Both things are currently true, they are a monopoly which is not good, but they are also acting nicely for the most part and not fucking people over despite their position

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

they are a monopoly

They are not, they're just a really good service so people use them more than the others

Epic, GOG, Itch, etc. still exist and are widely used

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yea, the same way youtube isn't a monopoly... Except for all practical purposes it is.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Except for all practical purposes it is.

Except it's not, because you can go to multiple other sources

More than YouTube, even, and even YouTube isn't a full monopoly, though it's a lot closer than Steam is

Monopolies aren't just "big companies' you know

[–] Saryn@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You're right - monopolies aren't just big companies. But a lack of monopoly is also not simply having access to alternatives. You can have all kinds of alternative services - that notion alone does not disprove the claim that Steam is a monopoly.

[–] MrFinnbean@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Monopoly literally means that single entity has exclusive right to the market. Like for example in Finland VR (valtion rautatie, goverments railways) or Alko (only shop that can legally sell spirits for consumers).

There is also term called natural monopoly where getting in to the marked is impossible. Like railways in USA.

Steam is neither.

There is GoG, Epic, itch.io, Microsoft store and like ten smaller stores that are straight competitors for Steam.

Being market leader does not mean they have monopoly and if Steam somehow blunders the goodwill they have with gamers and devs there will be alternatives.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com -2 points 1 day ago

A company does not need total market share to be a monopoly even in legal terms