• Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    People saying Steam doesn’t have a monopoly because other stores exist, is the same as saying Microsoft doesn’t have a monopoly on PC Gaming because Mac and Linux exist. Technically true, but ultimately meaningless because its their market power that determines a monopoly, not whether there are other niche players.

    While Valve and Steam have generally been a good player, and currently do offer the best product, they still wield an ungodly amount of influence over the PC gaming market space.

    Epic is chasing that because they really want what Valve has, though no doubt they plan to speedrun the enshittification process as soon as they think it safe.

    • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Steam is a natural monopoly, which although still not entirely good but are a wholly different beast from monopolies made by exploiting flaws in the system

      • nora@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        What’s a natural monopoly? Valve currently has the freedom to implement anything they want within an extent because they’re so popular. If they decided they wanted to charge devs 35% would people stop using it? Probably not. Steam’s monopoly is as bad as any other for the same reason any other monopoly is bad.

        • coltorl@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          A natural monopoly is when an industry is difficult to break into, making competition difficult or impossible. This favors incumbents, in fact, a lot of industries are natural monopolies (pharma, aerospace, chip production).

          The difficulty of breaking into an industry may be because:

          • new players cannot compete with established scale
          • start up costs require a nearly all-or-nothing approach, high risk
          • regulations tie the hand of new innovators
        • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Look it up? It’s an actual term, not something I made up for whatever reason you assumed to argue against something I didn’t even say. I already said it’s still not a good thing, it just would have happened regardless of whoever that was able to do it on scale first.