That’s fair. I am probably parroting stuff I hear about the play store or the apple store. Before epic I don’t know many big players steam had to compete with. How much revenue does Gog make compared to valve for instance?
How much revenue does Gog make compared to valve for instance?
I don’t know. That’s not relevant to the definition of a monopoly. To be a monopoly you need to be the only supplier of a product or service. If there’s competition, but you have the majority of market share, then you’re merely dominating the market, which is not illegal (or even necessarily a bad thing, as evidenced by Steam).
Google Play and Apple store are monopolies because they are not competitors to each other, if you own a phone you’re stuck with one or the other with no choices. They also take steps to prevent competition, which is highly illegal.
Steam is pretty much a monopoly because I expect something like 90% of pc game sales go through them. The thing is that being a monopoly is not necessarily bad, or illegal. It is abusing your monopolistic power to exploit consumers that is. Steam doesn’t generally seem to do that
Oh yes I see it now. You posted it right after my response. And I do agree with what you say there. I however do believe that the destinction between a true monopoly and a dominant market position such as steam has is essentially irrelevant in this context. In a market economy you would expect very few (or even no ? ) true monopolies except those run by the state. And not being a true monopoly doesn’t stop dominant firms from being able exploit monopolistic powers.
However my point is that steam doesn’t exploit it’s market position while it could definitely choose to. On that we seem to agree I think
How is steam a monopoly? The existence of so many competitors would indicate otherwise.
That’s fair. I am probably parroting stuff I hear about the play store or the apple store. Before epic I don’t know many big players steam had to compete with. How much revenue does Gog make compared to valve for instance?
I don’t know. That’s not relevant to the definition of a monopoly. To be a monopoly you need to be the only supplier of a product or service. If there’s competition, but you have the majority of market share, then you’re merely dominating the market, which is not illegal (or even necessarily a bad thing, as evidenced by Steam).
Google Play and Apple store are monopolies because they are not competitors to each other, if you own a phone you’re stuck with one or the other with no choices. They also take steps to prevent competition, which is highly illegal.
Steam is pretty much a monopoly because I expect something like 90% of pc game sales go through them. The thing is that being a monopoly is not necessarily bad, or illegal. It is abusing your monopolistic power to exploit consumers that is. Steam doesn’t generally seem to do that
See my other comment. You appear to have confused a monopoly with a dominant market position.
Oh yes I see it now. You posted it right after my response. And I do agree with what you say there. I however do believe that the destinction between a true monopoly and a dominant market position such as steam has is essentially irrelevant in this context. In a market economy you would expect very few (or even no ? ) true monopolies except those run by the state. And not being a true monopoly doesn’t stop dominant firms from being able exploit monopolistic powers.
However my point is that steam doesn’t exploit it’s market position while it could definitely choose to. On that we seem to agree I think