this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2026

660 points (99.0% liked)

PC Gaming

pcgaming@lemmy.ca

15,889 readers

5,866 active

1,051 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 3 years ago

moderators

EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca

UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca

KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC? "As long as Valve is independent and not a publicly traded company," analyst says it looks impossible (www.gamesradar.com)

submitted 1 week ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca

300 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (25 children)

So let me get this straight:

You've previously had paragraphs long posts with someone because they were using the dictionary definition of "monopoly" instead of the legal definition, and then instead of clarifying what definition you are using you let yourself walk into the exact same situation and you accuse other people of not learning?

The dictionary definition of "monopoly" is not wrong, it's in the fucking dictionary. The legal definition is not wrong either, it all depends what you are talking about. Considering the original post wasn't about the legality of the situation at all, there's no reason for someone to assume the legal definition over the dictionary definition.

Then, when someone acknowledges that your definition is also correct you mock them for agreeing with you, then you're surprised when you have difficulty getting people to agree with you.

So it looks like you have no interest in having a meaningful conversation about the topic, and instead just go on and on about a pedantic point that is a distinction without a difference.

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (24 children)

instead of clarifying what definition you are using

I literally did.

and you accuse other people of not learning?

Excuse me for thinking, after I already walked you through this an entire year ago, that you had it straight.

The legal definition is not wrong either, it all depends what you are talking about.

In what universe are you explaining this to me? Considering there's obviously stores besides Steam, there's no reason to infer someone must mean the rigid absolute dictionary definition of monopoly - especially after they repeatedly specify that's not what they fucking mean.

If someone scoffing 'finally you get it' makes you stop getting it, then you did not get it.

Meanwhile.

Back at the point:

Steam is a monopoly. They are the one store that matters, on PC, and being excluded can ruin your game. Either you comprehend this, and accept that that's what the word means when people talk about real markets, or you just plain don't. If it's "distinction without a difference" then why did you spend all this fucking time bickering about the distinction? I'm not the one making it. I'm here telling you, yet again, that the cartoon absolute and a simple supermajority are both forms of monopoly.

Having that power is a concern even if it's not intrinsically an abuse.

parent

hideshow 24 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (23 children)

I literally did.

Your first comment was "What do you think the word means." not "What do you think the word means in a legal sense." Seeing as you've had this whole issue a year ago you should have been able to see this coming and clarify what you were talking about. Especially considering a perfectly reasonable answer to the question "What do you think (word) means" is the dictionary definition.

especially after they repeatedly specify that’s not what they fucking mean.

It was not repeatedly specified. As soon as it was actually specified I continued with that definition.

Back at the point: Steam is a monopoly. They are the one store that matters, on PC, and being excluded can ruin your game.

If that's the point it took you six posts to say anything related to it, so what the fuck were you going on about before that?

If it’s “distinction without a difference” then why did you spend all this fucking time bickering about the distinction?

Your 5 posts before getting to your point was you bickering about the distinction.

And the reason I say it's a distinction without a difference is because it's irrelevant to the point you claim to be concerned about (but took 6 posts to actually make). Let's say Steam had 45% market share and had a dozen competitors with less than 5% market share each. Now Steam is no longer a Monopoly in the legal sense, are you no longer concerned about the amount of power Steam has?

parent

hideshow 23 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (22 children)

Are you kvetching because the most direct possible answer was only the second thing I said? Not counting where I personally explained it to you personally an entire year ago.

After the more recent clarification, you made clear you still thought monopoly meant illegal. "Everyone calling Steam a monopoly is implying that." My response was "The point of acknowledging Steam’s monopoly is recognizing things could go bad."

Now Steam is no longer a Monopoly in the legal sense, are you no longer concerned about the amount of power Steam has?

I'd be massively less concerned. A game off Steam, but on all those competitors, would still be seen by the majority of customers. Those competitors have motivation toward pro-consumer intercompatibility. Customers have a choice based on whatever they consider important - like user interface. Publishers would care about percentages, because the choice is not between giving Valve their pound of flesh, or an anticipated sequel taking two years to break even.

Basically it turns out competition is kind of important for capitalism? The cases where a monopoly works out better are rare... and fragile.

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (21 children)

It was the sixth thing you said, well after you invited me to a conversation you hadn't even started yet. You seem upset that people aren't reading your mind to know what definitions you are wanting to use, or to know the thing you are concerned about is the thing you haven't even said yet. If you want to have conversations with people you need to communicate what's in your head to them first, instead of getting pissy that they aren't responding to the things you haven't said.

