• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    165 months ago

    Opinions aside, that’s still not the legal definition of a monopoly.

    Monopoly: Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.

    Valve does not have exclusive control of the PC gaming market. The EGS funded lawsuit even says that in the docket. They are only suing on the grounds of the keys issue. I don’t disagree with you that when Newell leaves, things COULD change, but you can’t base the present on the possible future. At this time, steam is on “top” because the vast majority of users have voted with their wallet and time. Not because they are engaged in sweeping anti-competitive backdoor dealings. You know, like EGS does.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        65 months ago

        You’re reaching because steam makes you seethe for whatever reason.

        Betting you have a rage-boner for Firefox too.

        I’m guessing you feel this way about any company from the west lmao

          • Ænima
            link
            fedilink
            English
            65 months ago

            You really gotta aim your sights higher if that’s the criteria you’re using for a “monopoly”. Valve is a private company, that sells games and other “wants”, not “needs”. If people can’t afford games, without losing their house or struggling to eat, I don’t think that’s a company’s fault.

            If Valve was even close to using anti-competitive methods to maintain market dominance, you’d be correct. However, a company having superior quality products and making good business decisions is not a basis or definition of a monopoly. They just make good decisions and provide quality products that people want and enjoy.

            Instead of using strawman and false equivalency fallacies, try taking a look at what really constitutes anti-competitive practices.

              • Ænima
                link
                fedilink
                English
                65 months ago

                You’re either a troll, extremely young, naive, and/or uneducated if you think my comment above is in defense of billionaires. I literally have comments in my history to the absolute opposite*. What I’m “defending” is the definition of a monopoly when it comes to business practices; of which Valve has exuded none of the behavior of.

                You think any business doing well, providing quality goods and services, not being anti-consumer, and being the most trusted platform for gaming as a result is the definition of a monopoly. Again, you use fallacy to try and argue a point.

                Wait… Are you that dickhead from Epic who pays for exclusivity rights, steaks user data from Steam files, or something? I could see that guy being pissed at Steam for seemingly no reason.

                * one such comment, if I recall, is about how much I hated Steam when it first came out for killing LAN parties by locking down CD keys.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    45 months ago

                    If they hiked prices above what other stores offered, consumers would leave. If they lowered prices to be untenable for developers, developers would leave, and consumers would follow (they’d probably grumble, but they’d go where the games are). There isn’t a lock in for future sales on either side. So do you think they can do whatever they want with prices with no consequences?

      • JackbyDev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        35 months ago

        Did you read the articles? The judge acknowledged that Google is widely recognized as the best general purpose search engine but that part of why they are used so often is because of Google paying people to make Google the default search option which many people never change.