Steam = not a monopoly; Epic = monopolistic practices

[Turbo Nozomix]

There is a large amount of misinformed dogma circulating about who is a monopoly and what a monopoly is, and that they're simply bad without explanation, with the result being that people are mindlessly claiming that Steam is a monopoly and equally mindlessly claiming that Epic is positive competition, making it important that these things are clarified so that people can understand what they're actually arguing for or against:

Steam has never been a monopoly, and monopolies aren't even bad unless they become abusive by doing this like, and this is an explicit example of a monopolistic practice, engaging in exclusionary practices such as paying for 3rd-party game exclusives.

It isn't just the word "monopoly" that people are using incorrectly, but also the term "exclusive". For example, a publisher choosing, free of coercion, to sell their game on one platform and not others is not an case of exclusionary practices. But, paying the publisher so that they don't sell their game on other platforms so that competition with other platforms can be avoided is an example of an exclusionary practice.


First, here's what "exclusive" means:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/exclusive?s=t

- not admitting of something else
- omitting from consideration or account
- shutting out all others from a part or share


Next, here's what a monopoly is:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly

- exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market
- an exclusive privilege
- the exclusive possession or control of something
- a company or group that has such control
- the market condition that exists when there is only one seller


Finally, let's look at when a monopoly is considered to be a negative or criminal thing, and when it isn't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Law

Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices. It may also be noted that it is illegal to try to obtain a monopoly, by practices of buying out the competition, or equal practices. If one occurs naturally, such as a competitor going out of business, or lack of competition, it is not illegal until such time as the monopoly holder abuses the power.

Now, put the meanings of all these things together:

Valve have never restricted publishers or developers from selling their games on other platforms. In fact, Valve have encouraged it. If a publisher chooses to not sell their games on another platform, it isn't because there's an exclusive restriction or anything preventing them from doing so, but because they have decided that there isn't value in selling on another platform because gamers themselves don't want to buy on other platforms.

And when games don't want to buy on other platforms like, Origin and Uplay, it's typically because other platforms are inferior to another option. If gamers don't want to buy on other platforms due to quality of service differences, then publishers don't have a strong motivation to sell on those other platforms and they lose no money by instead selling it on the platform where all those people are eager to buy their games from.

None of that is exclusivity or monopoly. That is honest and open competition in the market deciding which platform performs well and which perform less well. No other platform is prevented from developing new features and improving their policies so that they become more attractive and comparably attractive as Steam. That's the specific positive market influence that is meant and referred to when "competition" is cited as a positive force.


While reading the definitions for "exclusive" and "monopoly", you might have noticed that those definitions apply to Epic. That's right, Epic are engaging in monopolistic practices - the very practices for which the term "monopoly" carries a negative connotation. It isn't being a monopoly that's bad, but it's when a company starts abusing its position as a monopoly to do the things that Epic are doing that monopoly becomes a negative thing.


People arguing that EGS monopolistic practice of paid-for exclusives are good because "competition" have completely turned the meanings of competition, monopoly, and exclusives on their heads and are promoting the antithesis of what they think they are.


Because other platforms exist and Valve have never imposed or encouraged restrictions on publishers doing business with other platforms, and because Valve has never engaged in anti-competitive practices against other platforms, Valve is not a monopoly and has never been a monopoly. And monopolies aren't bad unless the position of being a monopoly becomes abused - such as by engaging in anti-competitive practices like preventing publishers from doing business with other platforms by paying them loads of money for exclusivity deals.



Another point:

I've noticed that the conception many people have of what a monopoly is, is simply popularity. That's not the case.

That conception doesn't describe why a company is popular, and whether it is beneficial or not to customers and to the market. There is no negative result to popularity of a company when the doors to anyone else competing are fully open, as they have been with Valve / Steam.

Popularity on its own doesn't indicate anything good or bad, and has nothing to do with anti-competitive practices or a monopoly.

