It’s cute how the word is interchangeable with the situation only when it suits your bickering.

When people think the word can only mean the cartoon absolute, weee shooould fiiix thaaat. I sure the fuck have not been arguing the word doesn’t matter - rather the opposite, at length. You just keep insisting risks don’t matter until they become actionable problems.

We must recognize this monopoly, because of the potential problems it can cause, even if those problems are at present only potential.

We really fucking ought to use the word specifically for this situation, because people already fucking know why monopolies are bad, even if they’re confused about what monopolies are.

‘Some people insist it’s not a monopoly’ is restating the problem.

Any discussion of Steam’s overwhelming market share requires the question ‘why does overwhelming market share matter?’ and the answer is ‘because that’s a monopoly.’ We could dance around the word itself, and just describe an elephant, but that only delays when people with misconceptions hear the word for this animal and go ‘nuh-uh.’

That delay would be worse - because it allows for people who acknowledge all the reasons Steam is a monopoly, and all the reasons that monopoly is a systemic risk, but will still insist with kneejerk certainty that Steam doesn’t count. It’s some other distinct thing, despite the absence of difference. That denialism is a lot harder to deal with than just telling people:

Real markets never have absolute monopolies.

When people say monopoly, they mean the legal definition.

Dictionaries which do not reflect that use are incomplete.

So you acknowledge it fits the definition people actually use, but calling it the thing it is must be “arguing semantics?” The fuck.

Steam’s market share is a monopoly. That is the subject whether someone uses the word or not. That’s why it’s so goddamn weird that people circle the wagons whenever they hear it applied to this one blatant example. That’s either kneejerk denialism based on brand loyalty, or a cartoonish misunderstanding of how markets work. Or apparently a third thing where you insist you agree but also nuh-uh.

The comparison you used was calling the sky azure versus calling the sky blue, and you - yooou - are the one insisting that it must be one and not the other. You are the one giving me shit for using a label you claim to acknowledge as factually correct. But I am talking about Steam’s overwhelming market share. Because it’s a monopoly. That’s what the word means. They’re the same thing.

This conversation basically goes: ‘This room’s really crowded.’ Yeah, there’s an elephant in it. ‘That’s not an elephant! Elephants gore people.’ Followed by a literal year of explaining, even if this elephant does not do a thing which elephants can definitely do, it’s still a goddamn elephant.

And then you said:

People insisting that Steam is a monopoly are implicitly arguing action should be taken about it.

So I guess the question is - what do you want to do about it? If you are in fact saying it is a monopoly (and you’re not just saying you say it’s a monopoly) and saying it’s a monopoly must necessarily imply a call to action: what is that action?

The right answer is that there is no such call. So maybe you could stop insisting there is, and about ninety percent of this conversation would fall under ‘sure, oops, nevermind.’

Meanwhile any conversation about Steam’s marketshare - for example an article asking “Can anyone overthrow Steam on PC?” - kinda has to bring this up anyway. It has an impact… and a lot of people will implicitly or explicitly say nuh-uh, at length.

At least two of those are preliminary Doom ports to the NES. There’s a third one that’s only on Github.

It’s almost like the chatbot that codes has made arbitrarily complex goals massively easier. Will that produce many low-effort or half-finished projects? Sure… but so did Unity. Ninety percent of everything is crap. You have to focus on the exceptions, or you’ll drown in it.

And now your saying to do nothing but shrug and wait.

That’s what I’ve said the entire time. That sentence does not mean “the risk becomes real only if we are fools who do nothing.” It means “the risk is real even when the appropriate course of action is to do nothing.” It is not a distinction.

People insisting that Steam is a monopoly are implicitly arguing action should be taken about it.

No.

it doesn’t matter what word you use

It does because basically any other example would be a problem that needs solving. Even now, it has far-reaching effects, some of them dire, and we tolerate them because any direct solution would be worse. Those problems are still real. The label is still accurate and necessary.

Stop saying it’s not a monopoly just because we tolerate it.

I don’t disagree with you

Demonstrably false. If you think saying it’s a monopoly requires action, that is the central disagreement.

