I think the issue is, that if we’re going to call steam a monopoly (and maybe they are), then we’ve got to call Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo monopolies.
What I don’t want to see is legal attacks against steam while letting worse behavior off the hook.
I mean, the issue is these lines aren’t as concrete anymore. Is the Ps5 a console or a locked down pc?
Hell, this is probably controversial, but Apple and Google actually have the monopoly on PC gaming. Android and Ios make the most money out of any gaming ecosystem.
I think so too, but they are a fairly small company/group with a stable (50+%) owner & basically don’t bother with much (neither publisher or consumer side). Eg GOG is smaller but fights DRM a lot more actively (and achieving DRM-free deals even before Steam).
I hope before Gabe goes Gaben’t he makes Valve a proper nonprofit - bcs the service they offer is like a mass infrastructure thing (which are always scary).
As to why devs think they have a monopoly - it’s hard to succeeded without Steam, especially if you arent a AAA studio (and even a small mistake on Steam part for their game’s visibility on Steam Store can cost them everything), and Steam isn’t really fighting over devs to offer them a better deal than the competition, it’s the other way around (it’s clear who has the power).
So yes, they have quite a fair bit of monopoly.
Modern, especially tech, monopolies aren’t a single-provider-locked-in type of thing, look at Google, they hold a monopoly over so many markets without those prerequisites. And they fought, shaped the markets intentionally to eventually get to that position (that’s why they were valued that high even before the revenue kicked in).
No? I’m going to stick with the actual definitions you ignored, the same ones you stopped responding to while downvoting like my toddler.
The best you’ve managed so far is inventing your own definition where a company only counts as a monopoly if it behaves badly and takes “monopolistic actions,” which is a neat little tautology. And you still haven’t shown a single definition that includes any of that.
In case you managed to not see, or forget, where i previously brought this up, here’s a link so you can refresh yourself: https://lemmy.ca/post/55030092/20023839
Outsized market power, what left out are the actions taken to make such an outsized market power. Monopolies are not a passive that form all by themselves. They are created through expansion acquisition, and aggressive crushing of competition. Disney and Nintendo do these actions. Valve does basically… Nothing.
I agree valve hasn’t done anything, but that isnt part of any definition of monopoly i’ve been able to discover, except for someone arguing in bad faith on the internet.
Sounds like Steam fits that description pretty well. I agree that steam isn’t a strict monopoly, there is competition, but they are so far and ahead they still function as a monopoly in their area.
Since you’d rather throw mud than talk terms, I guess that’s where this ends.
“Comodity controlled by one party”. Except it’s not controlled by one party.
Outsized market power, what left out are the actions taken to make such an outsized market power. Monopolies are not a passive that form all by themselves. They are created through expansion acquisition, and aggressive crushing of competition. Disney and Nintendo do these actions. Valve does basically… Nothing.
A single dominant seller, but again leaving out all the rest I have written above.
There is nothing Valve can stop doing to be less “a monopoly”. All they’ve done is provide a pretty decent service, and nobody else can be arsed to top that, even companies with the resources to do so.
By your definition, lets imagine a world where Amazon had 100% of the market and there were no other competitors, even if it happened naturally, without malicious intent, they wouldn’t be a monopoly? Come on.
I dont see ‘has to act a specific way’ in any definitions of monopoly. A monopoly isnt about being evil, or ‘actions taken to make such an outsized market power’ even if thats often part of the result, but just describes their position in the field.
This isn’t about how a company got there, it’s about where they currently are. Steam may not have crushed competitors aggressively like Disney or Nintendo, but its market dominance and control over PC game distribution still fits the textbook definition of a monopoly.
Steam has ~79.5% of the PC gaming market, I’m one of their customers and love their service, but that doesnt change that “monopoly”fits them.
Yea, it’s pretty rough for tattorack, but that’s what happens when you ignore definitions and argue in bad faith. They ignore all contrary evidence and definitions, and insit their made up definition is accurate.
/Shrug, some people just aren’t open to discussion .
i mean, i provided definition after definition, link after link, and your response was ‘nuh uh’,
I’m going to steal a page out of your book and say “hey look, a person who doesn’t understand what bad faith means.” since i’ve been here, providing clean, honest discussion, while you just deny and move the goal posts.
That’s not my definition. That’s just the definition. And you’re using a corporation that is actively monopolising the logistics market, even so far as breaking the law to kill any competition, as an example. Nicely done.
Thanks, that was done intentionally, to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I assume we both agree that Amazon is an effective monopoly (though i have had people fight me on that too!)
You say its not your definition, but i linked three different definitions which didn’t use that language. in fact, in all my searching, not a SINGLE definition includes a discussion on how they got there, but on the **CURRENT **state of the market.
This is why I say Steam has an effective monopoly.
So yes, it seems like you’re using your personal definition, but it contradicts the actual, widely accepted definitions.
If you want to call me out and say “you initially said it WAS a monopoly, but its only an EFFECTIVE monopoly”, ill take that egg on my face, its earned and i should be more careful with my words.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Steam is 100% a monopoly, they just happen to be a benevolent monopoly… but like all, that can change.
I think the issue is, that if we’re going to call steam a monopoly (and maybe they are), then we’ve got to call Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo monopolies.
What I don’t want to see is legal attacks against steam while letting worse behavior off the hook.