I never said Steam being a Monopoly is a good thing, but Steam being a monopoly is not because Steam is a bad thing. I would absolutely love more alternatives to Steam in the market, but that needs to come from competitors who aren't garbage. Calling Steam a monopoly is again irrelevant because what do you propose be done about it? Break up Steam into smaller companies? Steam is a monopoly because it does better than the competition, that's not legal grounds to break it up. Encourage competition? That can be done regardless of Steam being a monopoly. But competition needs to bring more to the table than "not being Steam" in order to be supported.

parent

hideshow 21 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago (20 children)

If "what do you think the word means" was my first comment... that makes the next comment the second.

Calling Steam a monopoly is again irrelevant because what do you propose be done about it?

... you still don't get it. Even now, you're insisting the label demands action. How many times-- literally, I'm asking. How many times do we have to tell you, that's not how it works?

Nobody but y'all are talking about breaking up Valve, because that's what you jump to from the word monopoly. Like the risk of anticompetitive abuse is inseparable from committing that abuse and must therefore be punished. You quoted my link to Cornell explaining that's wrong. Why did it have no lasting impact on your brain?

I just told you, there are times where a monopoly works out better. I told you a year ago and yesterday. I have a root comment in this thread which begins, first thing, "Their monopoly is preferable to many alternatives, but." What comes after the "but" is not 'we must destroy this intolerable stranglehold.' That comment does conclude: "the precondition for abusing a monopoly is being a monopoly." It is a risk. It is a fact to be concerned about, not necessarily an immediate call to action.

The risk is still real when what we do about it is shrug and wait.

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (19 children)

The risk is still real when what we do about it is shrug and wait.

I'm going to quote the thing I said before, that you quoted and didn't actually reply to:

what do you propose be done about it?

You're going on and on about how important it is the we recognize Steam is legally speaking a monopoly, but for the life of me I don't know what your point is. "Steam has a large market share"? No shit. Maybe I'm getting confused because you keep insisting the sky is azure, not blue, and I'm expecting you to have a fucking point where the difference matters.

I don't see any practical difference between "we need to be aware that they could potentially abuse their position" and "shrug and wait."

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (18 children)

If you repeat the question again, the answer will still be, that's not how it works. Me explaining that mistake is the reply. I am only "going on and on" because you continue demanding this explanation, and then, you ignore it.

The sentence you quoted contains the words "what we do about it" followed by what we do about it, and what we do about it is, not much. It is not the sort of problem you necessarily do something about. The reason for saying so anyway is cleverly hidden at the start of the quoted sentence.

It is still a problem. It is still something we have to stay aware of, to prevent complacency... or whatever else you'd call it when simply saying "Steam is a monopoly" unleashes a torrent of denials and accusations, as if the fact must be followed by a call to action obliterating everybody's favorite DRM vendor.

Steam has overwhelming market share, and could abuse that in a heartbeat, in a way that no merely competitive company can. Steam is so large that not being on it, for whatever reason, can be a death knell for sales. They wield such power that their cautious selectivity dictates which games most customers would even see offered - and an accept-all policy would dilute the shopping experience for nearly everyone.

All of that is real even if there's not a safe and satisfying alternative, immediately to-hand. Unless you've got a magic wand laying around, there's nothing I'd ask you to do about this situation, besides maybe could you stop asking me what to do about it? It's a systemic risk. That doesn't mean it's an emergency.

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (17 children)

So your response to Steam being a monopoly is indistinguishable from

shrug and wait.

As I said before, you don't actually have a point other then pedantry. It is very important to you that people use the legal definition of monopoly and apply it to Steam, behaviors don't have to change at all, actions don't have to be taken, but my god you will spend days arguing for the label being used.

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 week ago* (16 children)

It was not a distinction... it was bluntly rephrasing "it's probably fine" in the vain hope it might finally get through. I am explicitly telling you there's no mandatory action, and you're still posturing like that's a gotcha. You don't get it. You never have. I'm not even mad, it's just ridiculous. What sequence of words would help at this point?

Yes, acknowledging Steam's blatant monopoly over the PC gaming market is important, especially when the dryest mention of that fact has people digging their heels in to argue 'nuh uh.' People endlessly parroting 'so what?' are not meaningfully different. You are still implicitly arguing against that label, as if that label demands decisive change.

It is crucial for people to recognize - this is what monopoly looks like. It's never the cartoon absolute, and it's usually really fucking bad. Steam is a vanishingly rare example of a monopoly that works out fine. It is still a monopoly. The "fine" part is far less durable than the "monopoly" part.

I've tried several times to exit this conversation when it sounded like you understood that. I already explained this a year ago and kinda figured, okay, that guy's been told, box checked. I am literally telling you the practical path forward is whatever you were doing already, just so long as you don't deny the obvious. Why did you make this take so long? I possess enough patience and concern, such that if you ask the same confused questions yet again, be it today or next year, I will still try to help you figure out what I have been saying in plain English the entire time. If you consider that a character flaw then maybe we should discuss mistake as well.

