that have toed this line is they actually do it well. With great power comes great responsibility. Valve makes mistakes and does shitty things too but for the most part they treat people well and have a good product, so this garners them favor from the community, hence the ridiculous amount of people that defend them. I agree nothing else is competing but other than 'outspending' to take market share, the other thing that might cause Valve to fall is if they step over that line and start losing their favor. Really hope that day never comes.

The only way Valve's competition can try to get better cards in the VGS market is by trying to gaslight people into thinking Valve is a monopoly. They are not, their competitors are just lazy.

people defend coporations too blindly. let's not forget that valve invented great things like: -online DRM - lootboxes - battlepass and many others plagues of modern gaming.

I think you nailed it dude. You said pretty much everything that I think and feel about the situation. Valve is definitely not a monopoly, there's just too many other storefront options out there as well as countless options for devices to play games. This isn't a perfect example, but calling Valve a monopoly on PC is like calling Nintendo a monopoly on the Switch. This argument is niche and situational. As you say, Valve aren't perfect, but they are simply more experienced and have a much better service all around and it's very pro consumer.

Did I miss the episode Bill where you explained the changing in filming location / camera-angle? :-) Fantastic analysis / mediation BTW. Top episode.

Take a shot every time NerdNest posts a video with the word "Winning" in it. 2 shots if "Winning" is followed by an exclamation mark. 😂

They are the most consumer friendly platform on the market however they are not the most developer friendly charging a 30% cut for all sales which is why we have dozens of launchers.

I’ve only bought 3 games on Epic, 1 was on the biggest sale I had seen anywhere up to that point and the other 2 were limited time exclusives, total I’ve spent less than $50. I almost bought Mechwarrior 5 during its timed exclusivity but ended up choosing to wait, which worked out great because just like a month after it went to Steam I got it for like $30 with all of its dlc included and most of the bugs were fixed by then, was such a great experience I never bought a timed exclusive again. I used to buy any game I could on Switch since it was portable, but if it wasn’t on switch I’d buy it on Steam, but now that the Steam Deck exists I don’t see any reason to buy a game anywhere but Steam unless Gabe Newell retires and his successor does something stupid like sell the company to Microsoft… Sorry for the long post…

Cares for the consumer. Gets more money Doesn’t care for the consumer. Cries monopoly.

Monopolies without state backing need to act like Valve to gain and maintain that position, it's inherent to being a monopoly without a state monopoly grant. As for the reason 30% is the standard cut, it's because of how much the backend costs for Valve, no one with below 30% is profitable, they're all running at a loss because of those backend expenses.

No.

Everyone always talks about monopolies vs the free/open market, and wants to think the biggest company in any industry is a monopoly, we forget that oligopolies exist, and is usually more aligned with most of our industries.

Main reason is because valve was the first and people want to have their game library in one place especially after having a 1000 games already on steam.

The case doesn't have legs the evidence arguing in favor is very weak and pure conjecture

I think the steam deck also added more value to valve. Most of your library in a handheld. That makes Steam so much more valuable.

The irony, is that all things being the same, if Valve migrated everything to Linux, and you had to have a Steam branded device, to play Sream games, they wouldn't be a monopoly.

If Valve is considered a monopoly, the difference between them and say Disney is that people want to go to steam and not forced to go to steam. It's not like Steam has many exclusives coming out. Steam is just that good.

The absence of a strong competitor doesn't prove a Monopoly, it simply means nobody else has stepped up to the plate in a meaningful way. That'd be like saying KZfaq has a Monopoly on uploaded video content.

they can just try what valve do, being pro consumer and be liked. not doing all these lawsuit bs

I would argue yes Valve kinda does have too much power but the thing is they don't abuse it. Every other company would have utterly stomped on its users by now. That's what makes people fine with it. They keep making their service better and don't make it worse. The reason Valve has so much power is because everyone likes how they do things. Epic Games did everything in their power to create competition and nobody wanted it. They gave people hundreds upon hundreds of free games and that still didn't work because their service sucks.

