So much wrong with this. Gabe pays his extremely small workforce very well while keeping the lions share for himself. At 300-400 employees getting paid 300k on average, that is only around one hundred million in total payroll compared to 17 billion in revenue.
Gabe is in no way a good guy here. He could afford to pay his workers a cool million a piece and his payroll would still be a fraction of revenue.
Wild conjecture about how much Gabe is trickling down his wealth has got to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen. There is no such thing a good billionaire despite your wish Gabe is.
We already determined Gabe is not giving the money to the people who do the work, he is giving them a small fraction, less than 1%.
If you think for a second Gabe is not taking advantage of every tax loop hole his high paid accountants can find you are fucking crazy. He is definitely doing everything he can to avoid paying taxes.
Gabe has a monopoly. He has not used this to increasingly provide cheaper services like a corporation in competition would. Steam’s cut should have went down over time if there was good competition. I personally think anything above 10% for a digital platform is crazy.
Steam has 75% of the market share. Microsoft, which everyone points to as a monopoly, has around 65% of the market share for example. Steam meets the definition of a monopoly which is above 50% market share.
Not to mention being sued as a monopoly in several lawsuits and of course engaging in anti-competitive practices.
I see “exclusive” in the definition, I don’t see “50% + 1”.
Not to mention being sued as a monopoly in several lawsuits
I could sue you for running a monopoly. I won’t be successful because it isn’t true, but I could still bring it to a court. Charges being filled doesn’t mean they are true. That’s why this is a court case and not a judgment.
"Courts look at the firm’s market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. "
Obviously using a dictionary definition isn’t what is used in a legal sense. This is kind of silly to point out honestly.
Not only does Steam have the market share it is also engaging in price fixing to maintain their market share. This is classic monopoly behavior.
At this point it is not even a question if Steam is a monopoly. The question is will a judge or government do something about it.
“Courts look at the firm’s market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages.”
That also doesn’t say anything over 50% is considered a monopoly. It just states it won’t even be considered one if it’s less than 50%.
Yeah, like that is a given. As I already stated, Steam is involved in price fixing. They have engaged in anti competitive behavior thus showing their monopoly power.
It is already conclusive they are a monopoly. If you can provide proof they are not then I will entertain you.
It is already conclusive they are a monopoly. If you can provide proof they are not then I will entertain you.
That is the opposite to how this works. I can’t just say “It is already conclusive that you are a prostitute. If you can provide proof that your are not I will entertain you.”
Yes, I can say that based upon the available evidence. I have studied enough about monopolies that I feel completely comfortable with saying Steam is a monopoly. I totally get you are in denial. That is okay.
I find it strange you would bring prostitution into this as an example. But, if you knew I accepted money for sex like we know Steam has engaged in anti competitive practice while controlling the majority of the market then I guess it would be safe to call me one. Cheers!
Yes, salaries whatever. Who gives a shit about salaries when there are stocks available for employees. Employees get dividends from those stocks.
If there was $17B in revenue, and just $1B of that went through dividends, that means $500M is going to the employees. Because Gabe owns half, because he founded the company. Depending on how many shares someone has, which is most likely tied to how long you’ve been at the company, you rake in money. I know, cause I worked for a large corporation that did that same thing. My buddy who’s still there is pulling $30k/year alone on that. Granted, that company has a much lower revenue:employee ratio. Valve is at the top of this category. So yeah, people who invest time and work into Valve make bank. As they should.
Hold up, they are not the ones making the content. While a digital distribution network deserves a cut they certainly do not deserve 30%. This is just a form of monopoly rent at this point extracting far more than they are worth taking advantage of developers.
Not sure why you want to defend a monopoly, but it is your perogative I guess. Cheers!
Damn, got me. I didn’t realize Steam was the only place to buy games and they’re using their market share to inflate prices and gouge customers. You’re so right. That’s what monopolies do. Specifically, it’s when one business owns the sole source of a good. PC gaming is an oligopoly and the other businesses in the oligopoly are mad Valve is doing it better. There is nothing stopping anybody else offering a better deal with the features customers want from Steam.
Market Share =/= monopoly. Answer this, what prevents a person, such as yourself, designing and coding a marketplace that meets the feature request of current Steam users?
I get you are in denial they have a monopoly. For instance Microsoft only has about 65% market share and everyone considers them a monopoly
“A monopoly describes a market dominated by a single seller or producer that controls so much of that market share, anywhere from 50% to 100%, that it faces no meaningful competition.”
