YongYea; Execs Stupidly Claim Steam Has A Monopoly And Get Mocked...
-
Most criticism of valve on Lemmy reads like blatant shilling.
Shilling for whom?
-
I mean… There are so many games that use Nexus as their preferred platform. And for older games Mod.db is still king.
Didn’t forget loverslab
-
Not on games per se but almost on mods. Yes, there are other platforms, but the majory and newest are on Workshop. And they make it hard to download them, if you don’t own the game on Steam (and Valve has it in their terms that they own the mods hosted on Workshop).
So one could argue that they use the indirect peer-pressure approach to market dominance, similiar to Google on Android.
I wouldn’t complain if they just had a “Download” button on their web version. But they don’t, you have to use the finicky
steamcmdintended for server administration.Workshop is kinda shit, I don’t even bother looking there. Just Google mods which 90% of the time winds up being Nexus
-
Link to youtube video. Tracking removed.
If we call Steam a monopoly, then we also shall name Nestle a monopoly.
-
That is not true. Valve requires that you do not sell your games cheaper on other platforms, hindering competition.
No, they don’t want you selling Steam keys for cheap on other platforms.
Valve actually doesn’t earn anything from steam key sales. They don’t take the 30% cut on those, only on sales made in the Steam store. The only requirement Valve puts up is that you don’t start selling these steam keys (which are provided for free) cheaper than you can purchase the game in the Steam store.
I don’t see that hindering competition at all. It basically allows other marketplaces to sell Steam games, enabling competition in the first place.
-
Shilling for whom?
Other corpos who cry about Valve providing a good service.
-
If you are interested, I provided a pretty comprehensive list of definitions of a monopoly below, which steam neatly fits into!
Or do you want me to believe steam 100% isn’t, just believe me bro.
You mean those same “comprehensive” definitions that failed with my argument?
-
Yea, it’s pretty rough for tattorack, but that’s what happens when you ignore definitions and argue in bad faith. They ignore all contrary evidence and definitions, and insit their made up definition is accurate.
/Shrug, some people just aren’t open to discussion .
Im not the ones ignoring definitions, and calling Valve a monoply is bad faith in the first place.
-
I have 3 degrees
We don’t want to know your IQ. Sorry to hear it’s not even room temperature.
-
Im not the ones ignoring definitions, and calling Valve a monoply is bad faith in the first place.
i mean, i provided definition after definition, link after link, and your response was ‘nuh uh’,
I’m going to steal a page out of your book and say “hey look, a person who doesn’t understand what bad faith means.” since i’ve been here, providing clean, honest discussion, while you just deny and move the goal posts.
So… if the shoe fits…
-
You mean those same “comprehensive” definitions that failed with my argument?
No? I’m going to stick with the actual definitions you ignored, the same ones you stopped responding to while downvoting like my toddler.
The best you’ve managed so far is inventing your own definition where a company only counts as a monopoly if it behaves badly and takes “monopolistic actions,” which is a neat little tautology. And you still haven’t shown a single definition that includes any of that.
In case you managed to not see, or forget, where i previously brought this up, here’s a link so you can refresh yourself: https://lemmy.ca/post/55030092/20023839
Outsized market power, what left out are the actions taken to make such an outsized market power. Monopolies are not a passive that form all by themselves. They are created through expansion acquisition, and aggressive crushing of competition. Disney and Nintendo do these actions. Valve does basically… Nothing.
I agree valve hasn’t done anything, but that isnt part of any definition of monopoly i’ve been able to discover, except for someone arguing in bad faith on the internet.
