• webpack@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    24 hours ago

    I think most ppl agree that it’s a monopoly, it’s just that they are a monopoly not because of anticompetitive practices but because everyone else sucks. steam does give a lot of value to small game devs cause it makes it easy for ppl to find your game (but I’m not sure if that’s worth the 30% revenue cut). if there was a better platform that took less revenue then devs would simply use that instead.

    • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      This, I mean… Epic tried and had a storefront so terrible they had to bribe developers into making their games exclusive. Something that never fucking worked for any game that wasn’t Kingdom Hearts; and only resulted in the games bombing because they released on a constantly malfunctioning storefront that constantly got bad publicity.

      And Origin was literally ran by EA, so… yeah…

      GOG is the only real competitor Steam has, and most people’s opinion of it is “This is nerd shit”, which is a take even I agree with because the only games it really has are older than dirt, meaning I’m the only one who gives a shit about them.

        • jerkface@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          22 hours ago

          there are thousands of government-granted monopolies where they are literally the only thing

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Wow, hopefully we’ll invent some competing way to listen to music in a car.

            But y’know what, sure, my absolute was overreaching.

            Yours still was too.

            Standard Oil never had all the oil. AT&T never had all the phone lines. The worst, most blatantly illegal monopolies had competitors. They were still monopolies. What the word almost always means, does not require 100.0% market share. Shit gets weird well before that.

            • AT&T did have all the phone lines in a given area. They still do. Just like cable. The market isn’t always as broad as the entire world, the entire country, or even an entire state. Comcast has a monopoly in many places by being the only provider of cable service in a lot of places, just as AT&T was the only provider of phone service to a lot of places.

              • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                22 hours ago

                And if a single house in the county has DirecTV, it doesn’t count. Right?

                AT&T tended to have abundant small competitors, even since the 19th century. They just kept suing them out of existence or buying them.

                All of which is really missing the fucking point - absolute monopoly is rare and weird. Most monopolies have competitors. They’re still monopolies. They command overwhelming market share, which lets them single-handedly shape the market. Having that power is what makes them a monopoly - abusing that power would make them a trust.