Valve hasn't done anything shady, but monopolies are still bad and unhealthy. Both things are true. And there are no other options for less of a cut if you want to actually make sales, pc gamers won't purchase from other platforms.

[–] Theharpyeagle 10 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Monopolies are bad, but is it a monopoly if they naturally gained market share because their product was first and better?

Honestly I'd be fine with them removing the "PMFN" clause, but I'd rather it be a law that it can't be enforced because you know Valve isn't the only one to include it. But even if they did get rid of it, I don't think they'd see a major shift away from their platform.

[–] echo64 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yes, it's unhealthy for the undustry even if you enjoy it today. Gabe newel is old. He's going to retire soon and likely sell the company. You won't like what happens after that, and the fact that so much of the industry is provided via their product means they have a lot of agency to tighten the screws.

"OH but then we'll just use something else". That's not how the monopoly works, you might, most won't. Most of what you want won't be on the something else.

[–] PapstJL4U 2 points 11 months ago

Yes. Yes it is. It doesnot matter how a monopoly was created. It's the definition of a current market state, not behaviour.

In many countries it although does not have be a true monopoly (aka a single object), but a undisputed, sizeable market portion.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

They've had some shady situations, but they tend to walk them back when we lose our shit.