Ehh, steam only is in the PC gaming market
In the console market, you do have 3 primary competitors, be that Microsoft, PlayStation, and Nintendo.
In the whole gaming market maybe steam doesn’t have a Monopoly, but within the PC marketplace…
I mean, the issue is these lines aren’t as concrete anymore. Is the Ps5 a console or a locked down pc?
Hell, this is probably controversial, but Apple and Google actually have the monopoly on PC gaming. Android and Ios make the most money out of any gaming ecosystem.
I think so too, but they are a fairly small company/group with a stable (50+%) owner & basically don’t bother with much (neither publisher or consumer side). Eg GOG is smaller but fights DRM a lot more actively (and achieving DRM-free deals even before Steam).
I hope before Gabe goes Gaben’t he makes Valve a proper nonprofit - bcs the service they offer is like a mass infrastructure thing (which are always scary).
As to why devs think they have a monopoly - it’s hard to succeeded without Steam, especially if you arent a AAA studio (and even a small mistake on Steam part for their game’s visibility on Steam Store can cost them everything), and Steam isn’t really fighting over devs to offer them a better deal than the competition, it’s the other way around (it’s clear who has the power).
So yes, they have quite a fair bit of monopoly.
Modern, especially tech, monopolies aren’t a single-provider-locked-in type of thing, look at Google, they hold a monopoly over so many markets without those prerequisites. And they fought, shaped the markets intentionally to eventually get to that position (that’s why they were valued that high even before the revenue kicked in).
They are a monopoly 100%, just believe me bro.
If you are interested, I provided a pretty comprehensive list of definitions of a monopoly below, which steam neatly fits into!
Or do you want me to believe steam 100% isn’t, just believe me bro.
You mean those same “comprehensive” definitions that failed with my argument?
No? I’m going to stick with the actual definitions you ignored, the same ones you stopped responding to while downvoting like my toddler.
The best you’ve managed so far is inventing your own definition where a company only counts as a monopoly if it behaves badly and takes “monopolistic actions,” which is a neat little tautology. And you still haven’t shown a single definition that includes any of that.
In case you managed to not see, or forget, where i previously brought this up, here’s a link so you can refresh yourself: https://lemmy.ca/post/55030092/20023839
I agree valve hasn’t done anything, but that isnt part of any definition of monopoly i’ve been able to discover, except for someone arguing in bad faith on the internet.
They’re not benevolent in the slightest.
Oh look, yet another person who doesn’t understand what monopoly means.
Sounds like Steam fits that description pretty well. I agree that steam isn’t a strict monopoly, there is competition, but they are so far and ahead they still function as a monopoly in their area.
Since you’d rather throw mud than talk terms, I guess that’s where this ends.
“Comodity controlled by one party”. Except it’s not controlled by one party.
Outsized market power, what left out are the actions taken to make such an outsized market power. Monopolies are not a passive that form all by themselves. They are created through expansion acquisition, and aggressive crushing of competition. Disney and Nintendo do these actions. Valve does basically… Nothing.
A single dominant seller, but again leaving out all the rest I have written above.
There is nothing Valve can stop doing to be less “a monopoly”. All they’ve done is provide a pretty decent service, and nobody else can be arsed to top that, even companies with the resources to do so.
That’s not a monopoly.
By your definition, lets imagine a world where Amazon had 100% of the market and there were no other competitors, even if it happened naturally, without malicious intent, they wouldn’t be a monopoly? Come on.
I dont see ‘has to act a specific way’ in any definitions of monopoly. A monopoly isnt about being evil, or ‘actions taken to make such an outsized market power’ even if thats often part of the result, but just describes their position in the field.
This isn’t about how a company got there, it’s about where they currently are. Steam may not have crushed competitors aggressively like Disney or Nintendo, but its market dominance and control over PC game distribution still fits the textbook definition of a monopoly.
Steam has ~79.5% of the PC gaming market, I’m one of their customers and love their service, but that doesnt change that “monopoly”fits them.
Damn never seen a sober man so confidently wrong on something so straight forward.
Yea, it’s pretty rough for tattorack, but that’s what happens when you ignore definitions and argue in bad faith. They ignore all contrary evidence and definitions, and insit their made up definition is accurate.
/Shrug, some people just aren’t open to discussion .
Im not the ones ignoring definitions, and calling Valve a monoply is bad faith in the first place.
i mean, i provided definition after definition, link after link, and your response was ‘nuh uh’,
I’m going to steal a page out of your book and say “hey look, a person who doesn’t understand what bad faith means.” since i’ve been here, providing clean, honest discussion, while you just deny and move the goal posts.
So… if the shoe fits…
That’s not my definition. That’s just the definition. And you’re using a corporation that is actively monopolising the logistics market, even so far as breaking the law to kill any competition, as an example. Nicely done.
Thanks, that was done intentionally, to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I assume we both agree that Amazon is an effective monopoly (though i have had people fight me on that too!)
You say its not your definition, but i linked three different definitions which didn’t use that language. in fact, in all my searching, not a SINGLE definition includes a discussion on how they got there, but on the **CURRENT **state of the market.
Here’s another source:
This is why I say Steam has an effective monopoly.
So yes, it seems like you’re using your personal definition, but it contradicts the actual, widely accepted definitions.
If you want to call me out and say “you initially said it WAS a monopoly, but its only an EFFECTIVE monopoly”, ill take that egg on my face, its earned and i should be more careful with my words.