> that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. So again, not what we're seeing at all. Epic has little impact because Epic is shit at making a store people actually want to use.

One example does not mean most.

*Ability.* Not a history of doing anticompetitive behavior, just the *ability* to do it. Monopoly is a precondition to that abuse. From the same page: "Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal; however, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns." "Finally, the monopolist may have a legitimate business justification for behaving in a way that prevents other firms from succeeding in the marketplace. For instance, the monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services." Is it a fnord? Is there some other word you would understand to mean, there's only one big-ass store people treat as the default, and if they start being dicks, we're all in deep shit?

> If Steam not hosting your game causes your studio to shut down, it’s not because Steam is being some unreasonable gatekeeper. It’s because you’re making something that there isn’t any market for, or so little of a market that your only hope is to get it visible to as many people as possible so the tiny fraction of them that are interested can keep you afloat. You *know* being on Steam means crucial access to more customers. To most customers, in fact. The games that do well, despite being invisible to the supermajority of customers, are the exceptions. Nobody gets dropped from EGS or Itch and goes "oh no, we're ruined, we're only on Steam now." But the opposite happens repeatedly. The reason is not complicated.

Firmly agree, I think their primary issue is it's hard to find a game that they refuse that would be a decent game to back that type of cause. This is just due to the nature of the games that get rejected on Steam. They're the controversial leaning style games. This one in particular for sure isn't a good choice, because of the underage controversy but, all of these style games are also going to have a pretty vocal and not so small group against this type of effort.

> The reason is not complicated. Right: there's not a market for AAA torture porn / sexual abuse games.

> Ability So you think if Steam decided to cancel all of its sales and double the price of everything people would keep purchasing from them? If not then they do _not_ have the ability. We already know they don't have the ability to prevent competition in the market due to the competition in the market. > if they start being dicks, we're all in deep shit? We're really not. If they start being dicks *other stores already exist* that we can use instead.

Apparently there is. But you can't access enough of it unless you're on the one store that really counts. If only there were words for one company arbitrarily restricting who gets to reach customers.

If Valve bumped their cut from 30% to 40%, do you imagine publishers would rush to EGS? Epic's cut is already 15 points lower than Valve's. It hasn't moved the needle. Valve kills studios by saying 'no thank you.' They have immense power. They just don't use it in any way that freaks people out. The mere possibility shapes the entire industry. Only niche studios try weird shit, because large studios don't risk poking the bear. Games want to feature nudity and intimacy, but most are so self-censored, they could be *televised.* The cultural prevalence of nude mods is proof of demand that has been frustrated. If you'd rather blame Mastercard and Visa openly dictating what art can and can't be sold, by all means, we can talk about their joint control of online payment. But it might get blunt if you insist one store taking Bitcoin means that's not a duopoly.

> If only there were words for one company arbitrarily restricting who gets to reach customers. Freedom of association? Valve is not obligated or required to host everyone's game if they don't want to.

> Valve kills studios by saying 'no thank you.' Back to your earlier point: why wasn't Alan Wake 2 on Steam? Did Steam say 'no thank you'? > The mere possibility shapes the entire industry. If it's such a wide reaching and well known issue, why would any studio *choose* not to release on Steam? Do you know something they don't? > Games want to feature nudity and intimacy They they do. Steam has full on porn games on it.

*One* company restricting access to *most* customers is a different thing. And it becomes a problem for everyone.

> why would any studio choose not to release on Steam? Epic gave Remedy a shitload of money, up-front. All exclusivity these days works like that. Nobody *wants* to reach fewer customers. Some of them are convinced to - some of them are forced to. Alan Wake exemplifies the former and there's a good chance Remedy regrets the decision.

So what do you propose? Is there some action Steam is doing that they should be legally stopped from? As far as I am aware Steam has the most customers simply because those customers prefer it.

> Some of them are convinced to So not being on Steam _isn't_ widely known as dooming the game? If everyone knows not being on Steam will force your studio to shut down how could you possibly convince anyone to choose to do so?

'But if not being on Steam means they can't get enough money, how would more money help?' You cannot be serious.

Here's the funny part: it's probably fine. AND YET, people will twist themselves inside-out to deny the premise. Your root post fully admitted the accusation: If you're not in this one store, you lose access to most customers. That's a fucking monopoly. As I've explained to people, [over](https://sh.itjust.works/comment/11273823) and [over](https://sh.itjust.works/post/21848271/12561312) and [over](https://sh.itjust.works/post/27285305/14714870) and [over](https://sh.itjust.works/post/32680183/16663477), anti-competitive practice is a separate thing. Monopoly just means market share. It's enough power to *become* a problem. It is the *ability* to fuck people over. We need to recognize these situations, *before* they ruin everything. For comparison, Netflix was a monopoly, and I think the entire world would be happier if that was still the case. But saying so doesn't mean they weren't a monopoly. For a good while there, your choices for legal streaming video were Netflix, or lying to yourself about legality.

> Here's the funny part: it's probably fine Then what have you been going on about all this time? You' been saying repeatedly that it's a problem and now you're saying it's probably fine? Pick a lane. > If you're not in this one store, you lose access to most customers. Customers who want your product can still access it. > That's a fucking monopoly. Not by the dictionary definition nor the legal definition you cited. > We need to recognize these situations, before they ruin everything. But "it's probably fine." > And gaming would be better-off if every game was in every storefront Which most of them are. For a while Epic was refusing games that wasn't signing exclusivity deals with them, but that ended up not working out for them. In the past Walmart has refused to sell music of artists with content they disagreed with. Was that Walmart exploiting it's market share, or a business choosing what they do and do not stock? > instead of one store being a huge fucking deal and the rest being nearly irrelevant. Again, what should we do about that?

You've been saying everyone in the industry knows not being on Steam means your game won't be successful and it warps the industry around it. You've also been saying that Alan Wake 2 was guaranteed to make a lot of money if they released on Steam. So given these two arguments you've been making, why would a company choose to make less money by not releasing on Steam?

*Standard Oil* never had an absolute monopoly. Look me in the eyes and tell me they don't count. Argumentum ad Webster is a fallacy. Words mean what they are used to mean, and what they are understood to mean. The goddang FTC has a page explaining: "Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct." The kind of monopoly we *break up* still has competition. It's only about market share and power. When a company dominates any industry, they obviously have power that could easily be abused, even if they do not abuse it. Do you understand that the potential for abuse is a problem, even if it's a different kind of problem than abuse occurring? You can't prevent things by waiting until they happen. > Was that Walmart exploiting it’s market share Yes. Obviously. It was preachy corporate censorship on a scale we hardly recognize today. One company being so big means some art doesn't get made. Walmart's an excellent example for how absolute monopoly is not required. Obviously there's other supermarkets. But some companies drop entire product lines if Walmart doesn't pick them up. This one store represents enough of the market that any investment is immediately considered a loss. Being in or out is such a big fucking deal that products are tailored to that *store,* rather than to *customers.* > Again, what should we do about that? Practically speaking? Nothing, because this monopoly has not abused its power. They don't seem likely to. And yet: it's still there. Things change. Shit happens. If Gabe's yacht sinks and Larry Ellison buys the company, *maybe* everyone decides EGS ain't so bad, but there's a world of lesser horrors that wouldn't spook the herd.