• Wilzax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Failure of larger companies to make a competitive alternative to steam is not anticompetitive behavior on the part of Valve

    • Kairos@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Yeah who TF are their lawyers? Anticompetitive behavior is just that—there have o be actions taken, at least in the United States. And Steam doesn’t have exclusivity agreements so IDK what they’re gonna argue.

      • Wilzax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        The closest thing they can argue to any kind of “exclusivity” is that the free steam keys developers can generate for their games may not be resold for a lower amount than the game can be purchased for on steam outright. That says nothing about other means of distributing the game outside of steam, and nothing about alternative platforms the devs might want to use. It’s a tiny and far away straw to grasp at.

    • 6gybf@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Seems like a good example of how running a company for the shareholders doesn’t produce a a better product after all.

      • Rakonat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Precisely what the share holders don’t want people to know. They worship money and what the public to think more money = more good. If people realize these investor backed products are generally not anything better than someone can make in their garage they’ll stop buying overpriced junk. So here we are about to see how the sausage gets made.