this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
307 points (98.1% liked)

PC Gaming

12656 readers
1217 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. 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.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
307
Larian Studios defends Valve: Steam's success is deserved (www.gamereactor.eu)
submitted 23 hours ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
104 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

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.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 22 points 22 hours ago (3 children)

The question is, is it a monopoly because they are doing something to force their way into that position, or does every other offering just suck?

And what is the solution to said monopoly? Because as far as I can tell, the only way to give the other shitty stores a chance is to deliberately make the steam experience worse.

There’s also the question of if this is even a real problem. For instance, if two people are trying to sell lemonade on their street, and one is just throwing a lukewarm cup of haphazardly crushed lemons at you for $2, and the other is charging $3 but giving you a cool glass of carefully squeezed lemons… the second one may have a monopoly, but that’s because the first isn’t competent. Should the second be punished in some way because of that?

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 10 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

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.

[–] neshura@bookwyr.me 8 points 22 hours ago

There should be case studies about the ineptitude of competing stores. A small handful aside who have found a niche and serve it well (itch.io and GOG come to mind) the other stores just dish out a store front that is under-cooked for what is there and lacking features beyond that and then are surprised when people prefer Steam.

For example I'm not aware of a Workshop style system in any other store, so any game that features community made content will be a better experience on Steam.

[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Should the second be punished in some way because of that?

It's not a punishment. It's a correction, required to maintain a healthy market.

Your lemonade stand would be more like if there was a stand on every block: By virtue of the scale of their business they could afford to undercut any competition that tried to start up. If they did that they could be slapped on the wrist for being anti-competitive.

Is Valve/Steam anti-competitive? IDK. It's a monopoly, though, so you have to watch it extra carefully to ensure it doesn't abuse its position as a market leader.

[–] KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 hours ago

The bottom line on what I’m trying to say, is that valve isn’t doing anything to correct. The only way to make them less competitive would be to actively make the user experience worse.

Is it a potential problem that valve could go anti consumer and fuck everyone over? Absolutely. But until that happens, there’s nothing to actually do beyond point out that it has a monopoly. Which… I mean, doesn’t actually do much more than trigger the “monopoly = bad” thought in people’s minds.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 7 hours ago

Your lemonade stand would be more like if there was a stand on every block: By virtue of the scale of their business they could afford to undercut any competition that tried to start up. If they did that they could be slapped on the wrist for being anti-competitive.

Cough Walmart cough

Walmart has been accused of selling merchandise at such low costs that competitors have tried to sue for predatory pricing (intentionally selling a product at low cost in order to drive competitors out of the market).

In 2000, the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection accused Walmart of selling butter, milk, laundry detergent, and other staple goods at low cost, with the intention of forcing competitors out of business and gaining a monopoly in local markets.

Crest Foods filed a similar lawsuit in Oklahoma, accusing Walmart of predatory pricing on several of its products, in an effort to drive Crest Foods's own company-owned store in Edmond, Oklahoma, out of business.

However, in 2003, Germany's High Court ruled that Walmart's low cost pricing strategy "undermined competition" and ordered Walmart and two other supermarkets to raise their prices. Walmart won appeal of the ruling, then the German Supreme Court overturned the appeal.

Walmart has been accused of using monopoly power to force its suppliers into self-defeating practices. In 2006, Barry C. Lynn, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation (a think tank), said that Walmart's constant demand for lower prices caused Kraft Foods to "shut down thirty-nine plants, to let go [of] 13,500 workers, and to eliminate a quarter of its products."

[–] Vinnyboiler@feddit.uk 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I still don't feel like it's a monopoly when there is nothing stopping developers from selling the game as a paid download off their own site. Players can even add that game as a non-Steam game and still get a mostly complete experience as if they brought the game from Steam. Companies selling their game on Steam was always a option and not a necessity.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago

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.