120
Valve "played capitalism so well they broke it" and now Steam can't be replaced
(www.gamesradar.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2026
120 points (98.4% liked)
Hacker News
5692 readers
728 users here now
NOTICE: The bot occasionally has downtime, sorry about that. I'm working on adding better monitoring and error recovery so I can get notified faster.
Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.
The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So a monopoly?
Yes, prepare to be down voted by Steamtards.
Monopoly: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
Steam has legitimate competitors. They do not have exclusive control. They are, however, dominant because of the incompetence of their competitors. And there are absolutely issues and risks that go along with that. It is not a healthy market, but insulting people when they correct you about the monopoly label is not helpful or productive.
This is actually one of those cases where the dictionary definition isn't really helpful or applicable. Because that definition is based on a literal meaning of the word and not the actual economic implications. Economically speaking once a market is dominated to the point where you cannot compete economically that is what we call an effective monopoly or actual monopoly. Basically a real life monopoly.
Think back to when Bell was broken up. It wasn't the only, exclusive, competitor in the market. However they owned such a massive market share that they had to be broken up because no one could effectively compete. You'll see how using the literal and ineffective definition of monopoly would be extremely easy to defeat for companies exercising actual monopolies.
So basically the other guy is right, albeit expressing himself rather dickishly.
The issue with that is that Steam still isn't a monopoly by that definition either. Epic can't compete because they provide an absolute dogshit service. Not because Steam has some unassailable institutional advantage. When the epic storefront launched a ton of people were hoping it would be good, and would have happily bought games there. It was garbage, and they refuse to listen to customers on how to improve.
There are other options both for devs and customers.
The reality is Steam isn't muscling out Epic because of being a monopoly. Epic muscled themselves out by being out of touch, greedy, shitsticks. And that has largely been the same story for about every failed game storefront.
Doing it better than the alternatives that are out there does not make something a monopoly.
True. That is not what makes them a monopoly.
So what makes them a monopoly?
Overwhelming market share.
The thing is the market share is owed not to anti-competitive behavior, it's mostly about almost every other comer having some bullshit agenda that actively makes them put forward a worse option.
GOG being an exception, mostly held back by lack of resources rather than the sorts of things Jim Sweeney want.
I don't disagree in the least.
Still doesn't make them a monopoly.
A monopoly takes more than market share and your personal feelings about them.
No. It only takes market share. Literally nothing else is relevant.
It's obvious you weren't overburdened with an abundance of schooling.
If there weren't other game storefronts, sure.
Ugh. I don't want to have to walk another lemming through what the actual meaning of monopoly is.
Well, when you figure it out, I'll be here.
I don't think Steam would be considered a monopoly because they don't use anti-competitive practices. Maybe there's a technicality where the word "monopoly" fits because of their market share, sure, but they've done nothing inherently greedy or abusive in the market. They offer a great platform for gamers and game makers, and competitors have all failed to offer anything better or novel.
If by technically you mean literally the definition then yes. It's not technically. It's just the thing. Its the actual definition.
But on the other point anti-competitive practices don't have to be part of a monopoly. They're the easiest way to become a monopoly, steam just did it the hard way. This is what a lot of people fail to get. It's only about the market share. Steam has an overwhelming insurmountable market share, which is kind of the topic of the post that people didn't read I'm guessing.
I'm glad people like Steam. I do too. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic though. Steam is a Monopoly by definition.
You've avoided doing this built all your arguments on the very thing you refuse to provide, so I'll do it.
exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action specifically : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition
The most popular and best does not mean only or exclusive. They made a better product, that's it.
Ugh. This is exactly what I was talking about. Every single fucking time.
MONOPOLY DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN ONE!
But you're right. I said i wasn't getting into it. That's enough.
Merriam Webster is pretty reliable when it comes to defining things, it's literally their jam.
Maybe you have a different hangup?