You’re right - monopolies aren’t just big companies. But a lack of monopoly is also not simply having access to alternatives. You can have all kinds of alternative services - that notion alone does not disprove the claim that Steam is a monopoly.
Monopoly literally means that single entity has exclusive right to the market. Like for example in Finland VR (valtion rautatie, goverments railways) or Alko (only shop that can legally sell spirits for consumers).
There is also term called natural monopoly where getting in to the marked is impossible. Like railways in USA.
Steam is neither.
There is GoG, Epic, itch.io, Microsoft store and like ten smaller stores that are straight competitors for Steam.
Being market leader does not mean they have monopoly and if Steam somehow blunders the goodwill they have with gamers and devs there will be alternatives.
But we also have pretty strongly enforced law called “kilpailulaki”. Its pretty similiar to antitrust law in the states, meaning it punishes harshly if single company or group if companies use their position in the market unfairly, fixing prices, driving competition away, etc.
Smaller local companies might try to swindle it, but for any big companies breaking it wont be worth the risk.
A monopoly is a market structure that assumes a dominant position in a sector. We can of course philosophize on the notion of pure monopoly.
It stifle the competition, limit the innovation, restrict investments, and finally it’s never good for the consumer : for us.
They are not, they’re just a really good service so people use them more than the others
Epic, GOG, Itch, etc. still exist and are widely used
Yea, the same way youtube isn’t a monopoly… Except for all practical purposes it is.
Except it’s not, because you can go to multiple other sources
More than YouTube, even, and even YouTube isn’t a full monopoly, though it’s a lot closer than Steam is
Monopolies aren’t just "big companies’ you know
deleted by creator
You’re right - monopolies aren’t just big companies. But a lack of monopoly is also not simply having access to alternatives. You can have all kinds of alternative services - that notion alone does not disprove the claim that Steam is a monopoly.
Monopoly literally means that single entity has exclusive right to the market. Like for example in Finland VR (valtion rautatie, goverments railways) or Alko (only shop that can legally sell spirits for consumers).
There is also term called natural monopoly where getting in to the marked is impossible. Like railways in USA.
Steam is neither.
There is GoG, Epic, itch.io, Microsoft store and like ten smaller stores that are straight competitors for Steam.
Being market leader does not mean they have monopoly and if Steam somehow blunders the goodwill they have with gamers and devs there will be alternatives.
What do you call a company that has an 85% maker share in your country ?
We call it a market leader.
But we also have pretty strongly enforced law called “kilpailulaki”. Its pretty similiar to antitrust law in the states, meaning it punishes harshly if single company or group if companies use their position in the market unfairly, fixing prices, driving competition away, etc.
Smaller local companies might try to swindle it, but for any big companies breaking it wont be worth the risk.
A monopoly is a market structure that assumes a dominant position in a sector. We can of course philosophize on the notion of pure monopoly. It stifle the competition, limit the innovation, restrict investments, and finally it’s never good for the consumer : for us.
A company does not need total market share to be a monopoly even in legal terms