this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2026
11 points (59.0% liked)
Games
22728 readers
576 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't think you know. Google was declared a legal monopoly despite the existence of Apple and Firefox and FDroid and DuckDuckGo, etc. Microsoft was declared a monopoly despite the existence of Apple, Chrome, and Firefox, etc.
They were declared monopolies because they were determined to have used anti-competitive practices to cement their market position. Valve does not.
those two things are unrelated. In the US you can be a monopoly without being the only source. You only violate anti-trust when you use that position for your own gain via anti-competitive practices. I.E the company could still be a monopoly without violating any laws, like how steam does.
A monopoly is defined as being the only seller, so I don't think you can be one without being the only seller. But our laws (are supposed to) target companies that use anti competitive practices to drive the market closer toward that being true. There's at least one suit that alleged it, but they had a difficult case to prove it. Valve doesn't deal in things like locking up exclusive titles that make it harder for others to compete.
Not according to the FTC. Legal monopolies do exist and can form without anticompetitive tactics.
A literal monopoly is defined as that yea, but the definition used in legal would be a company with significant and durable market power and has the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.
In the cases that were being used as an example, they were already a monopoly going into the case due to their market standing, however at the end of the case it was also determined they were in violation of anti-trust laws as well.
Do you believe Steam has the power to raise prices when those prices are set by vendors on their platform and there are at least two other major players? I suppose they have the power to try to exclude competitors, but those competitors would be buoyed very quickly by Valve attempting to do so. And even still, plenty of the biggest games in the world (Fortnite, Minecraft, Roblox, League of Legends) aren't on their platform already.
Without a doubt yes. They already do for the most part. Steam sales are the goal of the industry, thats why epic is having to go to the lengths that it is to try (and fail) to get customers.
steam already:
Like I can say for certainty yes, due to even a handful of these restrictions, if steam decided to unilaterally apply an additional base fee of x% of the game cost (which they can do), devs would be forced to either abandon steam (again the largest PC gaming market out there) or raise every other storefront price.
There will be other options yes, but it would be like opening a lemonade stand in a dark alley vs at a busy crosswalk. Steam would need to raise the price significantly in order to convince a studio is who trying to make a profit to jump ship.
But I think that being forced to abandon Steam, which is for sure an option they all have in a world with GOG and Epic, is exactly why Valve doesn't really have that power. As soon as that guy sees the $5 lemonade, he's going to hear the other guy yelling that there's a dark alley selling it for $1 around the corner.
finetuning the lemonade stand analogy, both stands would need to be the same price, as the busy street has a sale price restriction for alternative stands. The lemonade vendor would need to decide whether it was worth losing the busy street as a whole in order to use the dark alley in order to keep the lower 1$ price
Developers and studios would need to be willing to leave steam (whos market share is estimated to be 75-80% of the PC third party gaming market) and either make their own(costs money + no userbase) or go to the next big thing which would likely be epic (who is at an appoximate 15% game share despite having a 12% cut vs 30 and releasing weekly free games)
My money is on the devs just raising their price to match steams new price and also allowing both markets to exist.
note: The percentages I gave are actually on the lower end by the way from the numbers I found. I saw some sites quoting steam to be in the 90's for market share in third party PC gaming.
I don't see it, especially since Steam got to where it is now by stealing customers who rejected that same price hike on consoles. Everyone learned that Steam sales offer deeper discounts than digital purchases on consoles' walled gardens and that online is free. If customers are savvy enough to do that, they're savvy enough to find other storefronts in a world where Steam sucks. As I see it, anyway. I think I'd have to see the world change in a substantial way to believe otherwise.
I definitely see your concept as plausible. However I think that amount they raise it by would need to be pretty substantial for it to be worth the risk of the studio/developer bailing on steam as a whole.
What does the existence of Apple and Firefox have to do with the google search monopoly ruling. Do either of those companies operate a search engine?
I guess I found the 72%.
You really don't know? Apple sells competing hardware and software to Android. Firefox is a competing software to Chrome.
If you want to focus exclusively on search engines that will only weaken your argument, as I can name a dozen others off the top of my head.
No. The monopoly ruling that you are referring to IS focused exclusively on search engines. Maybe don't use evidence that you don't know fuckall about?
Excellent, let's review an incomprehensive list of competing search engines:
In short, Google has WAY more competition in the search engine industry than Steam has in the PC game purchase industry. So maybe learn WTF you're talking about before being a dick.
Jesus dude, you should really stick to things you know literally ANYTHING about. Half the search engines you listed are literally using the same engine. I guess Google should have hired you as their attorney.
Are you actually going to engage with the point or continue lobbing personal insults and deflecting?
You still haven't explained how the existence of Apple and Firefox mean Google should have prevailed in the lawsuit. Why don't we start there or are you just interested in dancing around how ignorant you are?
Insults and deflection it is. Everyone can see through your arrogant nonsense. Goodbye.
Yes, I deflected to asking you to start making sense. Sorry for that.