This was my introduction to RPGs. No idea how it will feel to play now, but definitely need to give it a try just for the nostalgia.

People keep saying that and it still isn’t true. It was argued the dictionary definition wasn’t good enough, so how about US legal criteria to be considered a monopoly.

Federal criteria looks at three things: market power, exclusionary conduct, and business justification.

1. Market power: “…significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.” You could argue this as I believe Steam has something like 75% of PC game sales. However I don’t think it would be difficult to argue that console gaming is also a market competitor which would bring their market share down some, but I’m not sure by how much. There is no hard limit for what market share is required for the firm to match this criteria. “if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.” It is likely that if steam began being anti consumer, the existing competitors could take advantage, or other markets could be developed. So this criteria is in the maybe column.
2. Exclusionary Conduct: “Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal.” This alone means that even if they have the market share to be investigated as a monopoly, they haven’t broken the law since they allow open competition against them. They have simply provided a superior product to consumers. “Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal.” I am unaware of Steam doing any of this. Epic on the other hand, absolutely does.
3. Business Justification: “The monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services.” Steam is providing a unique set of services that benefit the consumer. So it seems that have a business justification.

Put simply, Steam is not a monopoly by the dictionary definition and likely wouldn’t be found to be a monopoly in a legal sense either.

So World of Warcraft isn’t a game that exists? How about Fortnite? League of Legends? Genshin Impact? Minecraft? Those games never sold well and didn’t make any money.

The issue with that is that Steam still isn’t a monopoly by that definition either. Epic can’t compete because they provide an absolute dogshit service. Not because Steam has some unassailable institutional advantage. When the epic storefront launched a ton of people were hoping it would be good, and would have happily bought games there. It was garbage, and they refuse to listen to customers on how to improve.

There are other options both for devs and customers.

The reality is Steam isn’t muscling out Epic because of being a monopoly. Epic muscled themselves out by being out of touch, greedy, shitsticks. And that has largely been the same story for about every failed game storefront.

Saying it again doesn’t make it less wrong. They are in a position where they could possibly use anticompetitive practices to become a monopoly or close to it. Currently they are not, and are not a quasi monopoly either. They simply have created a well rounded service that is preferred by a majority in the PC space.

If you want the store front to take a smaller cut then you can sell on itch. If you want to buy games without DRM then check out GOG. If you like shitty service, venture capitalists, enshittification, and AI slop then Epic has you covered.

So people put their games on Epic, GOG, itch, Xbox, PS5 and whatever else for funsies? Definitely not because people buy their game from those places. They can even put their game up on those other marketplaces without any penalty from steam. Almost like there are alternatives available. Having the largest market share and having large influence in a market does not equal a monopoly.

To maximize sales, you do need to put your product on Steam. That doesn’t mean it is a monopoly.

Steam likely could leverage their market position to become a monopoly, but they aren’t one now. Just because they are a vital part to any large scale game launch doesn’t make them a monopoly, quasi or otherwise.

I don’t think it is a particularly healthy market, and I wish there were even more options. That doesn’t change the fact all the monopoly talk has been driven by bad faith actors trying to attack steam without any real cause.

I guess I could have been more accurate by saying that Epic wants a larger market share without having to provide a quality product.

They are ignored in conversations like this because their existence undermines the monopoly accusations aimed at Steam. Talk like this isn’t about the reality, but trying to tear Steam down so Epic can compete without having to actually provide a good product.

Monopoly: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action

Steam has legitimate competitors. They do not have exclusive control. They are, however, dominant because of the incompetence of their competitors. And there are absolutely issues and risks that go along with that. It is not a healthy market, but insulting people when they correct you about the monopoly label is not helpful or productive.

Not apologizing or excusing the party, and definitely not for Stevens. I just prefer to hold them accountable for the things they actually do. No need to make up things they didn’t do.

The democratic party is deeply flawed, and has an abundance of issues. However, it doesn’t make sense to say this is a fault with that party, or to cast blame for her actions on them. She has been condemned by the party at the state and federal level, and has been kicked out of the party. So they do not condone her actions, and I don’t know that there is any way for them to be more clear about that.

Stevens is not a democrat. She lost the primary and has since been kicked out of the party.

They were room manes

If you use breeder reactors there is very little waste. And they extract significantly more energy from uranium than something like a light water reactor.

The US frequently exports light crude oil at a premium while purchasing heavy crude for less. The refineries in the US are largely set up for heavy crude, so it works out and nets a high profit for oil companies.

So ‘elitist’ instead of ‘elite’.

I don’t think any ‘elite’ things are happening at the Pentagon under Mr. Drunky Jesus Racist Pants.

It could also imply mass which doesn’t change regardless of gravity.

Also being in orbit doesn’t significantly reduce the amount of gravity impacting the object. The reason astronauts feel weightless is because bring in orbit means they are moving fast enough to keep missing the object they are orbiting. So it isn’t a lack of gravity, it is constant free fall.

A lot of the time you can’t effectively combine them. That is why we have different breeds. Stronger and bigger typically means less stamina and less nimble. Better nose means they get hyper focused on scent and are less effective for other tasks. Even without the ethical issues, I can’t see them building a better dog.