Yeah, it's a monopoly. That's not a value judgement. It's not calling them evil or criminal or anything. It is a necessary recognition of their market position. I.e. - they have competitors, but those competitors *do not matter.*

> they have competitors So not a monopoly.

> Exceptions mean there's no rule, yeah? 1) when you're arguing that it's impossible for a game to make a profit without Steam, yes 2) my post was in reply to you listing a single game that wasn't profitable for a year and blaming that on it not being on Steam. If my example is not a valid argument then you shouldn't have argued that way in the first place.

Absolute monopolies are fiction. Standard Oil only ever controlled 85% of America's oil. Monopoly is when your competition does not matter - not when it does not exist. There will always be *someone* competing with you. But if I open Mindbleach's Video Emporium and move six units per quarter, the impact on Steam is approximately dick. So is Epic's.

> impossible Strawman. It is demonstrably much harder for games to profit, when they're not on Steam. Exceptions are rare viral hits. Alan Wake 2 was a popular and acclaimed game, and it did terribly on PC specifically, because it wasn't on the one storefront that handles an overwhelming majority of PC sales. The difference between PC games not on Steam and iOS games not on the App Store is *slim.* So yes, there *are* games exclusive to Epic that do just fine, *but not many.* Odds say, fucked. Being unavailable on Steam means most PC gamers will not consider buying it, and may never even be aware of it. We have a word for that.

> Alan Wake 2 was a popular and acclaimed game, and it did terribly on PC specifically Exceptions mean there’s no rule, yeah?

[Monopoly: ](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly) > 1: **exclusive** ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action >2: **exclusive** possession or control >3: a commodity controlled by **one party** >4: : **one** that has a monopoly

Their previous game seems like a proper hand-drawn stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqDalFNDdAw

i think we’re missing the forest for the trees here by arguing wether valve should’ve allowed the game or not. the fact that valve is in such a dominant position that them refusing to sell a game can mean not only the game’s failure, but the shutdown of the studio making it, is a big problem. and it’s not just this game, after the payment processor affair, [VILE: Exhumed](https://dreadxp.com/vile-is-banned/) (a game about sexual assault) was banned from steam (for being about sexual assault), before it could even release game devs shouldn’t have to rely on just one vendor’s approval to sell their stuff, it’s an unhealthy ecosystem.

I have to disagree to be honest. Not because I think that they should allow a naked guy with a young girl(gross), but because in the time that it took for steam to review the game and give a verdict, they had already changed it on their own to be a different model. For them to refuse re-submission of the game is pretty dumb, considering that the offending content(if that is what it was) had already been fixed in the release build and steam was operating under old information. If they haden't already changed it for the release candidate I would be fully on board, but clearly they saw wrong in it as well which was why they had changed it prior to steams decision. Steam forced an early release build of the game way earlier than they normally asked for, which meant it was exactly that, a pre-release build, meaning it had not gone through the proper channels for vetting or checking to make sure that what they wanted to publish was a final product. Then when requested for a review of the actual final build, steam refused. This combined with the fact that the only storefront that blocked the release was steam, I definitely think steam is the bad guy here.

I have definitely noticed an uptick in the number of articles attacking Steam. I find all of them to be a little over blown.

https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance/competition-guidance/guide-antitrust-laws/single-firm-conduct/monopolization-defined > Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors. That is how that term is used here: a "monopolist" is a firm with significant and durable market power.

Struggling is the rule, not the exception. Most games do much worse when they're not on Steam. Most means more. Do you understand that?

> 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.

It's also far from the first time Steam's content review process has stirred up controversy--even before Collective Shout--which is ultimately the reason why this is getting so much run in games media right now. At some point Steam has to get their shit together, start hiring people, and revamp their scattershot content review system before they get on the wrong side of an incident by either letting something through that stirs up a shitstorm and Congress gets involved, or pissing off the wrong publisher and having the ESA come down on them. That said, I don't think this particular game is the horse to back for this effort, so to speak.

> 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.

*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?