• candybrie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    If they hiked prices above what other stores offered, consumers would leave. If they lowered prices to be untenable for developers, developers would leave, and consumers would follow (they’d probably grumble, but they’d go where the games are). There isn’t a lock in for future sales on either side. So do you think they can do whatever they want with prices with no consequences?

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      If you’re big enough and people are dependent on your product then no they won’t simply leave.

      It’s not like owning a DVD deciding your next DVD player won’t be a Sony because you don’t like them. The products that you “own” are dependent on Steam, of you’ve got thousands of games on there you can’t just leave and bring your library with you to another platform.

      • Ænima@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s the same for any digital platform, though. Literally, any gaming store except for GOG won’t let you take your library with you. You don’t own the game as far as any of them are concerned. You’re claiming Steam is some kind of monster because their platform for games you don’t own is better than other platforms for games you don’t own. Because their platform doesn’t sucks, it earns them a lot of business. That’s it. That’s the magic sauce.

        With options, if Stream sucked, people would go elsewhere.

        If Steam had anything resembling a monopoly they’d do everything they could to remove platforms offering the same games. The number of platforms has only expanded since they started.

        If Stream was a monopoly, they’d not only undercut others, they’d pay for exclusivity rights. Steam let’s developers sell their own keys from anywhere the developer wants, while taking no cut when that happens, even though Steam still has to front the bandwidth and storage for the game to be played.

        If Steam was a monopoly, they’d buy up smaller firms, buy businesses with similar, but competing services, or take another company’s product, reverse engineer it, and make their own undercutting the original. They’ve done the opposite at every turn.

        You really don’t understand monopolistic tactics. You’re not going to understand it, either, since you’ve continues to conflate good business decisions that earn trust and adoption with anti-consumer practices. Steam makes good business decisions, listens to their customers and developers about ways to make the service or products better, and has more business because of it. They have a better product without stooping to the air a in lot of current businesses are pulling.

        That’s it. 70% market dominance doesn’t fucking matter. They could have 90% and it still wouldn’t be a monopoly with their current strategy. Other businesses need to suck less.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          You should review your definition of monopoly because it doesn’t imply bad behaviour by the party in a monopolistic position, it just means they have enough control over the market to sway it in the direction that they way, may they do it or not doesn’t matter and that’s exactly the power that Valve has over the PC gaming market, hence why competitors can’t succeed and companies end up just closing their platform and making their games available on Steam instead.