I guess then MS doesn’t have an OS monopoly, because you can not only buy an Apple computer, but also install Linux.

That has never been true.

You can even “buy” open source software on Steam that is available free from the home website.

You’re referring to the case with the developers of Lugaru, and they’ve been doing a great job of painting their fuckup as Valve barring platform competition.

Um… Yeah. Microsoft absolutely doesn’t have an OS monopoly, as much as they’re trying.

This is exactly why it’s important for people to learn about how capitalism functions instead of how to identify morally condemnable behaviour. A liberal with think Steam is fine so long as they remain “horizontally” organized and Gaben remains the special boi he is, but will only be bad if it the company gets “greedy.” There is no benefit to PC game distribution being controlled privately; any media distribution.

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.

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 .

Steam does a lot of shitty things — including using gambling mechanics on kids and failing to moderate the neo-nazi clubhouse that are their forums — but they are not a monopoly and do not behave in a monopolistic or anticompetitive manner whatsoever. Their success and market share is genuinely earned on merits.

Personally, I would prefer GOG, but many games don’t release there, or release there much later. Epic could compete, but their heart is clearly not in it as they refuse to give customers features they want out of a platform and do engage in anticompetitive practices.

I think the issue is, that if we’re going to call steam a monopoly (and maybe they are), then we’ve got to call Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo monopolies.

What I don’t want to see is legal attacks against steam while letting worse behavior off the hook.

YouTube university where you don’t need the attention span for reading

Ehh, steam only is in the PC gaming market

In the console market, you do have 3 primary competitors, be that Microsoft, PlayStation, and Nintendo.

In the whole gaming market maybe steam doesn’t have a Monopoly, but within the PC marketplace…

Most criticism of valve on Lemmy reads like blatant shilling.

I mean, the issue is these lines aren’t as concrete anymore. Is the Ps5 a console or a locked down pc?

Hell, this is probably controversial, but Apple and Google actually have the monopoly on PC gaming. Android and Ios make the most money out of any gaming ecosystem.

Shilling for whom?

Didn’t forget loverslab

Workshop is kinda shit, I don’t even bother looking there. Just Google mods which 90% of the time winds up being Nexus

If we call Steam a monopoly, then we also shall name Nestle a monopoly.

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.

Other corpos who cry about Valve providing a good service.

You mean those same “comprehensive” definitions that failed with my argument?