- 0 Posts
- 1.48K Comments
Standard Oil never had an absolute monopoly. Look me in the eyes and tell me they don’t count.
Argumentum ad Webster is a fallacy. Words mean what they are used to mean, and what they are understood to mean. The goddang FTC has a page explaining: “Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct.” The kind of monopoly we break up still has competition. It’s only about market share and power.
When a company dominates any industry, they obviously have power that could easily be abused, even if they do not abuse it. Do you understand that the potential for abuse is a problem, even if it’s a different kind of problem than abuse occurring? You can’t prevent things by waiting until they happen.
Was that Walmart exploiting it’s market share
Yes. Obviously. It was preachy corporate censorship on a scale we hardly recognize today. One company being so big means some art doesn’t get made.
Walmart’s an excellent example for how absolute monopoly is not required. Obviously there’s other supermarkets. But some companies drop entire product lines if Walmart doesn’t pick them up. This one store represents enough of the market that any investment is immediately considered a loss. Being in or out is such a big fucking deal that products are tailored to that store, rather than to customers.
Again, what should we do about that?
Practically speaking? Nothing, because this monopoly has not abused its power. They don’t seem likely to. And yet: it’s still there. Things change. Shit happens. If Gabe’s yacht sinks and Larry Ellison buys the company, maybe everyone decides EGS ain’t so bad, but there’s a world of lesser horrors that wouldn’t spook the herd.
Here’s the funny part: it’s probably fine. AND YET, people will twist themselves inside-out to deny the premise.
Your root post fully admitted the accusation:
If you’re not in this one store, you lose access to most customers.
That’s a fucking monopoly.
As I’ve explained to people, over and over and over and over, anti-competitive practice is a separate thing. Monopoly just means market share. It’s enough power to become a problem. It is the ability to fuck people over. We need to recognize these situations, before they ruin everything.
For comparison, Netflix was a monopoly, and I think the entire world would be happier if that was still the case. But saying so doesn’t mean they weren’t a monopoly. For a good while there, your choices for legal streaming video were Netflix, or lying to yourself about legality. The desirable solution would be multiple services offering all the same shows for competitive… not the exclusivity hellscape we got. And gaming would be better-off if every game was in every storefront, like boxes on shelves, instead of one store being a huge fucking deal and the rest being nearly irrelevant.
why would any studio choose not to release on Steam?
Epic gave Remedy a shitload of money, up-front. All exclusivity these days works like that. Nobody wants to reach fewer customers. Some of them are convinced to - some of them are forced to. Alan Wake exemplifies the former, and there’s a good chance Remedy regrets the decision.
If Valve bumped their cut from 30% to 40%, do you imagine publishers would rush to EGS? Epic’s cut is already 15 points lower than Valve’s. It hasn’t moved the needle.
Valve kills studios by saying ‘no thank you.’ They have immense power. They just don’t use it in any way that freaks people out. The mere possibility shapes the entire industry. Only niche studios try weird shit, because large studios don’t risk poking the bear. Games want to feature nudity and intimacy, but most are so self-censored, they could be televised. The cultural prevalence of nude mods is proof of demand that has been frustrated.
If you’d rather blame Mastercard and Visa openly dictating what art can and can’t be sold, by all means, we can talk about their joint control of online payment. But it might get blunt if you insist one store taking Bitcoin means that’s not a duopoly.
If Steam not hosting your game causes your studio to shut down, it’s not because Steam is being some unreasonable gatekeeper. It’s because you’re making something that there isn’t any market for, or so little of a market that your only hope is to get it visible to as many people as possible so the tiny fraction of them that are interested can keep you afloat.
You know being on Steam means crucial access to more customers. To most customers, in fact.
The games that do well, despite being invisible to the supermajority of customers, are the exceptions. Nobody gets dropped from EGS or Itch and goes “oh no, we’re ruined, we’re only on Steam now.” But the opposite happens repeatedly. The reason is not complicated.
Ability. Not a history of doing anticompetitive behavior, just the ability to do it. Monopoly is a precondition to that abuse.
From the same page: “Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.” “Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services.”
Is it a fnord? Is there some other word you would understand to mean, there’s only one big-ass store people treat as the default, and if they start being dicks, we’re all in deep shit?
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a “monopolist” is a firm with significant and durable market power.
Absolute monopolies do not exist. If there’s one asshole selling PC games out of a car boot, Steam does not have a literal absolute monopoly. And yet: not even Epic Games, a bajillion dollar company, has any meaningful impact on Steam’s superdupermajority control of the PC gaming market. Steam competitors existing does not mean they matter.
impossible
Strawman. It is demonstrably much harder for games to profit, when they’re not on Steam. Exceptions are rare viral hits. Alan Wake 2 was a popular and acclaimed game, and it did terribly on PC specifically, because it wasn’t on the one storefront that handles an overwhelming majority of PC sales. The difference between PC games not on Steam and iOS games not on the App Store is slim.
So yes, there are games exclusive to Epic that do just fine, but not many. Odds say, fucked. Being unavailable on Steam means most PC gamers will not consider buying it, and may never even be aware of it. We have a word for that.
Absolute monopolies are fiction.
Standard Oil only ever controlled 85% of America’s oil.
Monopoly is when your competition does not matter - not when it does not exist. There will always be someone competing with you. But if I open Mindbleach’s Video Emporium and move six units per quarter, the impact on Steam is approximately dick.
So is Epic’s.
Maybe there isn’t one.
