If Steam not hosting your game causes your studio to shut down, it’s not because Steam is being some unreasonable gatekeeper. It’s because you’re making something that there isn’t any market for, or so little of a market that your only hope is to get it visible to as many people as possible so the tiny fraction of them that are interested can keep you afloat.
You know being on Steam means crucial access to more customers. To most customers, in fact.
The games that do well, despite being invisible to the supermajority of customers, are the exceptions. Nobody gets dropped from EGS or Itch and goes “oh no, we’re ruined, we’re only on Steam now.” But the opposite happens repeatedly. The reason is not complicated.
So what do you propose? Is there some action Steam is doing that they should be legally stopped from? As far as I am aware Steam has the most customers simply because those customers prefer it.
Here’s the funny part: it’s probably fine. AND YET, people will twist themselves inside-out to deny the premise.
Your root post fully admitted the accusation:
If you’re not in this one store, you lose access to most customers.
That’s a fucking monopoly.
As I’ve explained to people, over and over and over and over, anti-competitive practice is a separate thing. Monopoly just means market share. It’s enough power to become a problem. It is the ability to fuck people over. We need to recognize these situations, before they ruin everything.
For comparison, Netflix was a monopoly, and I think the entire world would be happier if that was still the case. But saying so doesn’t mean they weren’t a monopoly. For a good while there, your choices for legal streaming video were Netflix, or lying to yourself about legality. The desirable solution would be multiple services offering all the same shows for competitive… not the exclusivity hellscape we got. And gaming would be better-off if every game was in every storefront, like boxes on shelves, instead of one store being a huge fucking deal and the rest being nearly irrelevant.
Then what have you been going on about all this time? You’ been saying repeatedly that it’s a problem and now you’re saying it’s probably fine? Pick a lane.
If you’re not in this one store, you lose access to most customers.
Customers who want your product can still access it.
That’s a fucking monopoly.
Not by the dictionary definition nor the legal definition you cited.
We need to recognize these situations, before they ruin everything.
But “it’s probably fine.”
And gaming would be better-off if every game was in every storefront
Which most of them are. For a while Epic was refusing games that wasn’t signing exclusivity deals with them, but that ended up not working out for them.
In the past Walmart has refused to sell music of artists with content they disagreed with. Was that Walmart exploiting it’s market share, or a business choosing what they do and do not stock?
instead of one store being a huge fucking deal and the rest being nearly irrelevant.
Standard Oil never had an absolute monopoly. Look me in the eyes and tell me they don’t count.
Argumentum ad Webster is a fallacy. Words mean what they are used to mean, and what they are understood to mean. The goddang FTC has a page explaining: “Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct.” The kind of monopoly we break up still has competition. It’s only about market share and power.
When a company dominates any industry, they obviously have power that could easily be abused, even if they do not abuse it. Do you understand that the potential for abuse is a problem, even if it’s a different kind of problem than abuse occurring? You can’t prevent things by waiting until they happen.
Was that Walmart exploiting it’s market share
Yes. Obviously. It was preachy corporate censorship on a scale we hardly recognize today. One company being so big means some art doesn’t get made.
Walmart’s an excellent example for how absolute monopoly is not required. Obviously there’s other supermarkets. But some companies drop entire product lines if Walmart doesn’t pick them up. This one store represents enough of the market that any investment is immediately considered a loss. Being in or out is such a big fucking deal that products are tailored to that store, rather than to customers.
Again, what should we do about that?
Practically speaking? Nothing, because this monopoly has not abused its power. They don’t seem likely to. And yet: it’s still there. Things change. Shit happens. If Gabe’s yacht sinks and Larry Ellison buys the company, maybe everyone decides EGS ain’t so bad, but there’s a world of lesser horrors that wouldn’t spook the herd.
You know being on Steam means crucial access to more customers. To most customers, in fact.
The games that do well, despite being invisible to the supermajority of customers, are the exceptions. Nobody gets dropped from EGS or Itch and goes “oh no, we’re ruined, we’re only on Steam now.” But the opposite happens repeatedly. The reason is not complicated.
Right: there’s not a market for AAA torture porn / sexual abuse games.
Apparently there is. But you can’t access enough of it unless you’re on the one store that really counts.
If only there were words for one company arbitrarily restricting who gets to reach customers.
Freedom of association? Valve is not obligated or required to host everyone’s game if they don’t want to.
One company restricting access to most customers is a different thing.
And it becomes a problem for everyone.
So what do you propose? Is there some action Steam is doing that they should be legally stopped from? As far as I am aware Steam has the most customers simply because those customers prefer it.
Here’s the funny part: it’s probably fine. AND YET, people will twist themselves inside-out to deny the premise.
Your root post fully admitted the accusation:
If you’re not in this one store, you lose access to most customers.
That’s a fucking monopoly.
As I’ve explained to people, over and over and over and over, anti-competitive practice is a separate thing. Monopoly just means market share. It’s enough power to become a problem. It is the ability to fuck people over. We need to recognize these situations, before they ruin everything.
For comparison, Netflix was a monopoly, and I think the entire world would be happier if that was still the case. But saying so doesn’t mean they weren’t a monopoly. For a good while there, your choices for legal streaming video were Netflix, or lying to yourself about legality. The desirable solution would be multiple services offering all the same shows for competitive… not the exclusivity hellscape we got. And gaming would be better-off if every game was in every storefront, like boxes on shelves, instead of one store being a huge fucking deal and the rest being nearly irrelevant.
Then what have you been going on about all this time? You’ been saying repeatedly that it’s a problem and now you’re saying it’s probably fine? Pick a lane.
Customers who want your product can still access it.
Not by the dictionary definition nor the legal definition you cited.
But “it’s probably fine.”
Which most of them are. For a while Epic was refusing games that wasn’t signing exclusivity deals with them, but that ended up not working out for them.
In the past Walmart has refused to sell music of artists with content they disagreed with. Was that Walmart exploiting it’s market share, or a business choosing what they do and do not stock?
Again, what should we do about that?
Standard Oil never had an absolute monopoly. Look me in the eyes and tell me they don’t count.
Argumentum ad Webster is a fallacy. Words mean what they are used to mean, and what they are understood to mean. The goddang FTC has a page explaining: “Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct.” The kind of monopoly we break up still has competition. It’s only about market share and power.
When a company dominates any industry, they obviously have power that could easily be abused, even if they do not abuse it. Do you understand that the potential for abuse is a problem, even if it’s a different kind of problem than abuse occurring? You can’t prevent things by waiting until they happen.
Yes. Obviously. It was preachy corporate censorship on a scale we hardly recognize today. One company being so big means some art doesn’t get made.
Walmart’s an excellent example for how absolute monopoly is not required. Obviously there’s other supermarkets. But some companies drop entire product lines if Walmart doesn’t pick them up. This one store represents enough of the market that any investment is immediately considered a loss. Being in or out is such a big fucking deal that products are tailored to that store, rather than to customers.
Practically speaking? Nothing, because this monopoly has not abused its power. They don’t seem likely to. And yet: it’s still there. Things change. Shit happens. If Gabe’s yacht sinks and Larry Ellison buys the company, maybe everyone decides EGS ain’t so bad, but there’s a world of lesser horrors that wouldn’t spook the herd.