And will you be just as upset in a year from now when your failure to say anything of substance has again caused me to not remember you?

If you’re still telling people an obvious monopoly is not a monopoly if the monopoly is kind of okay, yes, I will still explain why that’s the exact same mistake. Internalize the definitions you claim to acknowledge. Stop saying it’s not a monopoly just because we tolerate it. You cannot agree that it meets the definition and still argue about the words used. That’s denying it meets the definition.

It was not a distinction… it was bluntly rephrasing “it’s probably fine” in the vain hope it might finally get through. I am explicitly telling you there’s no mandatory action, and you’re still posturing like that’s a gotcha. You don’t get it. You never have. I’m not even mad, it’s just ridiculous. What sequence of words would help at this point?

Yes, acknowledging Steam’s blatant monopoly over the PC gaming market is important, especially when the dryest mention of that fact has people digging their heels in to argue ‘nuh uh.’ People endlessly parroting ‘so what?’ are not meaningfully different. You are still implicitly arguing against that label, as if that label demands decisive change.

It is crucial for people to recognize - this is what monopoly looks like. It’s never the cartoon absolute, and it’s usually really fucking bad. Steam is a vanishingly rare example of a monopoly that works out fine. It is still a monopoly. The “fine” part is far less durable than the “monopoly” part.

I’ve tried several times to exit this conversation when it sounded like you understood that. I already explained this a year ago and kinda figured, okay, that guy’s been told, box checked. I am literally telling you the practical path forward is whatever you were doing already, just so long as you don’t deny the obvious. Why did you make this take so long? I possess enough patience and concern, such that if you ask the same confused questions yet again, be it today or next year, I will still try to help you figure out what I have been saying in plain English the entire time. If you consider that a character flaw then maybe we should discuss mistake as well.

If you repeat the question again, the answer will still be, that’s not how it works. Me explaining that mistake is the reply. I am only “going on and on” because you continue demanding this explanation, and then, you ignore it.

The sentence you quoted contains the words “what we do about it” followed by what we do about it, and what we do about it is, not much. It is not the sort of problem you necessarily do something about. The reason for saying so anyway is cleverly hidden at the start of the quoted sentence.

It is still a problem. It is still something we have to stay aware of, to prevent complacency… or whatever else you’d call it when simply saying “Steam is a monopoly” unleashes a torrent of denials and accusations, as if the fact must be followed by a call to action obliterating everybody’s favorite DRM vendor.

Steam has overwhelming market share, and could abuse that in a heartbeat, in a way that no merely competitive company can. Steam is so large that not being on it, for whatever reason, can be a death knell for sales. They wield such power that their cautious selectivity dictates which games most customers would even see offered - and an accept-all policy would dilute the shopping experience for nearly everyone.

All of that is real even if there’s not a safe and satisfying alternative, immediately to-hand. Unless you’ve got a magic wand laying around, there’s nothing I’d ask you to do about this situation, besides maybe could you stop asking me what to do about it? It’s a systemic risk. That doesn’t mean it’s an emergency.

If “what do you think the word means” was my first comment… that makes the next comment the second.

Calling Steam a monopoly is again irrelevant because what do you propose be done about it?

… you still don’t get it. Even now, you’re insisting the label demands action. How many times-- literally, I’m asking. How many times do we have to tell you, that’s not how it works?

Nobody but y’all are talking about breaking up Valve, because that’s what you jump to from the word monopoly. Like the risk of anticompetitive abuse is inseparable from committing that abuse and must therefore be punished. You quoted my link to Cornell explaining that’s wrong. Why did it have no lasting impact on your brain?

I just told you, there are times where a monopoly works out better. I told you a year ago and yesterday. I have a root comment in this thread which begins, first thing, “Their monopoly is preferable to many alternatives, but.” What comes after the “but” is not ‘we must destroy this intolerable stranglehold.’ That comment does conclude: “the precondition for abusing a monopoly is being a monopoly.” It is a risk. It is a fact to be concerned about, not necessarily an immediate call to action.

The risk is still real when what we do about it is shrug and wait.