This is what I’m talking about: people think monopoly = bad, so if I say Valve has a monopoly, I must want them burned to the ground. Nah. They’re mostly fine. Having only one good option is precarious, but it is still a good option. For now.
But they’re still a monopoly. We should say so, because it’s true, and important. It shapes the entire PC gaming market.
None of that is what defines a monopoly.
There’s only one store that matters. They have unthreatened supermajority marketshare. Customers go there by default - sometimes exclusively. Developers can sell there, or they’re basically fucked.
What you’re concerned about are anti-competitive practices. But some businesses don’t need those, to lack any relevant competition. It can just happen. They didn’t do anything wrong. They’re still monopolies.
While many accuse Valve of monopolising the PC gaming market, others argue that Steam’s dominance is simply the result of doing things right.
These assertions do not contradict. I cannot overstress that.
This whole article is ‘Valve’s monopoly is fine because they did things right.’
Having one good store is not, in itself, a problem. But it does mean we’re one fuckup away from having no good stores.
Saying it’s a monopoly doesn’t mean it needs solving. Anti-competitive behavior is a problem - but being a monopoly doesn’t require that abuse, and you don’t need a monopoly to exercise that abuse.
Yet people get deeply fricking weird about saying it’s a monopoly.
It’s naked taboo. It’s people feeling icky about a word, and actively refusing to engage in rational argument about meaning. When someone has dogmatically internalized that monopoly=bad and Steam=good, the text doesn’t matter. Even pointing out things they just said gets dismissed as some kind of attack against The Good Store.™
We have to start from plain acknowledgement that Steam’s competitors do not matter. They are plentiful and irrelevant. Explaining why they are doesn’t change that they are.
So we’re acknowledging it’s a monopoly? Cool. Defense is still an acknowledgement. I’ve had the weirdest goddamn arguments with people insisting they’d never shop anywhere else, and if games aren’t on there it’s their own fault they’re doomed… but how dare anyone use the m-word! Obviously that can only mean one seller with absolute control, like how Standard Oil owned all 85% of the market.
Text generation is the least you can do. You can still fire up Photoshop and feed in a half-finished image. Diffusion turns whatever you have into whatever you describe. If it does decent scratches on metal, but won’t put them exactly where you want, then select them and move them, and the robot will smooth it over.
The very first article I read about Stable Diffusion, three years ago, had the author doodling mountains and flipping a spaceship. All the image-to-video stuff demands you provide art, as an input. Prompts alone are just a tech demo gone feral.
Software has won.
This was inevitable once ports looked the same and ran the same. Doubling your customer base, without developing the whole game twice? Obvious choice for any third party. First-party developers have taken longer, because their parent companies primarily own them to promote a hardware business. Microsoft’s hardware business has become vestigial. It always was, to some extent; the Xbox project was a 1990s scheme to PC-ify the console market. It worked.
Consoles don’t exist anymore. Do you want the green AMD laptop, or the blue AMD laptop? Even Nintendo rebadged an Android tablet. You can release some crazy new hardware unlike anything else, but the only third-party games will be multiplatform hits that run like garbage. Like on early PS3. The Helldivers 2 PSN fiasco sure looks like Sony found out how profitable they’d be as just another publisher and the answer scared the shit out of them. Without that service, they don’t have a platform, anymore. They sell a popular model of an IBM compatible. Asterisk on the compatible.
Nintendo can get away with that shit forever, because they own Pokemon. I don’t know how much longer you can cosplay that sort of first-party importance, on the strength of Horizon and… Death Stranding.
Nobody can “get” exclusives. They don’t exist anymore. There’s first-party games - there’s games the first party funded into existence - and everything else runs on whatever customers have.
Developers want to sell games… to people. Hardware is an obstacle. They don’t want to care which color of deliberately incompatible generic computer you bought. Shipping five near-identical versions of the same damn game is a button they push in Unreal 5, and that’s why they put up with Unreal 5.
Fuck software patents.
Copyright made sense when it was a decade or two. Industrial patents seem basically functional. Trademark’s mostly truth-in-advertising for consumer choice.
But software patents aren’t about how you do something - they’re claiming the entire concept, in the broadest possible terms, and killing it. Straight-up murdering that potential. It is denied the necessary iterative competition that turns dogshit first implementations into must-have features. Nobody’s gonna care in twenty years.
Entire hardware form-factors have come and gone in a single decade. Can you imagine if swipe keyboards were still single-vendor, and still worked like in 2009? Or maybe Apple bought them, and endlessly bragged about how Android can’t do [blank], because fifty thousand dollars changed hands in the 3G era.
How many games would not exist, if Nintendo had decided they own sidescrollers? A whole genre, wiped out, because a piece of paper says those mechanics are theft.
Which is saying something.
Unreal 1 games are consistently fugly in ways that are difficult to place. Their design can be great - but the rendering, bluh. There’s just enough specularity and fake reflections to remind you most textures are chalk-flat. Detail noise improves big blurry texels, but your brain feels that band-gap between high and low frequency. Character animation, especially faces, feel very… Hanna-Barbara. There’s just enough physics for you to understand why Half-Life 2 blew people’s dicks off.
Basically, the engine has all the idiosyncrasies of a 1990s console. You know at a glance. And this PS2-ass parody of a mid-2000s HD remaster manages to feel more dated.
Epic… funded… the game.
Remedy took money up-front, expecting it to be more money than they would make later.
Being on Steam means access to customers, and more sales. You said so. So Epic, to promote the Epic Game Store, estimated how much revenue Alan Wake 2 would lose by not being on Steam, doubled it, and wrote that on a check.