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 1 week ago (15 children)

I am explicitly telling you there’s no mandatory action

But you said before

The risk is still real when what we do about it is shrug and wait.

And now your saying to do nothing but shrug and wait.

you are still implicitly arguing against that label

Implicit arguments are allowed now? People insisting that Steam is a monopoly are implicitly arguing action should be taken about it.

In the same vein as your claim that insisting people use the word monopoly, is just insisting on the word used and nothing more; me arguing that the word used doesn't matter, is just me saying it doesn't matter what word you use if the actions are the same and nothing more.

It is crucial for people to recognize...

And then do nothing about it? Why is that so crucial?

Steam is a vanishingly rare example of a monopoly that works out fine. It is still a monopoly. The “fine” part is far less durable than the “monopoly” part.

I don't disagree with you, I just don't see the point you're making other than pedantry. "Steam is fine right now, it might not always be fine, I suggest doing nothing about it" has no practical difference from "Steam is fine. Do nothing about it." The actionables are the same.

I am literally telling you the practical path forward is whatever you were doing already

"I only care about the language being used." As I said, pedantry and nothing else.

be it today or next year, I will still try

And will you be just as upset in a year from now when your failure to say anything of substance has again caused me to not remember you?

Let's take a step back here: You want people to acknowledge that Steam meets the legal definition of a Monopoly. I acknowledged that. We both agree that by the same legal definition Steam is a legal monopoly. We agree that Steam is currently fine but that doesn't mean it always will be. We also agree that beyond these acknowledgements you aren't suggesting any action be taken, or behaviours be changed.

So now we're just arguing about the words used to describe your argument, just like you were arguing about the words used to define Steam: further pedantry. We're not going to find any common ground between you thinking your distinction is meaningful and me calling it meaningless.

parent

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago* (14 children)

And now your saying to do nothing but shrug and wait.

That's what I've said the entire time. That sentence does not mean "the risk becomes real only if we are fools who do nothing." It means "the risk is real even when the appropriate course of action is to do nothing." It is not a distinction.

People insisting that Steam is a monopoly are implicitly arguing action should be taken about it.

No.

it doesn’t matter what word you use

It does because basically any other example would be a problem that needs solving. Even now, it has far-reaching effects, some of them dire, and we tolerate them because any direct solution would be worse. Those problems are still real. The label is still accurate and necessary.

Stop saying it's not a monopoly just because we tolerate it.

I don’t disagree with you

Demonstrably false. If you think saying it's a monopoly requires action, that is the central disagreement.

And will you be just as upset in a year from now when your failure to say anything of substance has again caused me to not remember you?

If you're still telling people an obvious monopoly is not a monopoly if the monopoly is kind of okay, yes, I will still explain why that's the exact same mistake. Internalize the definitions you claim to acknowledge. Stop saying it's not a monopoly just because we tolerate it. You cannot agree that it meets the definition and still argue about the words used. That's denying it meets the definition.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 week ago (13 children)

You want people to acknowledge that Steam meets the legal definition of a Monopoly. I acknowledged that.

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (12 children)

And then you said:

People insisting that Steam is a monopoly are implicitly arguing action should be taken about it.

So I guess the question is - what do you want to do about it? If you are in fact saying it is a monopoly (and you're not just saying you say it's a monopoly) and saying it's a monopoly must necessarily imply a call to action: what is that action?

The right answer is that there is no such call. So maybe you could stop insisting there is, and about ninety percent of this conversation would fall under 'sure, oops, nevermind.'

Meanwhile any conversation about Steam's marketshare - for example an article asking "Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC?" - kinda has to bring this up anyway. It has an impact... and a lot of people will implicitly or explicitly say nuh-uh, at length.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

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

Meanwhile any conversation about Steam’s marketshare - for example an article asking “Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC?” - kinda has to bring this up anyway. It has an impact… and a lot of people will implicitly or explicitly say nuh-uh, at length.

Except, the article doesn't say the word "monopoly" anywhere in it. If you wanted to have a conversation about Steam's market share you could have just mentioned Steam's market share. Then you don't have to worry about other definitions of monopoly. "Steam has a significant portion of the market share" is true regardless, and easily followed with "and that's a concern because..."

But you're not interested in a clearly communicated conversation. You're just arguing semantics and pretending you're making a point.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 week ago (10 children)

So you acknowledge it fits the definition people actually use, but calling it the thing it is must be "arguing semantics?" The fuck.

Steam's market share is a monopoly. That is the subject whether someone uses the word or not. That's why it's so goddamn weird that people circle the wagons whenever they hear it applied to this one blatant example. That's either kneejerk denialism based on brand loyalty, or a cartoonish misunderstanding of how markets work. Or apparently a third thing where you insist you agree but also nuh-uh.

