• Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You can argue a monopoly only where there are both an active actual monopoly and when there are anti competitive practices in place.

    Steam doesn’t do anti competitive, their 30% cut is actually a deal when you consider how much you get in comparison to Epic or Gog, who both take 30% but both offer considerably less. Valve doesn’t push for exclusives the way Epic does and valve doesn’t do anything to make you not able to publish to other stores at all.

    Their edge is that they offer a better service for the same price.

    • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Forcing people to download their service for physical media isn’t anti-competitive? Or is that only when it’s Ubisoft or EA?

      • Waluigis_Talking_Buttplug@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        …that’s how DRM works yeah, and I’m guess you don’t actually know what anti competitive is because that’s not it buddy. You’re conflating two things that are very seperate topics. You can argue about it as it’s own thing, but that’s not anti competitive

        • conorabA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not all content on Steam has DRM either so at worst you need an account and the client initially.

        • GeneralEmergency@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Steam killed off brick and mortar stores for PC games. If that’s not anti-competitive then I don’t know what is.