this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2024
90 points (83.1% liked)

Technology

37712 readers
154 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Steam DOES have a monopoly and that's inherently bad

Being popular does not make steam a monopoly... My son plays 80% steam games but has Epic launcher installed and plays rocket League regularly

There is nothing in Steam preventing or even making it hard for you to run PC games in any other way

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

having a market share like that is a form of monopoly. It's obviously different from absolute monopoly, but they wield too much power as is.

And to be fair, running games on linux without steam is definitely more tricky than without.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There are two requirements to be considered a monopoly, or fall under antitrust laws:

  1. Have a large market share
  2. Be able to force competing products out of the market

Steam meets point 1, it doesn't meet point 2. On the other hand, things like the Apple App Store, don't meet point 1, but meet point 2, which makes them more likely to fall under antitrust. Windows meets both points, which is why the US sued Microsoft for not letting people choose their browser.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Yeah, we only have to look at the FTC's lawsuit against Amazon to see what they consider an antitrust problem:

[...] Amazon violates the law not because it is big, but because it engages in a course of exclusionary conduct that prevents current competitors from growing and new competitors from emerging. By stifling competition on price, product selection, quality, and by preventing its current or future rivals from attracting a critical mass of shoppers and sellers, Amazon ensures that no current or future rival can threaten its dominance.

That isn't what we see from Valve - in fact it's the opposite, as Valve's strategy with Steam is simply to provide the best service and be the gold standard. The competition is almost always compared unfavorably to Steam, because gamers know how it feels to use a mature platform that isn't trying to abuse them.

Valve has even taken some steps that wind up increasing competition in adjacent markets, such as operating systems (Proton has contributed significantly to Linux popularity) and even handheld game devices (Steam Deck set off an arms race when electronics manufacturers realized Nintendo is asleep at the wheel). Steam is as pro-consumer as it gets, with the exception of GOG and possibly itch.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

But I always assumed that, unless you are blocking competition, it's not legally a monopoly and harder to penalize (not that they actually penalize monopolies much in north America)

Other than making a good product and easier to run games on Linux, there is nothing preventing anyone to install other launchers or games on their own or game makers from selling through other launchers or independently, etc