The comparison you used was calling the sky azure versus calling the sky blue, and you - yooou - are the one insisting that it must be one and not the other. You are the one giving me shit for using a label you claim to acknowledge as factually correct. But I am talking about Steam's overwhelming market share. Because it's a monopoly. That's what the word means. They're the same thing.

This conversation basically goes: 'This room's really crowded.' Yeah, there's an elephant in it. 'That's not an elephant! Elephants gore people.' Followed by a literal year of explaining, even if this elephant does not do a thing which elephants can definitely do, it's still a goddamn elephant.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 6 days ago (9 children)

Fact: Steam meets the legal definition of Monopoly

Fact: Steam does not meet the dictionary definition of Monopoly

Fact: Steam has an obscenely high market share regardless of which definition you are using.

Please let me know which fact you disagree with.

Give the conversation you remember so well from a year ago, you are well aware some people will have the dictionary definition of monopoly in mind. Likely because it is the most accessible. You could have bypassed all this nonsense about facts 1 and 2 if you just went straight to fact 3, but that would have required you actually caring about fact 3 more than fact 1.

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 days ago (8 children)

'Some people insist it's not a monopoly' is restating the problem.

Any discussion of Steam's overwhelming market share requires the question 'why does overwhelming market share matter?' and the answer is 'because that's a monopoly.' We could dance around the word itself, and just describe an elephant, but that only delays when people with misconceptions hear the word for this animal and go 'nuh-uh.'

That delay would be worse - because it allows for people who acknowledge all the reasons Steam is a monopoly, and all the reasons that monopoly is a systemic risk, but will still insist with kneejerk certainty that Steam doesn't count. It's some other distinct thing, despite the absence of difference. That denialism is a lot harder to deal with than just telling people:

Real markets never have absolute monopolies.

When people say monopoly, they mean the legal definition.

Dictionaries which do not reflect that use are incomplete.

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 6 days ago (7 children)

why does overwhelming market share matter?' and the answer is 'because that's a monopoly.'

That's a tautology. It would be equally relevant to say "why do monopolies matter? The answer is because that's an overwhelming market share."

Neither the word "monopoly" nor the phrase "overwhelming market share" inherently share the concerns of that situation. You've even been arguing that the using the word monopoly doesn't actually matter: "do nothing about it, keep doing what you've been doing is fine".

And to be clear: are you saying to disagree with the fact that Steam does not satisfy the dictionary definition of monopoly? Or with that fact that people are more likely to be familiar with the dictionary definition rather than the legal definition?

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 6 days ago (6 children)

It's cute how the word is interchangeable with the situation only when it suits your bickering.

When people think the word can only mean the cartoon absolute, weee shooould fiiix thaaat. I sure the fuck have not been arguing the word doesn't matter - rather the opposite, at length. You just keep insisting risks don't matter until they become actionable problems.

We must recognize this monopoly, because of the potential problems it can cause, even if those problems are at present only potential.

We really fucking ought to use the word specifically for this situation, because people already fucking know why monopolies are bad, even if they're confused about what monopolies are.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 6 days ago (5 children)

even if they're confused about what monopolies are.

So if you just said obscenely large market value that doesn't diminish or minimize the risk, and neatly avoids the confusion about what monopolies are.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 days ago* (4 children)

We could dance around the word itself, and just describe an elephant, but that only delays when people with misconceptions hear the word for this animal and go ‘nuh-uh.’

That delay would be worse - because it allows for people who acknowledge all the reasons Steam is a monopoly, and all the reasons that monopoly is a systemic risk, but will still insist with kneejerk certainty that Steam doesn’t count. It’s some other distinct thing, despite the absence of difference.

Pretending there's a difference doesn't avoid the confusion... it is the confusion.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 days ago (3 children)

If there's no difference in meaning then it doesn't matter which you use. If there's a difference in understanding it makes more sense to choose the clearer option.

As I said before: we're not going to find a middle ground between you claiming your distinction is meaningful, and me saying it's meaningless. One we remove that from the conversation there's nothing left because you haven't really said anything else.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Are you sure? Will you finally stop saying that the label implies a call to action, next time someone uses it? Even if that someone is me, yet again?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 point 5 days ago (1 child)

Yes, I fully agree you've said nothing at all.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 point 5 days ago

You think that's an insult when it's a breakthrough. Assuming it's true this time. You've already lied about it repeatedly, before circling right back to the same irrelevant assertions. If you finally understand the simple reality of the situation and have a low opinion of how plain it is, that beats the hell out of actively refusing to get it or shut up about it.

parent