665
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2023
665 points (97.7% liked)
Games
39400 readers
564 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
Authorized Regular Threads
Related communities
Video games
Generic
- !gaming@Lemmy.world: Our sister community, focused on POC and console gaming. Meme are allowed.
- !cozygames@Lemmy.world: Because not everything has to explode to make a good game
- !photomode@feddit.uk
Help and suggestions
- !TipOfMyJoystick@retrolemmy.com : You are searching for a game, but can't remember the name? Someone will find it for you here.
- !videogamesuggestions@lemmy.zip : Can't find a game to play in among the hundred you already own? Find another one to add to your library here.
- !patientgamers@sh.itjust.works: Gaming isn't only about having the latest great games. Good old games are there too.
Platform specific
- linux_gaming@Lemmy.world : For everything related to gaming on Linux platform, be it on Steam Deck or Desktop Linux.
- !steamdeck@lemmy.ml : A Steam Deck specific community
Game specific
- !minecraft@Lemmy.world
- !nomanssky@lemmy.world
- !cassettebeasts@Lemmy.world
- !palia@Lemmy.world
- !subnautica2@Lemmy.world
Language specific
Others
PM a mod to add your own
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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.
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.