Similarly, some people appear to me to think that "competition" means comparable sizes of companies in a space. But, that's not accurate, either: Competition is not there being equal size of business and equal size of customer-bases across all businesses. Competition is the lack of restriction on being able to exist and make personal business choices in the same market, and other companies existing in that market.

Anti-competitive practices, exclusionary practices, and anti-consumer policies all reflect negative things to a market, and those are the things that turn a monopoly into a negative thing, and those are the things EGS "competition" arguers are defending.


Popularity of service based on open competition and quality of service and of business policies = not a monopoly

Paid-for exclusives = monopoly


Valve = not a monopoly, not exclusionary, not engaging in anti-competitive practices

Epic = monopolistic, exclusionary, anti-competitive practices


I hope this gets some people to realize that by arguing in favour of Epic's exclusionary and anti-competitive practices on grounds that 'competition is good / monopolies are bad', they're actually doing the opposite of what they think they are doing, and they're defending monopolistic and anti-competitive practices and undermining the example of non-monopolistic and pro-competitive practices that PC digital games customers have been fortunate to have before Epic started engaging in anti-competitive and monopolistic practices.

[Raptor]

- the market condition that exists when there is only one seller
there are hundreds of games that are only sold on steam which is amonopoly on those games.....
doesn't matter what decisions are used to make the choice of the game developer to only sell their game on steam, or if steam is actually at fault or guilty of being the reason, it is still a monopoly on those games.
Did you complain you couldn't buy those games on any of the large online game sellers? If not then you are a hypocrite.

[Raptor]

I had 3 choices of where to buy this game and I bought it on steam because they gave us the option. 2 companies are selling it today. The owner of IP gets to choose how and where the IP is sold.

[Raptor]

Tesla has exclusivity rights to sell their vehicles. Does that mean they have a monopoly on vehicles, or even EV's? Same theory applies to them that you are accusing epic and ubisoft of doing. But they aren't using anti-competitive methods (atleast not by those means) and they obviously don't have a monopoly on vehicles or even EV's

[Turbo Nozomix]

Originally posted by Raptor:

- the market condition that exists when there is only one seller
there are hundreds of games that are only sold on steam which is amonopoly on those games.....

The term monopoly refers to control over a market, not control over an individual item within that market.

Otherwise, you would be asserting that every manufacturer is a monopoly because they have the exclusive right to sell their own product - which they usually then do to various retailers. In that case, "monopoly" would be a meaningless term.

There are other digital distribution platforms. Ergo, Steam is not a monopoly.

Also, many games are sold on Steam because their publishers chose to sell their games on Steam and not other platforms due to the consumer interest being on Steam and not other platforms. A publisher's independent choice of whether or not to sell their game on a particular platform is not a case of the platform engaging in the monopolistic behaviour of exclusives.

Other platforms exist for publishers to make use of, and Valve don't bribe or pay publishers to sell their game exclusively on Steam, and so Steam is not a monopoly in those cases.

doesn't matter what decisions are used to make the choice of the game developer to only sell their game on steam, or if steam is actually at fault or guilty of being the reason, it is still a monopoly on those games.

As stated in my first response, a monopoly is control over a market, not over a single item within the market.

Did you complain you couldn't buy those games on any of the large online game sellers? If not then you are a hypocrite.

That is false.

The OP doesn't say it's bad when a game is only available on one platform. It also doesn't say that a monopoly is necessarily a bad thing. It says the practice of paid-for exclusives is negative, and that a monopoly is only negative when it engages in abusive practices such as paid-for exclusives, and that Steam is not a monopoly.

Originally posted by Raptor:

Tesla has exclusivity rights to sell their vehicles. Does that mean they have a monopoly on vehicles, or even EV's?

As said in my first response, the term monopoly refers to control over a market, not control over an item within that market.

[Profound]

The problem is people only go through Econ 101 which focuses on perfect competition and they never take industrial organization where you move into imperfect competition models.

[Profound]

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

Otherwise, you would be asserting that every manufacturer is a monopoly because they have the exclusive right to sell their own product - which they usually then do to various retailers.

Every manufacturer with a distinct product does engage in monopolistic competition. Given the way that intellectual property rights work, all video games unless they’re practically a clone of another game will operate according to monopolistic competition.

A similar example would be in the physical world: some people consider laptops a generic good and buy based on specs. Others consider a certain brand better than others and pay more.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Steam basically an monopoly on the share on the market pie chart, which is straight up by popularity from the consumers go fig, Steam didn't even gone out of their to do anything that would be abusive, or harmful to others on the market directly compare to few of their other competitors, they all have set rules, and set guidelines for using their store's, but none of it stop any game dev, or publishers from listing on other store at all, except for one thing, that was "exclusivity deals" but this falls into two parts for it, as there good side to it, and bad side to it, and that because if store fund to make said game, then there no reason why can't do a deal for it, but if store paid to say, don't list on my competitors stores only, both are anti consumer, but the latter is the worse for the consumer period, both are pro publisher, or game dev, again not pro for consumer that the bottomline, it's bad either way when limit where to get your games from when comes to 3rd party games. There problems to this as well, when one thinks this may help make game grow, but that not always true, for publishers they're far more likely to drop a game if they see lack of sales numbers go fig, where indie devs it's either make use of it to grow their game, or move onto something else, there no definitive answer what indie dev may do as it vary.

Steam did do exclusivity before that was almost two decades ago, but quickly drop that as a whole, and barely any game did exclusivity deal, but it true that Steam themselves outright try to convince them to also list on more stores to get more exposure & sales giving the consumer more choice where to shop from instead of being tied to only one store, which is actually more good than what the other competitors have ever done really, even far as supporting Linux to giving people more options that their competitors won't do. Publishers are taking notice of Steam giving them aid directly, and indirectly, without even asking for anything in return, they even allow non-steam software to use with their software to use part of it services as well.

There is misinformation where people scream "monopoly", and etc, saying they're bad while failing to know what that is exactly is to begin with, and that's a problem really, as when people see the word monopoly they overly react, and try to pin it as a bad thing, but that depend what was being done in the 1st place to be "BAD", where we have all kinds of internet browsers, and somehow chromium base became the most popular to use, where people think Google did something, but didn't in the 1st place, there nothing was stopping anyone from using another browser that wasn't chromium, even browser chrome, people try to have that broken up because it became too popular even though there was no reason for it really because it wasn't doing anything to stop people from using another browser to begin, same with other browser, before chrome it was Firefox, and see the point it the popularity that driven it to be so successful because it was what the market wanted, it what people wanted, and so on.

Now Gog likely do exclusivity with old games, but that was fair because they took part in fixing those games, or even paying to get those games back on the market, which is good, and there no real problems why they couldn't have a deal to have the game stay in their store.

Steam provide a better service that fits in line with publishers, game devs, and consumers as well, bringing more to the table with features at free of charge, and encourage publishers, and devs to just do what they want with nothing holding them back, all they ask was follow their guidelines, don't abuse them for another store, that was it really.

Epic game store provided "time limited promotions" good thing for consumers, but it's a limited thing only which is the free giveaways, and large coupons, but if they stop doing it then this no longer what keep store in favor really for the consumer as that what actually bringing the consumer to the store beside pushing for exclusivity game's deal, they're more pro dev, and than consumer really. They provided lower sale cut to devs, but will lack things that Steam have, or even GoG that some of the consumers would like to have on their store of choice. One of the big elephants in the room is that they do direct problems to their competitors which is pushing publishers, and game devs to not list on their competitors stores as they want exclusive right to be the go to store only for consumers, pushing for bad monopolistic practices that their other competitors are not doing at all, the only good thing is being time exclusivity, but it still comes down to the publisher, and game dev if they wish to also list on other stores after said exclusivity deal. Epic have done two good things at the very least which was funding two games which is good practice to getting that exclusivity right, such as helping to finishing Walking dead final series, and Alan Wake Remaster, that was it.

Bottom line all stores have pros, and cons that's a fact, some of it will vary on the individual in their own opinion for what those pros, and cons are as well. All the stores run how they see fit, they all have some kind of problems, and some even improve, or became better overtime on some of those problems.


Shop where you want, and show support to publishers that they should list on more stores, not limit where to shop.

[Thick Biscuits]

Originally posted by Toby:

It is not as simple as you think: Steam does have a monopoly power since they have over 25% of the market share.

https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Monopoly.html

while in the US depending on the circuit it's typically between 50 to 80% (most common is ~70%)
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2

all of which Steam has, but that is ok, because Valve doesn't abuse that power. For Epic, they are not even above 25%, so they do get more leeway in what they can do to help obtain market share, but they can only go so far. The FTC does consider exclusive contracts as something that can be good for competition, and what Epic has been doing hasn't caused any harm to stores like GOG that has been increasing in sales revenue despite the existence of EGS. Epic doesn't get enough exclusive games to cause any harm to any other stores including new entrants to the market.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/exclusive-supply-or

which is why Epic hasn't be any governments radar as being a danger to competition. So Steam has monopoly power, but they don't abuse it, Epic does not have a monopoly power, and they don't do anything that has put them on the radar as being a monopolist. In the UK exclusive dealing is also seen as procompetitive when done right.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-007-8096?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Hello Eisberg

[Panky..]

Originally posted by Toby:

It is not as simple as you think: Steam does have a monopoly power since they have over 25% of the market share.

https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Business_economics/Monopoly.html

while in the US depending on the circuit it's typically between 50 to 80% (most common is ~70%)
https://www.justice.gov/atr/competition-and-monopoly-single-firm-conduct-under-section-2-sherman-act-chapter-2

all of which Steam has, but that is ok, because Valve doesn't abuse that power. For Epic, they are not even above 25%, so they do get more leeway in what they can do to help obtain market share, but they can only go so far. The FTC does consider exclusive contracts as something that can be good for competition, and what Epic has been doing hasn't caused any harm to stores like GOG that has been increasing in sales revenue despite the existence of EGS. Epic doesn't get enough exclusive games to cause any harm to any other stores including new entrants to the market.

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/exclusive-supply-or

which is why Epic hasn't be any governments radar as being a danger to competition. So Steam has monopoly power, but they don't abuse it, Epic does not have a monopoly power, and they don't do anything that has put them on the radar as being a monopolist. In the UK exclusive dealing is also seen as procompetitive when done right.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/w-007-8096?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

Did you create a sockpuppet just to respond to this age old post with your shilling? How desperate are you, Eisberg?

[Something Diabolical!]

If Steam is a monopoly it's because they are the only ones who offered the service.
If Epic becomes a monopoly it's because they took away your option to use Steam.

[WhiteKnight]

Originally posted by Turbo Nozomix:

There is a large amount of misinformed dogma circulating about who is a monopoly and what a monopoly is, and that they're simply bad without explanation, with the result being that people are mindlessly claiming that Steam is a monopoly and equally mindlessly claiming that Epic is positive competition, making it important that these things are clarified so that people can understand what they're actually arguing for or against:

Steam has never been a monopoly, and monopolies aren't even bad unless they become abusive by doing this like, and this is an explicit example of a monopolistic practice, engaging in exclusionary practices such as paying for 3rd-party game exclusives.

It isn't just the word "monopoly" that people are using incorrectly, but also the term "exclusive". For example, a publisher choosing, free of coercion, to sell their game on one platform and not others is not an case of exclusionary practices. But, paying the publisher so that they don't sell their game on other platforms so that competition with other platforms can be avoided is an example of an exclusionary practice.


