• Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    29
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    A monopoly is a monopoly is a monopoly.

    Stop defending them, monopolies are never good to consumers.

    By your logic they shouldn’t be broken because it’s the competitors’ fault if people don’t do business with them instead.

    Well no, if your company is big enough that it doesn’t make sense to go for the competition then no matter what the competition does you are so far ahead that they’ll never catch up and you can sway the market as you please.

    • paultimate14@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      6 months ago

      Monopolies are often great for consumers… When they’re nationalized. Obviously that’s not going to happen with Valve any time soon.

      What would the benefit be to breaking up Valve? How would you even go about doing that? The obvious choice is to break out different business units- break things like the hardware sales and game development into separate companies. But that still doesn’t address the issue of them having too much market share for software sales.

      The next beat thing I can think of would be to have some sort of regulatory body just to place restrictions on the industry. Which, of course, would vary from country to country, and would probably have to include all of their competitors: Epic, GoG, and the various publisher-specific stores, maybe even other storefronts like Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Google, and Apple. It would be hard not to also hit the mobile games industry too (which, to be fair, might be a good thing). But this kind of thing is usually reserved for things like utilities, communications, financial markets, etc. Such an organization for a luxury recreationak market… I have to wonder how much political appetite there really would be for that? Is that really what people want their governments to be focusing on?

      Do you have a better solution to propose?

    • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      By your logic they shouldn’t be broken because it’s the competitors’ fault if people don’t do business with them instead.

      Yes exactly, that’s why they shouldn’t be broken.

      They’re consumer friendly and are not taking specific action to BE a monopoly, contrary to many other companies.

      There’s also enough competition and it’s exactly their fault that they fail/refuse to implement what makes Steam so popular.

      I’m definitely against monopolies, but mindlessly slapping rules on them just because they’re labeled monopolies is some of the dumbest shit I’ve heard

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        You cannot base your decision on if the monopoly seems friendly to you or not, what kind of Mickey mouse logic is that? Fucking hell.

        You’re going to wait until it’s problematic to do something about it? Man, I hope you show more logic in how you managed things in your personal life!

        “I’m definitely against monopolies”

        No, you’re not, you’re against the monopolies you don’t like, there’s a major difference.