How many people actually trade/resell games? And what's the actual value of that in terms of dollars? How does that compare with the generally lower price of digital games?

Digital games are often $5-20 if you wait a year or two after release, whereas console games are often $40+ even for older games. According to my Steam Replay, 37% of playtime is on old games (8+ years old) vs 15% for new releases (released in 2024). I don't have sales numbers, but I imagine a lot of people are buying digital games on steep discounts. You can't really do that on a console.

For me, not being able to resell a game is worth the massive discount I get from digital. Many of the games I buy are $1-2 (Fanatical, Humble Bundle, etc), and I rarely pay >$20. I also have a Switch, and I'm lucky if I can find a used game for <$40, and when I used to have a recent console, the floor was about $20.

If you prefer console, that's cool. I prefer choice. I can:

• customize my PC, and I think the HW is actually cheaper long term - I upgrade CPU and GPU separately at about 3-5 year intervals to something mid range
• I have controllers from different brands (XBox, PS4, Steam), as well as a nice KB and mouse
• I use my PC for nongaming uses (software dev, messaging, photo/video editing, etc) - further reduces the gaming-specific costs
• buy from a variety of stores - Fanatical and Humble Bundle for cheap bundles of Steam games, GOG, EGS (I just claim the free games and play a/ Heroic, because EGS refuses to support my platform: Linux)
• create family account so we can all share games - possible with console, but only one person can play a given game at a time, whereas on Steam it's one per library (we have three, me, wife, kids)

All of that more than makes up for a lack of physical games.

I will preface this with : I have many games that are not in steam that I play regularly, I understand this isn't the norm, I have zero paid games in EGS and outside of checking the platform I never use it.

Alan wake on EGS is a terrible example to support your claim.

It's like being upset that a fancy new car hasn't recouped costs when it's only available in 4 custom made dealers that are only open half the time and the manufacturer refuses to allow it to be sold in all the places people normally buy cars.

Sure, that is certainly a choice but it's a choice that would have been part of the risk assessment before the money was sunk.

Steam does have a monopoly, because it works and there isn't anything better.

There is a bit of resistance to switching, most game libraries are in steam because it's been the best option for a very long time.

If EGS worked well and epic (outside of unreal engine) wasn't such a shitshow the platform would be fine.

It's doesn't and they aren't so it's not.

It can't compete on features, support or stability so it tried exclusivity, that hasn't worked out for them.

Steam has its own shit, sure, that percentage is some apple level monopolist bullshit.

Name a comparable, viable alternative?