CileTheSane comments on "It's extremely frustrating and also f*cked up" - one of the world's best indie studios is facing shock closure following confounding Steam ban

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca -1 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Monopoly:

1: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

2: exclusive possession or control

3: a commodity controlled by one party

4: : one that has a monopoly

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 11 months ago* (10 children)

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined

Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

Absolute monopolies do not exist. If there's one asshole selling PC games out of a car boot, Steam does not have a literal absolute monopoly. And yet: not even Epic Games, a bajillion dollar company, has any meaningful impact on Steam's superdupermajority control of the PC gaming market. Steam competitors existing does not mean they matter.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.

So again, not what we're seeing at all.

Epic has little impact because Epic is shit at making a store people actually want to use.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 11 months ago (8 children)

Ability. Not a history of doing anticompetitive behavior, just the ability to do it. Monopoly is a precondition to that abuse.

From the same page: "Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns." "Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services."

Is it a fnord? Is there some other word you would understand to mean, there's only one big-ass store people treat as the default, and if they start being dicks, we're all in deep shit?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago (7 children)

Ability

So you think if Steam decided to cancel all of its sales and double the price of everything people would keep purchasing from them? If not then they do not have the ability. We already know they don't have the ability to prevent competition in the market due to the competition in the market.

if they start being dicks, we're all in deep shit?

We're really not. If they start being dicks other stores already exist that we can use instead.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

If Valve bumped their cut from 30% to 40%, do you imagine publishers would rush to EGS? Epic's cut is already 15 points lower than Valve's. It hasn't moved the needle.

Valve kills studios by saying 'no thank you.' They have immense power. They just don't use it in any way that freaks people out. The mere possibility shapes the entire industry. Only niche studios try weird shit, because large studios don't risk poking the bear. Games want to feature nudity and intimacy, but most are so self-censored, they could be televised. The cultural prevalence of nude mods is proof of demand that has been frustrated.

If you'd rather blame Mastercard and Visa openly dictating what art can and can't be sold, by all means, we can talk about their joint control of online payment. But it might get blunt if you insist one store taking Bitcoin means that's not a duopoly.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

Valve kills studios by saying 'no thank you.'

Back to your earlier point: why wasn't Alan Wake 2 on Steam? Did Steam say 'no thank you'?

The mere possibility shapes the entire industry.

If it's such a wide reaching and well known issue, why would any studio choose not to release on Steam? Do you know something they don't?

Games want to feature nudity and intimacy

They they do. Steam has full on porn games on it.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 11 months ago* (4 children)

why would any studio choose not to release on Steam?

Epic gave Remedy a shitload of money, up-front. All exclusivity these days works like that. Nobody wants to reach fewer customers. Some of them are convinced to - some of them are forced to. Alan Wake exemplifies the former, and there's a good chance Remedy regrets the decision.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Some of them are convinced to

So not being on Steam isn't widely known as dooming the game? If everyone knows not being on Steam will force your studio to shut down how could you possibly convince anyone to choose to do so?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

'But if not being on Steam means they can't get enough money, how would more money help?'

You cannot be serious.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (1 child)

You've been saying everyone in the industry knows not being on Steam means your game won't be successful and it warps the industry around it.

You've also been saying that Alan Wake 2 was guaranteed to make a lot of money if they released on Steam.

So given these two arguments you've been making, why would a company choose to make less money by not releasing on Steam?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 11 months ago*

Epic... funded... the game.

Remedy took money up-front, expecting it to be more money than they would make later.

Being on Steam means access to customers, and more sales. You said so. So Epic, to promote the Epic Game Store, estimated how much revenue Alan Wake 2 would lose by not being on Steam, doubled it, and wrote that on a check.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent