• TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    4 months ago

    Just having a high market share isn’t the issue. It’s abusing that dominant market position that is.

    Valve has been smart enough not to do that. Google, Amazon, Microsoft and the like haven’t. In fact, Valve’s competitors have been more anti-competitive than Valve.

    ASML, who make EUV machines and other semiconductor tooling, is also in a dominant market position (way more dominant actually). Do you ever see calls to break them up? No. Because they haven’t been abusing their power. They know that if they put a toe out of line, they’ll be in trouble with regulators.

    Google and the like have been able to act with impunity because the US protects them, to the detriment of their smaller companies and their citizens.

    • Tiresia@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      ASML is basically a strategic asset. Breaking them up to have a more level playing field inherently threatens the West’s economic-political position. If ASML abused their position, it wouldn’t be the regulators so much as the CIA that showed up to tell them to reconsider.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Really? Because they’re part of the giants that determine game prices, pricing is based on everyone that takes a cut along the way, they take 30%, that’s calculated into what games need to sell for, 30% is enough to make them billions in profit, billions in profit is money that came out of our pockets to go in Newell’s pockets so he can own six yachts.

      I swear if it was a public company people would be flipping out because their numbers would be public and the profit would be going to investors, but they’re private and they only have one investor the profit goes to do that’s perfectly fine I guess???

      • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        30% is the industry standard.

        Shit, doesn’t YouTube take like 60%? I think Twitch takes a big chunk too. Gog takes 30%. MS takes 30%. Sony takes 30%. Nintendo takes 30%. Apple takes 30%. GameStop, BestBuy, Amazon, and Walmart all take roughly 30% too.

        It’s the industry standard.

        And unlike the likes of the Play Store or App store, Valve provides a lot for that 30%.

        • free cloud sync

        • free online multiplayer (not a given, look at MS/Sony/Nintendo)

        • forums

        • game demos

        • game recording with some neat features

        • a VR system

        • in-home streaming

        • family game sharing

        • a review system

        • a mod distribution platform

        • dev tools

        • advertising

        • online services you can tie into your game

        • achievements

        • a cross-platform, userspace anti-cheat solution

        • notes

        • backwards compatibility tooling

        • OS compatibility layers

        • Linux development

        • driver development

        • vast controller support

        • performance overlays

        • steam input

        • the list goes on…

        I’m not in love with everything Valve does (loot boxes, micro-transactions 🤢). But it’s undeniable that compared to other companies that take the same (or higher) cut, you get a lot back.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to live in the fantasy world where they only take a 1% cut, but that’s just what it is, a fantasy.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Ok so because it’s the industry standard it’s ok?

          How about we focus on the fact that the industry standard makes owners and c-suite billionaires? Do you think people would start hating a company if they cut their share to 10% and prices came down instead of having that extra enrich the few?

          • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Reread my comment. I’m not saying it’s ok because it’s the industry standard, I’m saying it’s tolerable because it’s the industry standard and yet despite their strong market position, they still consciously provide a good value.

            And let’s not pretend that even if everyone switched to a 10% margin (assuming that would even be profitable), people wouldn’t then complain about 10% being too high. It’s like taxes - no matter what it’s set as, a significant amount of people will always say “that’s too high! I don’t want to pay that!”

      • patatahooligan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Antitrust is not about preventing big companies making money. It’s about preventing specific practices by monopolies to restrict the free market and to abuse their users. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a ton I find morally objectionable with companies as big as Valve and people as rich as Gabe. We might agree on those issues. But this particular Google thing is about something else. And Valve is indeed different to most tech companies in that regard.

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          If you don’t consider that a company taking billions out of our pockets and putting it in the pockets of a single person abuse then I don’t know what to say.