4 ms·

Relevance isnt anti competitive. Comparing them to Microsoft who not only monopolized but enforced it via product bundling is not the same at all. They simply

by fatal94 5mo ago

Relevance isnt anti competitive. Comparing them to Microsoft who not only monopolized but enforced it via product bundling is not the same at all. They simply have the best product and won the market.

kombine 5mo ago
They are headed Apple/Microsoft way though with SteamOS and Steam Deck/Machine.
- fc417fc802 5mo ago
  I can see why you might think that but I believe that's actually insurance against Microsoft going the Apple route and hamstringing Steam in the process. They needed a near first class platform that would never be used against them to exist and they needed the switching cost for end users to be near zero. By leveraging pre-existing FOSS projects they managed to avoid the vast majority of the development costs which would otherwise have been prohibitive.
  - account42 5mo ago
    The best insurance against monopolistic behavior is to get there first.
dvt 5mo ago
Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. There’s a lot of precedent here, but most saliently, how you become a monopoly is not really relevant. They absolutely are one. But I’m being already aggressively downvoted with no counter arguments so the Gaben fanboys are here. (Defending a deca-billionaire is hard work, after all.)
- throw10920 5mo ago
  > Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. No, you cannot. AT&T/Bell Labs was a monopoly - they physically controlled distribution networks that made it so you had to use them. Valve does not. There is nothing that prevents you from simply selling your game without Steam. And even if there wasn't, claims that Valve is a monopoly are factually false - there are many other storefronts that exist, and many games are published on more than one storefront at once. And, Steam does not gate an OS or platform like Microsoft and iOS do. > But I’m being already aggressively downvoted with no counter arguments Every one of your arguments is being countered (such as the claim that "relevance is anticompetitive" which isn't even false, it's nonsensical). Including this one. > Defending a deca-billionaire is hard work, after all. ...and there's the emotional manipulation. It's pretty clear you're just a propagandist who has a grudge against Steam (maybe you work for Epic?), given that you're going up and down the thread with emotional non-arguments that try to redefine words, pull at peoples' emotions (like the billionaire comment), or just flat-out lie.
  - testdelacc1 5mo ago
    I think you’re confusing 1. Being a monopoly 2. Abusing monopoly status. Steam does control the vast share of desktop gaming. But has no influence on console (Xbox, playstation, switch) or mobile (android, ios). They are a monopoly. But they don’t abuse their monopoly so they haven’t broken any laws.
    - throw10920 4mo ago
      Your partitioning between those two things is good, but I still don't think that either label applies to them: > Steam does control the vast share of desktop gaming. Between the Epic Games Store, GOG, Humble Bundle, Xbox, Origin, Itch, and a few others, I don't believe their control is anywhere close to the fraction needed for Steam to be a "monopoly", either legally or in casual speak. > Steam does control ...and, what's more, they don't "control" anything - what prevents you from either using multiple clients (on the player side) or selling on multiple storefronts (on the developer side)? A monopoly has to monopolize some limited resource or market - you can't really have a monopoly if there's no limiting or exclusivity. That's like saying that Fortnite is "monopolizing" the battle royale genre because it's the most popular - it is the most popular, but there's no exclusivity because you can always play another battle royale in addition to Fortnite. Monopolies need pie charts (limited resources that are taken by a single actor), but Steam is a bar in a bar chart.
      - testdelacc1 4mo ago
        I’m using the correct terminology. Google controls 90% of the search market and the browser market. There is nothing preventing anyone from searching on Bing. Yet, the correct terminology is control of the market. Google has a monopoly on search. Have they abused that monopoly? That’s a legal question that’s currently in court. Steams share is somewhere in the 70s and it is far stickier than Google. A gamer can’t abandon their steam library easily. Have they abused this monopoly position? IMO no, but my knowledge is limited.
  - account42 5mo ago
    > Valve does not. Except they do. They control the Steam distribution network. It may not be physical but you still have to use it to reach a large portion of PC Gamers due to network effects and no one wanting to run multiple clients. Currently you have to also make use of their other services like the Store, and pay for them with a large sales cut, in order to use the distribution network, no matter if you want those services or not.
- crysin 5mo ago
  What’s your solution then to them being a monopoly? How would you meaningfully break them up? While they outperform the sales of Epic and Gog I’m not sure how they’re abusing their position or how they’re keeping others from entering?
  - account42 5mo ago
    > How would you meaningfully break them up? You could separate the storefront from the distribution platform / client. Valve's ~30% cut is often justified by the visibility being on the Store gives you but you can't opt out of that while still reaching the captured audience that definitely don't want yet another client software bloating up their system.
- fatal94 4mo ago
  You're being downvoted because you're pushing punishing a company for having a better product. They do not engage in anticompetitive practices, there is no enforced barrier to entry in the market nor do they gate entry like the companies you have listed. They are only a monopoly because they have the best product.
fwipsy 5mo ago
Or did they just get there first, and stayed first due to network effects? Initially, nobody wanted steam. People definitely don't want a second steam - which in practice means sticking to the first one.

