• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    It’s not about market share, it’s about actually using that market share to negatively impact competition. Steam doesn’t have any sort of exclusivity agreements with anyone, nor do they get paid if a customer buys a key on another platform or on the dev’s own website. There’s no anti-competitive behavior here at all, people use Steam because they like the experience more.

    There’s a massive difference between anti-competitive behavior and just being a really good option. You don’t get broken up because you’re successful, you get broken up because you’re abusing your dominant market position. I have yet to see any evidence that Valve does this.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Game pricing is still based on then taking a 30% cut so it’s negatively impacting consumers because that’s billions in profit that they make and with their dominance they don’t need to actively take anti competitive measures, they’re the default choice.

      It’s like Walmart, they don’t need to actively push mom and pop shops out of the way, they just need to open their doors and wait them out. In theory all they did was offer something great (everything you want in the same place!) but the end result is competition closing their doors.