1270
submitted 5 months ago by federino@programming.dev to c/steam@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

I think the whole "monopoly bad" notion is a bit off. You start opposing monopolies, but then people realized that duopolies are also bad, and next thing you know we talk about triopolies and centiopolies and whatnot.

So I think the actual number is not the thing that matters, and instead the thing we should be worrying about is cartels.

The defining feature of a cartel is the ruthless action it takes to kill competition. The monopolies everyone are so mad about are cartels of single companies, but the bad thing about them is their cartellic behavior - not the fact they are along in the market.

Steam is not a cartel.

[-] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

That's like being okay with a dictator because they're a benevolent dictator. Even if things are good in that moment, you're bound for enshittification when that person is no longer in power, a la the fears of the OP.

[-] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

More like a democracy with no term limits and a leader with 90+% popularity rate.

Sure, steam looks powerful, as if they can do whatever they want. But you have to look at why steam is so powerful, it's because people like steam. If steam uses that power for anticompetitive behavior, people will stop liking steam and it will lose a lot of power.

Just like if the leader does something that the people don't like, suddenly the approval rating is no longer at 90+% and he loses the next election.

[-] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

Oh so its ok because they haven't exercised their power in a way you don't like yet. Makes perfect sense.

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago

Yes. The subtle distinction between having physically fit legs capable of kicking babies and actually kicking babies.

[-] sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works 5 points 5 months ago

This would be a good metaphor if there was a massive financial incentive to kick babies.

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Maybe not financial, but intrusive thoughts are a thing...

[-] ulterno@lemmy.kde.social 2 points 5 months ago

A nice word choice.
I'm going to use it this way next time.

[-] Spedwell@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

See my other comment in this thread. Steam does exhibit what you call "cartellic behavior".

[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

Attack from that angle then, not from something that strongly correlates with it.

[-] Spedwell@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago
[-] AeonFelis@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Sorry. Terrible wording on my part.

My argument is that instead of attacking Valve for being big, you should attack them for doing bad things. Your "other comment in this thread" (I assume https://lemmy.world/comment/10668748 ?) describes an aggressive practice done by Valve. Why not lead with that? The problem is not the size of these companies per se, but the way they've reached that size and the way they weaponize it against competitors. Focusing on attacking the size and the monopoly status of the companies is just saying "it's not okay to be successful".

this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
1270 points (97.1% liked)

Steam

25 readers
18 users here now

Steam is a video game digital distribution service by Valve.

Steam News | Steam Beta Client news

Useful tools:
SteamDB
SteamCharts
Issue tracker for Linux version of Steam

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS