安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
Actually you seem to misunderstand Monopolies, in fact you quote the wiki but you missed this part
Monopolies tend to become illegal when the entity is taking steps to barr competitors from entering the market which is the exact opposite of Steam which gladly works with other stores like Humble, Gog, etc to offer the games on their platform thru them at no cost to developers.
.....
The “article” sort of a mass regurgitation of a bunch of random things.
But like even by that the 3rd paragraph in says
“ Steam is the world’s largest distributor of PC games, taking up 75% of the global market share. ”
I’m not sure why you’d use this as reference when it says the opposite of your claim?
You want us to hate and abandon Steam not because of what it is doing, but what you fear it might? Fears that have no evidence? Ridiculous.
I have seen people on these forums demand that Steam become what you fear. They have all been comprehensively shot down. Valve shows no sign of being run by the type of insecure, greedy people that feel they have nothing if they don't have everything.
I didn't.. from others source that was from. Thats why i don't understand how they got to these numbers on any of the articles I read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
"Holding a dominant position or a monopoly in a market is often not illegal in itself, however certain categories of behavior can be considered abusive and therefore incur legal sanctions when business is dominant."
https://business-law.freeadvice.com/business-law/trade_regulation/monopoly_power.htm
"If a company has a market share of greater than 75 percent, they will probably be considered a monopoly."
There is far more to it then market shares, as to what is considered a monopoly. What gets a company in trouble for a monopoly is their actions.
If you feel Valve is a monopoly and is abusing it's status, then you are free to contact the FTC with your complaints. There really is no point of discussing it here.
No less than 7 independent copmpeting services and Steam is a monopoly?
https://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Also the word control is no the word Valve or anyone (who knows anything) uses.
Its just a the word used by click baiters and those who parrot click baiers.
Valve is he dominant player in the marke. And in this case. Dominant equates to preferred.
If the majoriy of people ina region prefer o eat at a particular fast food franchaise o of he several operaing in he area does thatt mean the franchaise has a monopoly? No. It just means they're serving food that the people prefer.
Thas how i is wih STeam. No developer is forced to release on Seam. No consuumer is forced o buy on steam. And nothing prevents a developer from releasing on muliple stores. And nothing stops a consumer from buying from multiple stores.
There are no barriers to entry. Ergo Valve does not meet any of the criteria for a monopoly.
People who claim otherwise are likely the same sorts who claim that 50% of a board of directors should be women.
Repeat after me
PUBLISHERS
SET
PRICING
If a “pricing increase” is coming it’s to ALL STORES because guess what
PUBLISHERS SET PRICING
You literally have no idea what you’re talking about. At all
To be fair they PROBABLY are a monopoly, or damn close to one, but people seem to think monopolies are evil or illegal which are false.
They only become that way when they are built in a manner that PREVENTS competition or there is a cost barrier that makes it impossible for a new person to compete. ISP's have that issue often because of the cost of cabling acts as a barrier to any new competition.
Steam on the other hand has no such barriers and actually provides options for anyone wanting to sell their games outside of steam in the form of giving developers keys.
And that has nothing to do with tthe company itself. That's basically just a matter of the company not having teh resources to do what tthey want. Now if it was because the existing ISP was ALSO the main/only distributor of those cables, and/or lobbied the government to restrict the number of licenses and then bouught up all the available licenses. Then thatt would be a monopoly.
They also don't penalize developers for selling on competing platforms outside the steam ecosysttem. There's nothing stopping a developer (at least as far as steam is concerned) from listing their game on Steam, Gog, Origin, EGS, Microsoft, Stadia Itch.io, Amazon, Uplay, and their own website.
Steam has so much competition that teh fact they remain the dominant player says a lot about how much they put into maintaining thatt position.
Lets say if a company makes a CPU and closes up any company that try to make there own CPU by pushing advertising (so the company is never heard of) or by buying out or shutting down companies that come up
That is where its an issue
Nothing is stop in this case developers/publishers to make there own platform, to sell on their own sites, to use one of the other companies that offer to be there platform
If however you make the best vacuum cleaner, just because you are really good with it, then nothing is stopping a new company to come in, they will just have to do there best to become as good as the first company, or enough to pull people to them
Being the best is not a problem that should make a company break up, if it was then the world will have been pretty sad to never get good products
The deference between the CPU and Vacume in this examples is that the CPU can take out horrible slow breaking down CPU's and people will just have to use that as there is no second option
How ever in the vacume case people can buy a second one, or someone can make a new company for one
The CPU is bad for the consumer as they can do what they want, and no one can do anything about it (except maybe law and government)
The Vacume is good for the market as if their price goes too high someone can come up with a cheaper one that maybe doesn't work as well, but it can be much cheaper and people may prefer it simply on that
One is a free market, one is a closed one, so Valve is fine, if Valve start going crazy and trying to do things to just take the money of publishers/developers/users then people can move, they have no need to stay around Steam in the end, they can just take their wallets and move to Epic, GOG, Origin, UPlay and so on
So its not a monopoly
Even more Valve dose very little to make themself a monopoly, if at all they do the opposite, They allow developers to sell games and DLCs on outher platforms with no cost to the developer
They don't pay for exclusive games
They sold themself their own game on PlayStation for a while
Source 2 an engine they are working on was said (At least at the time) to have a free license only thing you do have to do is also sell your game on Steam that used the engine
So as long as you have a store page of the game on Steam, you can just go and also sell your game on GOG, and Epic games or other systems
I like to point out that if you read on the reason there, its not just that google dose really good search
Its because they also pay to make them self default in different places (like mobile phones) and also pushing advertise in search when someone pays to have there search show higher
When Google pays for themself to be default they are blocking more companies from trying to show there search there, that can get problematic, even more on Apple where its a pretty locked down system over all
So its, not the successes are the actions that are the problem in that case
Again though, thats not a bad thing unless that company is actively taking steps to restrict others from participating in the market which steam does the exact OPPOSITE of.
There is nothing wrong with being the dominating player in a market as long as your not using that position to restrict others from competing which Steam doesn't do.
You wannaa beat USain Bolt, you gotta train harder, and run faster than USain Bolt.
There would be no pressure to actually innovate. Since there would be no gain beyond growing to a certain size and actaully a few penalties. It'd be like runninga race where the person in first place is subject to a bullet in the knee.
The only restriction is that the developer is not allowed to sell their game at a lower base price on other platforms. Which is a standard contract agreement in retail.
They will however aselectively acquire development studios hat are making games they deem woth having. See Icefrog. And again. Nothing wriong there.
- Steam is an open platform
- Valve do not target product or developer acquisitions on approach
- Every publisher and developer pays the same entry rate
- They set the prices of their own products
- Valve does not allow for paid advertising
- Valve do not receive any additional fees upon those disclosed
- Valve do not accept payments for perks
- Developers are free to publish elsewhere on independent terms
- Valve do not have any exclusivity ties
So please OP, point of the monopolised control being applied here? Google are being sued because they are actively preventing media from rivals being visible and are prioritising their own content.
What you are suggesting is that publishers and developers now must split from Valve because the Steam Store is big and makes money. Seeing that all devs and pubs are on the same contract, how the ♥♥♥♥ would this work and why should they then be forced to publish to platforms they chose not to in the first place?
Seriously this is one of the most ill-informed, ignorant and beyond stupid threads I have ever read. Typical social justice logic.