The only reason valve is even close to being a monopoly is because they are the only real competitors in the market at this current time. Everybody else seems insistent on either shooting themselves, or their consumers, in the face. Valve is apparently the only company that seems to understand that money comes from *happy* consumers and not consumers regardless of disposition towards the product in question

I agree with the revision of the valve pricing percentages. However, you need to take into account mot all steam games generate a million dollars. There’s approximately 50k games on steam, at an avg price of $15.5. the avg that any given game will generate is only around $170k A small percentage of the games are making up a large portion of the sales #’s. The smaller devs are more or less screwed, if they don’t go to Steam. Or even if they do tbh.

It's funny no even considered Valve a monopoly until the mainstream players started migrating there before it was considered niche when it was only about PC games and some console crossovers. They just do there own thing they don't try to block other companies from competing it's more about What the PC Gamers preference.

Just wait to see how hard they'll complain when Valve owns the entire Linux market and that market becomes the entire PC games market...

Valve offers so much more to devs/players with their store. They offer free yes free not monthly charges like microsoft and Sony, and offer forums and game stats for players... Why people still cling on to their obsolete consoles is beyond me...

I like valve bc they breakdown everything include showing you if you were to purchase it (agreement, etc). Most companies hide it and i usually get upset that i was dupe.

With Epic over there puffing up their numbers, doesn't that just make it harder to argue for Valve being a monopoly? Having Epic and its exclusivity tactic around may annoy a lot of Valve's customers, but it just plays into Valves hand. On a side note the "Microsoft Store" is barely a store at all, according to a Digital Foundry discussion I heard recently buying a game on there and having it not work at all for mysterious reasons is not out of the ordinary.

I'd play my EGS games more if they worked with Valve on Native Steam deck support. Never felt like getting into any of the workarounds. They could make it more convenient for the user

Some interesting points. Bit confused why you’re so surprised at the amount of users on steam at 11:30am though. I mean, that’s 4.30pm in the UK and 5:30pm in Central European Time. So just after school/college has finished and people are just getting home

That lawsuit is nonsense considering valve has never actually enforced that "rule". Humble happens all the time. Greenman... and other official retailers sell lower ALL THE TIME.

Monopolies are always a problem. They absolutely have ridiculous market dominance. As long as Gabe lives we will be fine more or less but once that changes we might be in trouble. Especially once valve ceases to be privately held.

Because its competitors refuse to step up and improve their game, they rather tear down valve instead of being better.

I don't think it matters if Epic improves the app. People don't use it on principle at this point for various reasons just like Internet Explorer and Edge.

No other launcher has big picture mode and the steam controller. I play my PC games from the couch, so Steam is a very easy choice to make. I know you can add other non steam games to Steam, but some of them don't work right. I remember adding a free game I got on EGS and multiplayer wouldn't work if I launched it through steam.

monopolies aggersively buy up smaller companies. i don't see valve buying up gog, humble, resellers, etc.

Giving recent issues with strike force may tip others to Linux or it won't but good seeing them improve.

Regarding your thoughts on pricing towards the end of the video; they aren't really a good idea. With the pricing as it is now, Valve's interests and those of publishers are aligned: sell more copies, make more money. If you instead switch to a scheme with a hump, publishers get perverse incentives to sell *fewer* copies to min-max the amount they're keeping rather than paying Valve. Valve are already "helping the little guy" with Steam services. Things like CDNs, automatic patching, low-latency multiplayer infrastructure. Your generic small dev studio doesn't have the resources to provide that, but they can still *use* that with Steam, which they pay for with Valve's cut. Your generic huge publishers - your EAs, your Ubisofts, your Microsofts - do have the resources to provide that themselves, so they need the incentive to keep their games on Steam - hence the lower cut. Steam gets the benefit of the network effects of having those big players (which also helps the little guys by the broader market) and the big players get to pay less for Valve's infrastructure and services. The little guys get more *value* from Steam's services than the big guys do, and having costs aligned with value is the kind of thing that you'd want out of a competitive market. Your second point is explicitly anti-competitive. The publishers use their ridiculous launchers because they're trying to entice their customers away from Steam and to their own stores. Your solution is for Valve to use their market position and wealth to bribe potential competitors not to compete; that's not really a healthy market, isn't really Valve's style, and isn't the kind of thing that regulators like. The pro-competitive move is to vote with your wallet: if you don't want your games to have ridiculous additional launchers, don't give money to publishers for their ridiculous launchers. Just don't buy those games. In 2023 there were 39.7 games released per day on Steam; there's no games shortage. You might also communicate to the publishers that the reason you didn't buy their games is because of their ridiculous launcher; they may well not listen, and they may well believe that they'll make more money with the launcher but without customers like you - that's capitalism for you. Nonetheless, *your* money is only going to publishers without a launcher, and none to those with.

