• rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    When people say Valve doesn’t have a monopoly, they usually mean they don’t engage in anti-competitive practices (like making exclusivity a condition for publishing on their store, cough cough).

    Actually, Valve’s recent moves represent what free market capitalism should be about - when competing stores started to appear, they instead made massive contributions to Linux gaming and appealed to right-to-repair advocates with the Steam Deck. Now both of those demographics are suckling on Gaben’s teats, myself included.

    • HidingCat@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Capitalism and a free economy are good when it’s serving customers by making the best product or service possible, while balancing that with paying labour to make that happen.

      The problem is that nowadays, there’s a third party to this for the megacorps: Shareholders, which is where the enshittification begins.

      Valve is a private company, so it is not beholden to any external shareholders, which is why it’s been able to chart its own course. Still, I do worry what will happen when Gabe steps down.

      • Poob@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Even when capitalism serves customers well, it still takes the work of people who make things, and gives it to people who own things

                • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I just don’t think that’s the case with Valve, they work on steam and add new features consistently, it’s not like they’re providing no value for the cut they take.

                  I get where you’re coming from though and way too many companies get away with that kind of situation. Just what capitalism often gives us :/

                  • Poob@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not talking about Valve giving things back to us. I’m talking about the fact the owners of the company get money simply by owning the company. They take money they didn’t work for. Even if the company isn’t manipulative or scummy, they’re enriching people who don’t deserve it.

    • Gamey@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hate DRM but really like Steam, they put in a shit ton of work to achive that! It’s certainly a monopoly but I think one of the biggest differences is that it’s not a publically tradet company so they don’t have to chase that infinite growth many very influencial idiots don’t see any issue with and there for aren’t willing to destroy everything for short term gains.

      • rena_ch@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Despite not having pressure from shareholders Valve pioneered or at least popularized and normalized many of the worst practices in videogame industry designed to milk players dry: microtransactions, battle passe, loot boxes, real money gambling, you name it, Valve has it

    • dan1101@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      Valve releasing a video on how to break down the Steam Deck was one of the best things I’ve seen from a large company in a long time.

      • asexualchangeling@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I still love that video, ‘Don’t do this becouse it could be dangerous, but it’s your device, so here’s how’

    • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That may be so, but that’s not the way that the initial tweet is using the term, and not the commonly understood definition.

      I’m not denying that Valve as a whole have been a force for good in the PC gaming market, but it’s pointless to argue semantics and make up definitions to better suit personal bias instead of debating the actual point that’s being made.

    • FreeFacts@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      they usually mean they don’t engage in anti-competitive practices.

      But they do. They forbid devs to sell their games cheaper on other storefronts (outside of timed sales). Basically they enforce anti-competitive pricing on products in a way that makes it impossible for the devs to move the platform costs into consumer prices.

      Devs could sell the product on Epic for example for $49 and make the same amount of profit as they do on Steam when priced $59 due to lower cut, but they can’t do it because Valve forbids it. It anti-competitively protects Valve and their 30% cut against competitors who would take lesser cuts, at the expense of end customers.