First, here's what "exclusive" means:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/exclusive?s=t

- not admitting of something else
- omitting from consideration or account
- shutting out all others from a part or share


Next, here's what a monopoly is:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly

- exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market
- an exclusive privilege
- the exclusive possession or control of something
- a company or group that has such control
- the market condition that exists when there is only one seller


Finally, let's look at when a monopoly is considered to be a negative or criminal thing, and when it isn't:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly#Law

Competition law does not make merely having a monopoly illegal, but rather abusing the power a monopoly may confer, for instance through exclusionary practices. It may also be noted that it is illegal to try to obtain a monopoly, by practices of buying out the competition, or equal practices. If one occurs naturally, such as a competitor going out of business, or lack of competition, it is not illegal until such time as the monopoly holder abuses the power.

Now, put the meanings of all these things together:

Valve have never restricted publishers or developers from selling their games on other platforms. In fact, Valve have encouraged it. If a publisher chooses to not sell their games on another platform, it isn't because there's an exclusive restriction or anything preventing them from doing so, but because they have decided that there isn't value in selling on another platform because gamers themselves don't want to buy on other platforms.

And when games don't want to buy on other platforms like, Origin and Uplay, it's typically because other platforms are inferior to another option. If gamers don't want to buy on other platforms due to quality of service differences, then publishers don't have a strong motivation to sell on those other platforms and they lose no money by instead selling it on the platform where all those people are eager to buy their games from.

None of that is exclusivity or monopoly. That is honest and open competition in the market deciding which platform performs well and which perform less well. No other platform is prevented from developing new features and improving their policies so that they become more attractive and comparably attractive as Steam. That's the specific positive market influence that is meant and referred to when "competition" is cited as a positive force.


While reading the definitions for "exclusive" and "monopoly", you might have noticed that those definitions apply to Epic. That's right, Epic are engaging in monopolistic practices - the very practices for which the term "monopoly" carries a negative connotation. It isn't being a monopoly that's bad, but it's when a company starts abusing its position as a monopoly to do the things that Epic are doing that monopoly becomes a negative thing.


People arguing that EGS monopolistic practice of paid-for exclusives are good because "competition" have completely turned the meanings of competition, monopoly, and exclusives on their heads and are promoting the antithesis of what they think they are.


Because other platforms exist and Valve have never imposed or encouraged restrictions on publishers doing business with other platforms, and because Valve has never engaged in anti-competitive practices against other platforms, Valve is not a monopoly and has never been a monopoly. And monopolies aren't bad unless the position of being a monopoly becomes abused - such as by engaging in anti-competitive practices like preventing publishers from doing business with other platforms by paying them loads of money for exclusivity deals.



Another point:

I've noticed that the conception many people have of what a monopoly is, is simply popularity. That's not the case.

That conception doesn't describe why a company is popular, and whether it is beneficial or not to customers and to the market. There is no negative result to popularity of a company when the doors to anyone else competing are fully open, as they have been with Valve / Steam.

Popularity on its own doesn't indicate anything good or bad, and has nothing to do with anti-competitive practices or a monopoly.

Similarly, some people appear to me to think that "competition" means comparable sizes of companies in a space. But, that's not accurate, either: Competition is not there being equal size of business and equal size of customer-bases across all businesses. Competition is the lack of restriction on being able to exist and make personal business choices in the same market, and other companies existing in that market.

Anti-competitive practices, exclusionary practices, and anti-consumer policies all reflect negative things to a market, and those are the things that turn a monopoly into a negative thing, and those are the things EGS "competition" arguers are defending.


Popularity of service based on open competition and quality of service and of business policies = not a monopoly

Paid-for exclusives = monopoly


Valve = not a monopoly, not exclusionary, not engaging in anti-competitive practices

Epic = monopolistic, exclusionary, anti-competitive practices


I hope this gets some people to realize that by arguing in favour of Epic's exclusionary and anti-competitive practices on grounds that 'competition is good / monopolies are bad', they're actually doing the opposite of what they think they are doing, and they're defending monopolistic and anti-competitive practices and undermining the example of non-monopolistic and pro-competitive practices that PC digital games customers have been fortunate to have before Epic started engaging in anti-competitive and monopolistic practices.

