Warto byłoby to wrzucić też do !technologia albo !wolnyinternet. Żeby nie pojawiało się wielokrotnie na liście postów wystarczy dorzucić jakiś link (np. do serwisu o którym mowa), albo obrazek :)
Pieniądze, czy władza stają się chyba w pewnym momencie tylko narkotykiem. Już nie wiesz po co, już nie cieszysz się hajem i tym na co pozwalają, tylko po prostu chcesz większej dawki.
W pełni się zgadzam, że turbo bogacze czy władcy mają kiepską wyobraźnię i są pozbawieni fantazji. Mniej bym się dziwił jakby realizowali jakieś popierdolone scenariusze niż w sytuacji, gdzie jeśli w ogóle pracują nad jakimiś wielkimi projektami to są tylko zmiany optymalizujące ich przyszłe dochody.
Musk udawał, że ma wizję, że zaryzykuję wszystko byle stanąć na Marsie, ale się okazuje, że chuj, wszystko co może to wpływać na wybory w różnych krajach żeby wygrywały opcje które zmniejszą jego podatki i dadzą mu więcej kontraktów.
Jak ja byłbym miliarderem, to wykupiłbym wszystkie (lub możliwie najwięcej) przestrzeni reklamowych w Polsce i na każdej napisałbym coś w stylu “i co teraz jebane biedaki hahaha”. A Ty?
Ja bym spełnił prawicową wizję świata i tym razem naprawdę ktoś by opłacał lewackich aktywistów za ich protesty. Ostatnie pokolenie dało radę blokować wisłostradę mając kilkadziesiąt osób? To ja wynająłbym 500 osób i patrzyl jak wszystkie autostrady w kraju są przez miesiąc zablokowane.
For them to be prosecuted as a monopoly, or be considered one legally, it would have to be shown that they achieved or maintain their dominant market position by preventing or undermining competition. Say by having a bunch of exclusivity deals to keep big name titles only on their storefront, or by buying out any competitor that gained traction.
Monopoly isn’t about being the biggest seller in a market, it’s about being the biggest player in the market by undermining competition and restricting commerce.
Edit: want to clarify there is a distinction between the legal meaning of monopoly (see the Sherman anti trust act and other subsequent laws and rulings) and the colloquial usage (Only seller in the market). Steam is nether.
The nice thing about Steam, is that it’s “too big to clamp down”:
People used to 🏴☠️ on the high seas, for many reasons.
Steam came up as a “single point of sale”, at the same time as Netflix was doing the same for movies and series.
Over time, companies tried to carve out chunks of the pie, restoring some of the original fragmentation…
…but while Netflix has been torn to shreds of its former glory, Steam is still the main “single point” for games…
…with a “single point” DRM
Steam’s DRM only exists because game updates keep coming out with constantly updating DRM versions. The moment Steam tried to act against its clients, and they decided to leave Steam, every Steam game copy at that moment, would get cracked all at once.
Maybe EA, MS, Nintendo, Sony, etc. don’t see that as a great thing… and that’s why they’ve been setting up their own stores… but I think it’s AWESOME! 😁
Most single player steam games are cracked anyway. The real danger of steam is the reliance on it for most multiplayer games. Though if it were to get particularly nasty I imagine adding aftermarket multiplayer functionality would probably be in the realm of possibility. If private WoW servers are a thing, it stands to reason that the same can be done with a lot of other games.
Some games already use P2P, or provide servers for the community to run, so only the private servers would need replicating. Even in that case, I’d argue that having “some” common API, would make it easier than chasing around everyone’s different implementations.
Square chickened out after manchildren ree’d about the really interesting changes made in Remake, kinda walking it back and trying to pretend it didn’t happen. And ironically, that’s kind of just worse, because those nerds are never going to be happy with what happened in Remake and its ramifications in Rebirth and ReThree, my nerds are mourning for what we could’ve had, and Square looks kinda pathetic and easily bullied.
A lot of people seem to think that a monopoly has a much, much more direct and literal definition than it actually does.
The definition the FTC uses is:
Courts do not require a literal monopoly before applying rules for single firm conduct; that term is used as shorthand for a firm with significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.
That is how that term is used here: a “monopolist” is a firm with significant and durable market power.
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.
(Well, at least untill Elon and Trump put the fucking Shark Tank guy in charge, or something like that.)
Generally speaking, a monopolist is a single entity that has captured a huge chunk of an otherwise varying and well differentiated market, if your market is closer to the theoretical (ie, not real) idea of perfect competition, or if you’re talking about a consolidated market with only a few major players, the monopolist has at least 50% of the market, though, depending on other factors, that line may be drawn at up to 75% ish.
Different specific situations, regions, laws, etc. establish differing specific criteria… but the idea is not that a monopolist is defined by being literally 100% of the market.
That situation would specifically be referred to as a ‘perfect monopoly’, and like ‘perfect competition’, is basically theoretical only, or a situation where you’re looking at something like a local public utility or some kind of government/state entity.
In actual mainstream academic and legal usage though, a monopoly is a single entity in the market has a very outsized market share when compared to any other market participant, such that its actions alone can very significantly affect all other market participants.
…
Now… when it comes to Steam… a whole lot of the arguement is ‘what is and is not the market, what constitutes its boundaries?’
If you define it as just ‘PC video games’, then sure Steam likely is an effective monopoly.
But if you define it as ‘all digital games’, then no, not even close, the Google Play Store and Apple Store are responsible for far more digital game downloads than Steam, way waaay more games are mobile games than PC games, if you go by yearly or monthly downloads, or market share.
It gets even more complicated with cross platform games.
Ultimately, it would be up to a lawsuit, lawyers, judges, industry experts, to argue all of the specifics of exactly whether or not its legally valid to formally classify Steam as a monopoly that would need to be broken up or penalized or regulated in some way, and a huge part of that legal battle would be based around differing definitions of what exactly Steam is a monopoly if, and whether those precise definitions are valid.
…
‘Other options exist for consumers’ or ‘they don’t have a perfect monopoly’ is not a valid arguement against Steam being a monopoly if Steam facilitates 85% of PC game sales, and the other 15% is split up between 10 or so other digital store fronts.
If that is your rubric for ‘what is the market’, then yeah, Steam is a monopoly.
But, if your rubric is ‘all digital games’, then no, Steam is just a large player in a market with other larger players, other slightly smaller players, and many other very small players.
…
Beyond that, a huge part of legally being determined to be a monopoly is unethical/illegal behavior of the ‘monopolist’ being used to obtain or maintain their monopoly.
In Steam’s case… I think that would be pretty hard to substantiate, its more so just that Steam had the idea first, expanded upon it quite a lot, and no one really bothered to try to compete with them on the same level untill basically the Epic store, fairly recently.
The problem with judging Steam as a monopolistic platform is whether it uses its market position to maintain its monopoly or not.
Valve doesn’t really engage in vertical integration. There are a few games that Valve makes as a first party exclusive, but nowhere near other competitors like Nintendo or Activision Blizzard. There also isn’t a gaming engine that ties to Steam directly; the closest is Proton but that isn’t required.
Valve doesn’t seem to seem to require onerous requirements on third party game studios to publish on Steam. Outside of banning ad-supported gaming, Valve doesn’t seem to demand preferential treatment.
Valve could easily become a problematic monopoly, but it isn’t there yet.
bin.pol.social
Najnowsze