this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2025
645 points (96.3% liked)

simpsonsshitposting

3032 readers
898 users here now

I just think they're neat!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Duff CEO with a Windows-Logo on his forehead: "Gamers use Windows because of its' user experience not our de facto monopoly."

Next Image: Duff CEO with Windows-Logo in front of a "Out of Business" sign. Subtitle: "30 minutes after SteamOS is released"

Edit: Yo, I'm not saying this is gonna happen. I just want to say that Windew's UX sucks ass.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Which still doesn't disprove the monopoly claim. Steam can be a monopoly even if people like to use it. Valve could very well change in the future. We can hope for the best, but we're basing a lot on the continued goodwill of a single company.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Steam is a "monopoly" because some devs don't bother selling their games on other stores. If they wanted to make their games available on other stores tomorrow they could do so very easily.

Windows is a "monopoly" because certain software is not compatible with other OSs, if the devs wanted to make them available on other OSs tomorrow that would be very difficult.

Epic is a "monopoly" because they are legally binding devs to not make their games available on other stores. If they wanted to make their games available in other stores tomorrow they are legally not allowed to do so.

Which is to say if Valve changes in the future and becomes shit companies and users can easily leave for other platforms.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Steam is a monopoly because if devs try to sell on other stores, they will make less money. It's a feedback loop. We buy games on Steam because all the games are there, and devs put games on Steam because all the customers are there.

Epic actually tried to get around this by offering very lucrative exclusivity deals to devs. That still didn't work.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Steam is a monopoly because if devs try to sell on other stores, they will make less money.

That doesn't describe a monopoly at all. That just describes the free market.

Epic actually tried to get around this by offering very lucrative exclusivity deals to devs. That still didn't work.

I refuse to touch Epic because of their exclusivity deals. So in my case the exclusivity is actually harmful for sales..

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

That doesn’t describe a monopoly at all. That just describes the free market.

Libertarian much? The free market can and does create monopolies all the time. Libertarian philosophy doesn't believe it because it's an obvious flaw.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 33 minutes ago (1 children)

None of that explains how "devs make more money selling on Steam" makes Steam a monopoly. Especially when as you've already said Epic has tried to pay devs directly for exclusivity as well give them a larger % of sales.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 15 minutes ago

And what did the horrible fanboys do? Boycott any dev who dared to accept an Epic deal.

So developers were forced to ditch Epic or lose sales.