this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2025
312 points (97.9% liked)

PC Gaming

12656 readers
1197 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
312
Larian Studios defends Valve: Steam's success is deserved (www.gamereactor.eu)
submitted 1 day ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
106 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] grrgyle@slrpnk.net 2 points 11 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 8 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 9 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."