this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
666 points (97.7% liked)

Games

32736 readers
1156 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They are all monopolies in their ecosystem.

(Satellite Internet doesn't reach everywhere.)

You got a list of monopolies, stop trying to move goalposts in order to slam Valve and defend a bunch of anti-consumer publicly traded companies.

Standard Oil was a monopoly, but using your logic there wasn't because there was an alternative of not using oil-based fuels.

An example of a company that actually fits your definition of a pseudo-monopoly would be Nvidia in the GPU market.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's the logic of the comment I responded to. The existence of this upcoming trial alone is proof that the mere presence of alternatives is not enough to claim there's no monopoly in the relevant market.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

The (my) comment that you responded to presented you a list of actual monopolies that have no alternatives on their platform. There was no "logic" presented, it was a statement of observation.

The existence of the lawsuit does not mean there is proof, it means that Wolfire has enough of a case to begin discovery on two of their claims that the court is interested to find out more. That's it.

One of the claims is also very weird and I can't actually find any information corroborating the claim besides the claim itself (re: Valve acquiring and shutting down World Opponent Network). The only thing I see is that Sierra was acquired by Havas who made WON into it's own entity, then merged it with PrizeCentral under the name Flipside.com and the last WON game was released in 2006.

The only thing relating to Valve I can see is that Valve announced Steam in 2002 and then they removed WON from their own games, which they had every right to do so.

WG's strongest claim is the MFN clause, and they actually have to prove that it's for anticompetitiveness.