• wpb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 hours ago

    A “de facto” monopoly (whatever that is) has all the drawbacks of a “real” monopoly (whatever that is): reduced incentive for innovation, possibility for price fixing, means for anticompetitive practices, and so on. The distinction is entirely meaningless when you look at the actual impact an <adjective> monopoly has on society.

    • frongt@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Epic, GOG, Fanatical, Itch, Humble all exist and compete with with Steam with varying levels of success. And those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. Does Gumroad do games?

    • mint_tamas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      There is no lack of competition. They are just bad in obvious ways. I’m not saying it’s easy to take on a giant like Steam, but Epic for example is exactly the kind of company and amount of money that could. They didn’t, and it’s not because of the library effect. They simply went with the seemingly easiest way: pissing money on the problem (securing timed exclusives and free games). There is so much they could do to make the client and their service better, but they don’t. So no, it’s not a monopoly.