Chebucto Regional Softball Club

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

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.

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 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?

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?

> 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.

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.

Exceptions mean there's no rule, yeah? Minecraft, therefore, 90% marketshare doesn't matter.

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.*

> There are games exclusive to Epic that do just fine. Alan Wake 2 took an entire year to become profitable. It's because the one store everyone uses didn't carry it.

> You might not immediately recognise the name Santa Ragione Because you clickbait vultures don't use proper nouns in your goddamn headlines?