Nice post. Exactly everything Epic Games does is monopolistic. People will find some excuse and support them. Excuses such has they has low marketshare and it's fine nonsense. They will continue to do until they kill everything off.

[SkiRich]

You can buy Anno 1800 on humble bundle, get a key and download the product from Ubisoft. You can buy it direct from Ubisoft. You do not need to buy it from a software distributor like Epic or even Steam.

This is just a rant.

[Panky..]

Originally posted by SkiRich:

You can buy Anno 1800 on humble bundle, get a key and download the product from Ubisoft. You can buy it direct from Ubisoft. You do not need to buy it from a software distributor like Epic or even Steam.

This is just a rant.

Imagine being ignorant and missing the point.

[General Frost]

epics bs tactics would be easy to fix but problem is gamers are to stupid a lot of the time and will buy it anyways instead of hurting the devs to show we will not tolerate such behavior (Take NFTs right now a lot of devs are dropping them because of the negative reaction). At least some of us are doing so I got this game before knowing it was gonna go exclusive and ever sense I've paid more attention and blacklist any devs or games that do as such. I believe Steam put an end to the tactic of putting a game on steam for advertising then removing it to be exclusive. But like I said it will continue because just like micro transactions there are whales out there that will pay for it instead of standing up against such ♥♥♥♥♥♥ practices.

I have got plenty of games on my backlog not to mention on my wishlist that ill be fine without buying sellouts. Only exclusives im fine with are consoles first party ones as they have to compete with each other to get people to buy their console. For PC they should be giving the players the choice of which platform to use not forcing one or the other. Ill continue to support the platform that my games are on.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

Originally posted by Kena, Spirit Guide:

Originally posted by General Frost:

epics bs tactics would be easy to fix but problem is gamers are to stupid a lot of the time and will buy it anyways instead of hurting the devs to show we will not tolerate such behavior (Take NFTs right now a lot of devs are dropping them because of the negative reaction). At least some of us are doing so I got this game before knowing it was gonna go exclusive and ever sense I've paid more attention and blacklist any devs or games that do as such. I believe Steam put an end to the tactic of putting a game on steam for advertising then removing it to be exclusive. But like I said it will continue because just like micro transactions there are whales out there that will pay for it instead of standing up against such ♥♥♥♥♥♥ practices.

I have got plenty of games on my backlog not to mention on my wishlist that ill be fine without buying sellouts. Only exclusives im fine with are consoles first party ones as they have to compete with each other to get people to buy their console. For PC they should be giving the players the choice of which platform to use not forcing one or the other. Ill continue to support the platform that my games are on.

wait, you are ok with exclusives on consoles because they compete with each other to get people to buy their consoles, but you are not ok with exclusives on the PC in which Epic does it to get people to use their store. There isn't any difference between those 2, but here you are pretending that some how there is a difference... oh wait, there is a difference, on the consoles you have to spend several hundreds of dollars to get the console exclusive vs on PC you just need to download a free piece of software.

First party, not third party. First party refer to games own by the platform/store, third party refer to games not own by the platform/store.

Example first party Steam/Valve is half life, portal, and so that own, or made by Valve, third party such as Activision, Capcom, or etc, let say Skyrim is not made nor own by Valve which make it third party.

Console do this for their first party in order to protect their sales of console numbers, noticable Sony, and Nintendo, or it will hurt them they can't control third party but can give them incentive, such money, or such to make them exclusive to prevent from selling on said stores, or platforms. Similar tactic like Epic trying to push for on PC that not needed, only to drive sales traffic to them by force. Can see example of the almost 4 years of this, and how people choose Steam over Epic on some of the games, and some even rebuy the game on Steam, and not because of Epic hate, it because people wanted to keep their library convenient, or to cut down on launchers.