It's worth noting Apple was actually bailed out by Microsoft in 1997. Their primary motivation of course was to look less like a monopoly in the personal computer space.

Whether Microsoft ran a monopoly or not, Valve certainly does not. It has numerous competitors, and other than a few titles its exclusives are all exclusive because the companies don't want to bother releasing elsewhere. It's very different from Windows 3.1 and Microsoft Word basically being essential for every business at a certain point in time.

Given Valves lawyers successfully argued computer games are not software they'd cite GoG as the abusive monopoly.

I didn't read the replies because.... WTF? Steam a monopoly??? Was that even a serious question?

At first I thought the OP was bat shit crazy, but then I saw Steam's new logo.

Now I'm not so sure.

You said what I said but with more detail and anger. They don't bother releasing elsewhere because it's not worth the trouble. That's not a monopoly.

Urban myth. What actually happened was Microsoft (and Intel) got caught red-handed copying Quicktime source code, so they settled with Apple, with an agreement to maintain a Mac version of Office, the companies would cross-license patents, plus Microsoft made a $150 million Apple stock purchase. That wasn't nothing, but Apple, while having difficulties, still had a couple billion in the bank at that time. (Microsoft went on to sell the stock several years later...oops, shoulda waited!) Microsoft's primary motivation was "crap, we lost a lawsuit," nothing to do with monopolies.

Yeah, it's a monopsony. But Steam like behaviour is potentially illegal without being a monopoly, the only thing it requires absolutely is ability to unfairly manipulate the market. I think in most cases they'd be able to argue that the consoles etc provide competition, where they'd have potential problem is with steamworks and it being a loss leading ecosystem lock in.

That's similar to what got MS in trouble with Internet Explorer- free software, bundled with windows, obvious consumer win big thanks to BillyG for his generosity! Also obviously not a monopoly because you there was Opera (I think, been a while)/ Netscape/ Mosaic/ Lynx etc and you had OS2/ Linuces/ Apple etc for OS. Except, of course, it was an attempt to monopsonise the internet after MSN tanked, was subsidised and released for free due to the dominance of windows and was not actually designed to be beneficial to consumers, but to get everyone using Microsoft's own browser.

And, of course, a certain Gabriel Newell cut his teeth in the bosom of Microsoft during its most monopolistic phase. All the 'pro consumer' steamworks features that people can't do without stem not from generosity but from lock in and Microsoft's infamous 3 E philosophy. Case in point, Workshop. Wasn't really needed when Nexus exists, was created to get more steam ecosystem lock in and position for paid mods. Workshop mods are locked away in the Valve Vault even if there is a non steam game version.

[I take far too long to write my replies]

If games were only released through Steam, it might be considered a monopoly, but since many games are released across multiple stores/launchers/DRM etc. it's probably not. (and not every game needs to be released through multiple digital outlets)

A few years back when almost the only way to buy games was Steam there may have been a possibility of it being classified a monopoly, but nowadays? No, probably not

And why should it be? People have enough choice atm for most games on offer that it's mostly a non issue(for now).

======
======

That's likely due to that pesky thing we humans have called cognitive dissonance/bias.

==========

Again, MS was needed for actual work and business so people made an exception and fought such.....games are not as needed.

Your argument could only hold water if Steam were pursuing an Epic Games like policy of exclusive releases. I looked, though only briefly, but could find no evidence at all that steam have required a publisher to not release on anything but Steam. I suspect the reason for this is that they're one step ahead of you on the whole competition law thing.

Without exclusive releases there's a freedom for market forces to compete with Steam, they can offer better deals or margins in order to make them release on their platform. In fact Epic Games went on the record to say the reason they are doing exclusive releases is because Steam is not offering games publishers a fair share (screwed up logic IMO as that would indicate they'd all flock to the new platform offering these better deals).

I can't see anything that would incriminate Steam in unfairly manipulating the market, there's no contractual lock in, and development costs for lock in is incredibly subjective.

Lots I don't like about Steam, but a first year law school student could rip to shreds in court all the arguments in this thread that Steam is a monopoly.or ven that they are doing anything illegal.

Great post +1


(Waits for trolls to downrate this post for being nice to someone like always)

Steam is the best, Steam DRM is easiest to crack. You could say that Steam is DRM free. That's why many developers include in their games other DRM's than Steam. Is up to you if you crack the game bought from Steam or just use all Steam's features... useful features like cloud save, multiplayer and latest updates. Yep, GOG doesn't receive updates for all the games and many games (like Saint's Row franchise) do not support multiplayer. That's because GOG doesn't have a monopoly, they are 2nd rate because they don't fool enough gullible people to buy games on their platform because their platform is DRM free... sorry GOG, it's just the truth. Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand trying to make a better world by not buying games with DRM wont work because there are too many people enjoying, right now, the best games on the best platform with the best associated services with DRM included... sorry GOG :D. If you want to make a better world save a puppy.

Just to be clear, i dont have anything against GOG. For me GOG is still Good Old Games, I buy old games that i never play. And they do a great job, i have never thought that i would find a Blizzard game on GOG but there they are. But they dont do a great job competing with Steam. GOG Galaxy 2 was my last hope but it sucks, they sell Blizzard games but GOG Galaxy 2 doesn't support Battle.net. WTF? :D. You can't organize the games any way you want and even if you want to waste time to organize games, there are websites (that do not require a application) that do the same thing but better (it should've been web based). Even more, they recommend the most played games, Fortnite and other shit, that they dont even sell and on a platform where i don't even have a account. WTF? :D. I wonder, do they get paid to advertise other platforms or are they THAT stupid, to do it for free :D. And even if they get paid, why would I want ads on my PC, any type of ads, but especially ads to a platform that sell DRM games that comes from a platform that brags about a DRM free ideology :D. That's maximum hypocrisy OR max stupidity, i don't know and i hope i will never find out :D.

Done :|