I love Valve and Steam, it's where I buy my games; but if they're refusing to list games that are cheaper on other market places that take a smaller cut, then yes, they are a monopoly. Not listing on Steam and their dominating market share is suicide for 99% of games, Valve is very aware of this, it is a bullying tactic that allows Valve to take whatever cut they want without the risk of losing share to the competition.

what they refuse to take in is, think about how long steam has been around over 20 years. they were a single distributor at the time that went fully digital when they started and they remained so for a long time, the fact that Epic has so many users it has, is a testament on the monopoly statement actually isn't true, they just have a longer time in the industry as a digial distribution/publishing platform. unlike many others like Sony or similar, Steam has actually taken the customers side many times, meanwhile Sony etc will consider only themselves, company wants to stop selling or no longer grant continued sales on the platform? Sony screws customers over by not having an agreement that they still are allowed to distribute it to already existing owners, Sony stands for the mentality that you do not own your digital products. One can dislike many things about Steam, but being an overal detriment to the market or customers is not one of them. before they even start thinking about Steam, they should focus on actual customer hostile platforms like Sony. and Sony has complete monopoly on their own system, which is odd, Microsoft was forced to open up for 3rd party browsers, Apple was recently forced to open up for 3rd party app distribution stores in some ways, yet Sony is allowed to continue being asshats and demand payment for using any form of services, like multiplayer in many games, by todays server options available there is simply NO reason for this to be the case.

Valve definitely is like a monopoly, it's cause they provide a better service than everyone else. Tho it doesn't act in anti competitive ways of shutting down and buying up competition.

3:48 timezone

the only thing that sucks about Steam is its DRM... and u could argue that 30% cut they leech on sales, but then again Nintendo, sony, microsoft etc ALL take the same greedy 30% cut on their storefronts sooooo.. Also Valve employs many weirdos who hate on anime-like games but that's a bit besides the topic.

The price for sales.... its really that you can price as long as you give the ability for steam to also be the same price.... makes sense, dont blackball the hosting company and their sales.

LITERALLY Atlas Shrugged!

back in the day you didnt need a launcher for your games. They started just like any program on windows. Dont see why they are needed at all.

I did the exact same thing with Epic games for YEARS! 😂 Finally was like WTF am I doing, I’ve not played any of this and when it’s something I really want to play they are offering I would even buy the game there still to be in Steam when playing. Epic is clueless on providing a good user experience.

Community note: I think the sound levels are a little off. I have a hard time hearing Bills voice over the music sometimes. 👍 keep up the good work, love the content.

Bill you're the voice of reason. I hope Valve see's this.

Does our opinion of the organization impact our opinion of them being a monopoly or not? Do we only dislike selfish monopolies? Would a fair and honest monopoly be a good thing? Isn't GOD technically a monopoly on everything? Things to consider 😊

I’ve played exactly two games from Epic Games Store: Genshin Impact and Outer Worlds Spacer’s Choice Edition, for maybe two to three hours each. Otherwise I’ve only ever logged in to claim the free games

14:15 Well this logic may seem right on the surface, but imagine a situation where this applies to something like energy/food-production, do you really think its fine or even remotely a good idea to have these borderline monopolies(which we allready have btw. Nestle is nearly everywhere)? Do you really have that much choice to not use Steam and especially do developers have it, by this kind of reactions of the playerbase? No not really, even if there are other storefronts with the same game available like gog for instance, just look up the lists how many of those are abandoned on gog in terms of updates or missing dlc. You can say that its on the devs not to let that happen, but you also know its realistically not what is gonna happen. 22:30 This will probbably end as soon as Gaben retiers.