Are you kvetching because the most direct possible answer was only the second thing I said? Not counting where I personally explained it to you personally an entire year ago.

After the more recent clarification, you made clear you still thought monopoly meant illegal. “Everyone calling Steam a monopoly is implying that.” My response was “The point of acknowledging Steam’s monopoly is recognizing things could go bad.”

Now Steam is no longer a Monopoly in the legal sense, are you no longer concerned about the amount of power Steam has?

I’d be massively less concerned. A game off Steam, but on all those competitors, would still be seen by the majority of customers. Those competitors have motivation toward pro-consumer intercompatibility. Customers have a choice based on whatever they consider important - like user interface. Publishers would care about percentages, because the choice is not between giving Valve their pound of flesh, or an anticipated sequel taking two years to break even.

Basically it turns out competition is kind of important for capitalism? The cases where a monopoly works out better are rare… and fragile.

instead of clarifying what definition you are using

I literally did.

and you accuse other people of not learning?

Excuse me for thinking, after I already walked you through this an entire year ago, that you had it straight.

The legal definition is not wrong either, it all depends what you are talking about.

In what universe are you explaining this to me? Considering there’s obviously stores besides Steam, there’s no reason to infer someone must mean the rigid absolute dictionary definition of monopoly - especially after they repeatedly specify that’s not what they fucking mean.

If someone scoffing ‘finally you get it’ makes you stop getting it, then you did not get it.

Meanwhile.

Back at the point:

Steam is a monopoly. They are the one store that matters, on PC, and being excluded can ruin your game. Either you comprehend this, and accept that that’s what the word means when people talk about real markets, or you just plain don’t. If it’s “distinction without a difference” then why did you spend all this fucking time bickering about the distinction? I’m not the one making it. I’m here telling you, yet again, that the cartoon absolute and a simple supermajority are both forms of monopoly.

Having that power is a concern even if it’s not intrinsically an abuse.

So it is capitalism.

You cannot Just ignore the core aspect of capitalism and still claim it to be capitalism.

So it’s not capitalism?

“Legally speaking Steam qualifies as a monopoly due to its market share. Also legally speaking, being a monopoly because your competitors suck is completely legal.”

I have told you as much in the past, and you didn’t listen then either.

Do you understand it - even now? Or are you just saying it?

Multiple people are actively trying to dissuade you from that assumption. That’s the opposite of us implying it.

The point of acknowledging Steam’s monopoly is recognizing things could go bad. One store fucking up would fuck up this entire market. That’s what it means when y’all worry about Gabe having a heart attack.

I welcomed you to the conversation because you could not discuss this until you understood what this is.

Market share is the only thing defining a monopoly.

Absolute monopolies basically do not exist, except as subcategories of de facto monopolies. Even Apple obviously does not monopolize smartphones.

What would anti-competitive practices even mean, if there were no competitors?

They are insanely profitable.

The fuck do you mean, “they ignore the profit incentive?” Like it’s not true capitalism unless they reject everything besides money money more money all the money only money matters.

People point out that what they’re doing is plainly capitalism, and you repeatedly counter, they are “crawling despite capitalism.” What does that fucking mean? What are you trying to say, if not this?

I feel I’ve been clear in establishing, it’s still capitalism, even when it’s not maximally evil. No zealotry is required, to point out, they are absolutely doing shit for profit, even if that doesn’t mean setting puppies on fire to fuel the torment nexus for the biggest profit you can imagine. Capitalism that’s less awful than the worst examples still counts - unlike what the root comment treats as inseparable from the premise.

If you finally acknowledge they’re a monopoly, we’ve succeeded.

There doesn’t have to be a “therefore.” That’s you, assuming that monopoly alone is a crime, and we have to destroy them. Nobody pointing out Steam’s monopoly is saying that. It’s still a monopoly. Take all the time you need, preferably in silence.

nuh uh

nuh uh

nuh uh

okay yes huh but so what

Infuriating.

And yet, plainly capable of abusing their near total dominance of an open platform. Hence the concern about Gabe specifically. They have this power, but choose not to be dicks about it.

They still have this power. That’s what the word means.