• Ledivin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Even if there were literally no other competitors, GOG holding 1/6th of the market share (your words) absolutely precludes Steam from being a monopoly.

    • Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re using a different definition of monopoly from what I’m using. To quote Wikipedia:

      In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises.

      I’m using the latter of those definitions. I don’t think it’s particularly useful to only consider it a monopoly when there are literally no competitors. I think it is useful to consider it a monopoly when it has dominant market power. Steam’s estimated 75-80% market share is dominant market power.

      • athatet@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        So how often does steam charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises?

        • Mk23simp@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          22 hours ago

          the power to charge overly high prices

          One doesn’t have to actually use a power in order to have that power. If I was carrying a loaded shotgun, I would have firepower. I wouldn’t have to actually fire the gun to have firepower.

          Also, one could argue (and Epic Games has) that Steam’s 30% cut is overly high for digital distribution. I’m not sure whether that’s true or not, but that doesn’t really matter to the question of whether Steam has dominant market power.