by fatal94 5mo ago

kombine 5mo ago

They are headed Apple/Microsoft way though with SteamOS and Steam Deck/Machine.

fc417fc802 5mo ago
I can see why you might think that but I believe that's actually insurance against Microsoft going the Apple route and hamstringing Steam in the process. They needed a near first class platform that would never be used against them to exist and they needed the switching cost for end users to be near zero. By leveraging pre-existing FOSS projects they managed to avoid the vast majority of the development costs which would otherwise have been prohibitive.
- account42 5mo ago
  The best insurance against monopolistic behavior is to get there first.

dvt 5mo ago

Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. There’s a lot of precedent here, but most saliently, how you become a monopoly is not really relevant. They absolutely are one. But I’m being already aggressively downvoted with no counter arguments so the Gaben fanboys are here. (Defending a deca-billionaire is hard work, after all.)

throw10920 5mo ago
> Could say the same thing about AT&T, Bell Labs, etc. No, you cannot. AT&T/Bell Labs was a monopoly - they physically controlled distribution networks that made it so you had to use them. Valve does not. There is nothing that prevents you from simply selling your game without Steam. And even if there wasn't, claims that Valve is a monopoly are factually false - there are many other storefronts that exist, and many games are published on more than one storefront at once. And, Steam does not gate an OS or platform like Microsoft and iOS do. > But I’m being already aggressively downvoted with no counter arguments Every one of your arguments is being countered (such as the claim that "relevance is anticompetitive" which isn't even false, it's nonsensical). Including this one. > Defending a deca-billionaire is hard work, after all. ...and there's the emotional manipulation. It's pretty clear you're just a propagandist who has a grudge against Steam (maybe you work for Epic?), given that you're going up and down the thread with emotional non-arguments that try to redefine words, pull at peoples' emotions (like the billionaire comment), or just flat-out lie.
- testdelacc1 5mo ago
  I think you’re confusing 1. Being a monopoly 2. Abusing monopoly status. Steam does control the vast share of desktop gaming. But has no influence on console (Xbox, playstation, switch) or mobile (android, ios). They are a monopoly. But they don’t abuse their monopoly so they haven’t broken any laws.
  - throw10920 4mo ago
    Your partitioning between those two things is good, but I still don't think that either label applies to them: > Steam does control the vast share of desktop gaming. Between the Epic Games Store, GOG, Humble Bundle, Xbox, Origin, Itch, and a few others, I don't believe their control is anywhere close to the fraction needed for Steam to be a "monopoly", either legally or in casual speak. > Steam does control ...and, what's more, they don't "control" anything - what prevents you from either using multiple clients (on the player side) or selling on multiple storefronts (on the developer side)? A monopoly has to monopolize some limited resource or market - you can't really have a monopoly if there's no limiting or exclusivity. That's like saying that Fortnite is "monopolizing" the battle royale genre because it's the most popular - it is the most popular, but there's no exclusivity because you can always play another battle royale in addition to Fortnite. Monopolies need pie charts (limited resources that are taken by a single actor), but Steam is a bar in a bar chart.
    - testdelacc1 4mo ago
      I’m using the correct terminology. Google controls 90% of the search market and the browser market. There is nothing preventing anyone from searching on Bing. Yet, the correct terminology is control of the market. Google has a monopoly on search. Have they abused that monopoly? That’s a legal question that’s currently in court. Steams share is somewhere in the 70s and it is far stickier than Google. A gamer can’t abandon their steam library easily. Have they abused this monopoly position? IMO no, but my knowledge is limited.
- account42 5mo ago
  > Valve does not. Except they do. They control the Steam distribution network. It may not be physical but you still have to use it to reach a large portion of PC Gamers due to network effects and no one wanting to run multiple clients. Currently you have to also make use of their other services like the Store, and pay for them with a large sales cut, in order to use the distribution network, no matter if you want those services or not.
crysin 5mo ago
What’s your solution then to them being a monopoly? How would you meaningfully break them up? While they outperform the sales of Epic and Gog I’m not sure how they’re abusing their position or how they’re keeping others from entering?
- account42 5mo ago
  > How would you meaningfully break them up? You could separate the storefront from the distribution platform / client. Valve's ~30% cut is often justified by the visibility being on the Store gives you but you can't opt out of that while still reaching the captured audience that definitely don't want yet another client software bloating up their system.
fatal94 4mo ago
You're being downvoted because you're pushing punishing a company for having a better product. They do not engage in anticompetitive practices, there is no enforced barrier to entry in the market nor do they gate entry like the companies you have listed. They are only a monopoly because they have the best product.

fwipsy 5mo ago

Or did they just get there first, and stayed first due to network effects? Initially, nobody wanted steam. People definitely don't want a second steam - which in practice means sticking to the first one.