At this point you could even argue they have become a natural monopoly as they have not used a lot of anti-competitive practices. The only way to protect consumers is government regulation at this point since no competitor can reign them in.
Okay, So what prevents developers from pulling their games from Steam? Over 100,000 titles available on Steam vs. 4,000+ titles on EGS , which has better revenue sharing (12%). Surely, they dislike this monopolistic platform. So, why haven’t they at least offered their games elsewhere?
You still haven’t answered my question. If a Steam equivalent was released today. Had all the same features of Steam. But had better revenue sharing and even an exclusive feature that takes it over the top. Would that product be able to compete? That’s one of the questions that will be asked in court soon.
Another one could be, more directly related to monopolistic practices, does Steam take measures to prevent someone from downloading another marketplace and using it instead? The only discipline Valve could receive for being a “monopoly” would be is if the government wants to apply a windfall tax on their profits. Which has yet to happen.
Nobody is even trying to compete with Steam, cause no one wants to. So, what do you recommend happen? The entire Steam team gets broken up and has to develop new marketplaces? How does that work with a flat structure company like Valve? How would the employees, who are very happy feel? The consumers?
These are some of the questions one must answer when dealing with monopolies. Monopoly laws are there to protect the consumer. Therefore, the last question I will posit is this: What is Steam doing that is actively harming the industry and consumers?
Dude, I explained they are a monopoly. You have not provided anything other than conjecture that they are not a monopoly.
I suppose I could field your questions, but considering how resistant to basic facts you are I am not sure I could provide satisfactory answers for you.
I will give it a try though. What prevents developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC gaming software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn’t suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.
Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn’t mean that MS didn’t leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.
Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.
What would it take for that company to compete. They can’t and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can’t manage it.
Please don’t talk to me about court when you can’t even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.
Your statement about no one competing because they don’t want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.
Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.
Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don’t worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn’t going to change shit.
Your questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam’s anti-competitive policies be eliminated.
To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.
Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.
So much wrong with this. Gabe pays his extremely small workforce very well while keeping the lions share for himself. At 300-400 employees getting paid 300k on average, that is only around one hundred million in total payroll compared to 17 billion in revenue.
Gabe is in no way a good guy here. He could afford to pay his workers a cool million a piece and his payroll would still be a fraction of revenue.
Wild conjecture about how much Gabe is trickling down his wealth has got to be one of the lamest excuses I have ever seen. There is no such thing a good billionaire despite your wish Gabe is.
We already determined Gabe is not giving the money to the people who do the work, he is giving them a small fraction, less than 1%.
If you think for a second Gabe is not taking advantage of every tax loop hole his high paid accountants can find you are fucking crazy. He is definitely doing everything he can to avoid paying taxes.
Gabe has a monopoly. He has not used this to increasingly provide cheaper services like a corporation in competition would. Steam’s cut should have went down over time if there was good competition. I personally think anything above 10% for a digital platform is crazy.
Had me in the first half, lost me here. Offering a decent service while everyone else shoots themselves in the face does not make it a monopoly.
Steam has 75% of the market share. Microsoft, which everyone points to as a monopoly, has around 65% of the market share for example. Steam meets the definition of a monopoly which is above 50% market share.
Not to mention being sued as a monopoly in several lawsuits and of course engaging in anti-competitive practices.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly
I see “exclusive” in the definition, I don’t see “50% + 1”.
I could sue you for running a monopoly. I won’t be successful because it isn’t true, but I could still bring it to a court. Charges being filled doesn’t mean they are true. That’s why this is a court case and not a judgment.
From the FTC
"Courts look at the firm’s market share, but typically do not find monopoly power if the firm (or a group of firms acting in concert) has less than 50 percent of the sales of a particular product or service within a certain geographic area. Some courts have required much higher percentages. "
Obviously using a dictionary definition isn’t what is used in a legal sense. This is kind of silly to point out honestly.
Not only does Steam have the market share it is also engaging in price fixing to maintain their market share. This is classic monopoly behavior.
At this point it is not even a question if Steam is a monopoly. The question is will a judge or government do something about it.
That also doesn’t say anything over 50% is considered a monopoly. It just states it won’t even be considered one if it’s less than 50%.
