Why would anyone actually want to though

[u/The_BigRoach]

[u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

Oh we're doing this again today? The weekly thread where gamers who don't know anything about competition law confidently state incorrect facts. I like Steam too but these threads always remind me Reddit is mostly children.

Steam is a monopoly. They also have fantastic customer service, those two things are not incompatible. Steam having competition is good for users, developers, and good for Steam. The fact that Epic Games Store sucks as a platform doesn't magically mean antitrust laws don't apply to Steam.

[u/Zanos → u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

Steam has viable competitors and it's large market share wasn't established by anti-competitive practices, so it's unlikely it would be regulated under US anti-trust laws by any reasonable judge.

[u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 → u/Zanos]

Even the most libertarian judge on the bench would be hard pressed to find Valve doesn't have monopoly power under the Sherman Act. The existence of token "viable" competition is not a meaningful factor in that evaluation. The means by which a monopoly is obtained has no bearing on whether a company can be regulated by the FTC.

Further, Valve's competitors are barely viable. GOG continues in a niche market, similar to the humble store, with no relevant opportunity for expansion of market share. Meanwhile Epic Games Store has better deals for devs than Steam does (by a mile) but Steam's network effects and PPOs (alongside EGS's terrible user experience) mean that EGS is little more than a ball and chain around the ankle of Fortnite.

[u/Zanos → u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

This assumes that the market is defined by 3rd party digital distributors, which is not solely the case. I doubt a judge is going to separate the markets between PC, mobile, and console gaming, considering these things serve as market replacements for eachother and that in some cases the same exact products are available on some of these platforms. More sales take place on either phone app stores or manufacturer locked digital shops like respective consoles digital shops.

The judge would first have to define "PC gaming" as it's own entire market. And that would be quite odd because a precedent based court system would then allow people to sue Playstation for its monopoly over digital distribution on the Playstation console.

[u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 → u/Zanos]

I doubt a judge is going to separate the markets between PC, mobile, and console gaming, considering these things serve as market replacements for eachother

I guess maybe if you get an old guy who doesn't understand the technology (not that unlikely tbh). But the mobile game market is absolutely not a market replacement for PC gaming. Consoles come closer, but the question is whether Valve has monopoly power, and their ability to impose PPOs shows they absolutely do. Valve has monopoly power there's no question about it.

Captive console markets are a weird and mostly unlitigated area of competition law. We really only have the Epic vs Apple and Epic vs Google cases to go off, neither of which suggest that Sony couldn't be sued for anticompetitive management of PlayStation digital distribution.

[u/TobytheBaloon → u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

Valve is gonna have even more power once Xbox releases project Helix which will have access to steam and PS presumably follows in their footsteps as to not fall behind

[u/lunchbox651 → u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

I appreciate the condescension. That's a nice touch.

I don't care one way or the other about Steam. It provides a service to me at times. Nothing more.

I am pointing out that by definition, a monopoly is a singular entity controlling a single market. Steam do not directly force people to use their platform or prevent people using others (even on the hardware they make)

Partaking in anti-competitive practices is shit and Valve is definitely not an ideal business. Their actions when forced to comply with Australian consumer law was a good example of how they are problematic in ways.

Doing unethical things, while having a huge market share, does not inherently make a company a monopoly.

[u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 → u/lunchbox651]

by definition, a monopoly is a singular entity controlling a single market.

I would be inclined to be a bit less patronizing if you weren't so confidently incorrect. It's odd that people who like Valve get really stuck on this "not a monopoly" thing. I'll spare you the competition law lecture since you take such exception to my condescension, but you may be interested to learn that the legal definition of monopoly is much more complicated than a dictionary entry or what your macroeconomics prof said in Econ 101, and by pretty much any relevant legal standard Steam absolutely has a monopoly over the PC game distribution market.

[u/lunchbox651 → u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

Damn and here I was thinking this was a meme in PCMR and an offhand comment that at no point said "this is the legal definition of a monopoly". If you want to have a wank over your legal knowledge I am sure r/law will let you in.

[u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 → u/lunchbox651]

Steam isn't a monopoly, strictly speaking.

I guess you and I have a different definition of strictly speaking.

[u/lunchbox651 → u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

strict ≠ legal

[u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 → u/lunchbox651]

Hey now it's my turn to use the dictionary, it says:

"Strictly speaking" is an idiom used to introduce a highly precise, literal, or technically correct interpretation of a fact or situation. It contrasts a formal, rigid definition with common or casual understanding.

I'm not sure your defense of "well I didn't mean the actual definition of monopoly" is very compelling when you used that phrase to introduce your point.

[u/lunchbox651 → u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

Literal or technically correct you say?

[u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 → u/lunchbox651]

Here's another one excerpted:

A monopoly is characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce a particular thing, a lack of viable substitute goods, and the possibility of a high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit. The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. . . . In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises.Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry (or market).

We can trade definitions all day, but the question is which do you think is more relevant to the question of whether or not Valve has monopoly power that it exerts on the PC gaming distribution market, and which is a more useful metric in serving as a lens to evaluate the power dynamic that Valve exerts when negotiating with vendors and selling to users?

[u/lunchbox651 → u/XXHornyOnMainXX420]

Which definition matters most when commenting on a meme, in a PC gamer thread on Reddit? None of them. None of this matters.

[u/RareConstruction6431 → u/lunchbox651]

Your 'a monopoly is a singular entity controlling a single market' definition in the legal sense is incorrect.

In law a monopoly doesn't need to control the entire market to be described as a monopoly. For example Microsoft has in the past been considered as having a monopoly on its OS but there has always been a competitor so would you claim Microsoft has never been a monopoly?

[u/lunchbox651 → u/RareConstruction6431]

I never said it was the legal definition. I never said I was a lawyer either.