Feel like this is the 100th video I've seen on this topic....

Since 2015 I got 80% of my games outside Valve. Not even because I hate Valve but because the others compete by the price which I like a lot. Epic gifts games - unbeatable. So does GOG (from which I buy some games from time to time), EA/Origin, UPlay, Blizzard and many, many more. Even Valve itself doesn't require to buy Steam Games on Steam. I bought a lot of Keys from Greenman and others, often at steep discounts, and Valve didn't earn a single Cent from them.

Not only does epic have the fortnight money they also have the unreal engine... soooo even if a game ever goes exclusively on Steam Epic can still get a cut if it was developed with Unreal. I do believe at some point valve even said publicly that steam is only what it is because they have made it consumer friendly and they look to feedback from the community when they consider adding/removing features. Its simple really and you put it perfectly Bill they put the customers first.

I use only Steam. Why?? Because only Steam has native client for Linux. GOG, Epic etc.

Reputation is king in business

Unfortunately, Epic seems to make suing people a business model these days. Losers.

Hot take...Epic games isn't number 2. Never has been . I've never seen anything to suggest that the epoc games store makes more money then GOG every year. Quite the opposite. They can claim there number 2...doesn't make it true

Drm-free (GoG) and Linux friendly (Steam) is where I go.

Sitting in my cubicle running reports etc. all while watching/listening to Nerd Nest in the background…🤫🤫🤫🤫🤫

I dont even care no one can compete with Valve because they treat me good. Much better than Microbuxxx Nintendough & Paystation Combined.

They are clearly a monopoly, you had it on the mark with your analogies to the IE browser. The strawman arguments about how valve is acting at present really doesn't change the fact that they have the PC market so dominated it is incredibly difficult to instil actual competition. We as PC gamers need to use other stores from time to time, or this is simply going to get worse.

Thought/Question: Could Valve be charging higher at the low end of income because they need to reach a set amount of money to make hosting/selling games and then after that the percentage becomes smaller because the set amount can be reached with a smaller percentage due to higher volume?

I feel like GoG is doing way better job at "fighting" valve's so called "monopoly" without even trying or making it their goal, than what Epic is doing. from Epic's marketing, it seems like their only purpose is to fight valve's monopoly, yet they are not doing a good job at it. and yes, timed exclusivity may make sense for some, but it does nothing for me. i don't care if i play the game at launch. so i don't mind waiting. sometimes i don't buy the game even after they finally release on steam, but like 1 year after. not to mention that people who don't want to deal with epic launcher and so on, wait, and when that wait is finally over they are like "nah, i'm not interested in that game anymore." on another hand, i like GoG, before i got my steam deck, i was like 60/40 on buying a game on GoG instead of Steam. now because it's a bit easier and more streamlined for the steamdeck i'm like 50/50 maybe, or 45/55 in favor of steam. I like that GoG revives forgotten games, that noone knows who owns the right for them, but they spend the time to figure that out, fix the issues and bring it to modern hardware. i like that they do DRM free games. you can get the install files and store them on your own storage and use them whenever and wherever without having to have internet or something like that just to check the legitimacy.

As far as I'm concerned, Steam saved PC gaming. Consoles were gonna take over.

offtopic:warframe the new war in the stats image? uuf, I remember playing that,quest almost as long as a full game,you can´t leave until full completion and permanently changes the game,was probably one reason why steam got more players (PD:valve looks like a monopoly,it´s just that valve is not abusing of their position right now)

So is Spotify. Sure, like ONE of your friends has Apple Music.

Certainly not a monopoly, the competition is just slacking behind. Before you say "but Steam has more money" well they didn't get it overnight now did they?

So Walmart is monopoly too because they have everything and for cheap?

They hate valve because they all want the throne. As Mr. Gabe once said: get gud noobs