Yeah, like that is a given. As I already stated, Steam is involved in price fixing. They have engaged in anti competitive behavior thus showing their monopoly power.
It is already conclusive they are a monopoly. If you can provide proof they are not then I will entertain you.
That is the opposite to how this works. I can’t just say “It is already conclusive that you are a prostitute. If you can provide proof that your are not I will entertain you.”
Yes, I can say that based upon the available evidence. I have studied enough about monopolies that I feel completely comfortable with saying Steam is a monopoly. I totally get you are in denial. That is okay.
I find it strange you would bring prostitution into this as an example. But, if you knew I accepted money for sex like we know Steam has engaged in anti competitive practice while controlling the majority of the market then I guess it would be safe to call me one. Cheers!
Yes, salaries whatever. Who gives a shit about salaries when there are stocks available for employees. Employees get dividends from those stocks.
If there was $17B in revenue, and just $1B of that went through dividends, that means $500M is going to the employees. Because Gabe owns half, because he founded the company. Depending on how many shares someone has, which is most likely tied to how long you’ve been at the company, you rake in money. I know, cause I worked for a large corporation that did that same thing. My buddy who’s still there is pulling $30k/year alone on that. Granted, that company has a much lower revenue:employee ratio. Valve is at the top of this category. So yeah, people who invest time and work into Valve make bank. As they should.
Hold up, they are not the ones making the content. While a digital distribution network deserves a cut they certainly do not deserve 30%. This is just a form of monopoly rent at this point extracting far more than they are worth taking advantage of developers.
Not sure why you want to defend a monopoly, but it is your perogative I guess. Cheers!
Damn, got me. I didn’t realize Steam was the only place to buy games and they’re using their market share to inflate prices and gouge customers. You’re so right. That’s what monopolies do. Specifically, it’s when one business owns the sole source of a good. PC gaming is an oligopoly and the other businesses in the oligopoly are mad Valve is doing it better. There is nothing stopping anybody else offering a better deal with the features customers want from Steam.
You didn’t realize they had a 75% market share? Please save the bootlicking for someone who cares.
Market Share =/= monopoly. Answer this, what prevents a person, such as yourself, designing and coding a marketplace that meets the feature request of current Steam users?
I get you are in denial they have a monopoly. For instance Microsoft only has about 65% market share and everyone considers them a monopoly
“A monopoly describes a market dominated by a single seller or producer that controls so much of that market share, anywhere from 50% to 100%, that it faces no meaningful competition.”
At this point you could even argue they have become a natural monopoly as they have not used a lot of anti-competitive practices. The only way to protect consumers is government regulation at this point since no competitor can reign them in.
Okay, So what prevents developers from pulling their games from Steam? Over 100,000 titles available on Steam vs. 4,000+ titles on EGS , which has better revenue sharing (12%). Surely, they dislike this monopolistic platform. So, why haven’t they at least offered their games elsewhere?
You still haven’t answered my question. If a Steam equivalent was released today. Had all the same features of Steam. But had better revenue sharing and even an exclusive feature that takes it over the top. Would that product be able to compete? That’s one of the questions that will be asked in court soon.
Another one could be, more directly related to monopolistic practices, does Steam take measures to prevent someone from downloading another marketplace and using it instead? The only discipline Valve could receive for being a “monopoly” would be is if the government wants to apply a windfall tax on their profits. Which has yet to happen.
Nobody is even trying to compete with Steam, cause no one wants to. So, what do you recommend happen? The entire Steam team gets broken up and has to develop new marketplaces? How does that work with a flat structure company like Valve? How would the employees, who are very happy feel? The consumers?
These are some of the questions one must answer when dealing with monopolies. Monopoly laws are there to protect the consumer. Therefore, the last question I will posit is this: What is Steam doing that is actively harming the industry and consumers?
Dude, I explained they are a monopoly. You have not provided anything other than conjecture that they are not a monopoly.
I suppose I could field your questions, but considering how resistant to basic facts you are I am not sure I could provide satisfactory answers for you.
I will give it a try though. What prevents developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC gaming software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn’t suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.
Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn’t mean that MS didn’t leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.
Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.
What would it take for that company to compete. They can’t and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can’t manage it.
Please don’t talk to me about court when you can’t even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.
Your statement about no one competing because they don’t want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.
Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.
Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don’t worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn’t going to change shit.
Your questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam’s anti-competitive policies be eliminated.
To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.
Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.