simpsonsshitposting

3032 readers

943 users here now

I just think they're neat!

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

PartyCat@sh.itjust.works

665

Maybe a bit optimistic, but one can dream (slrpnk.net)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) by Prunebutt@slrpnk.net to c/simpsonsshitposting@sh.itjust.works

220 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Duff CEO with a Windows-Logo on his forehead: "Gamers use Windows because of its' user experience not our de facto monopoly."

Next Image: Duff CEO with Windows-Logo in front of a "Out of Business" sign. Subtitle: "30 minutes after SteamOS is released"

Edit: Yo, I'm not saying this is gonna happen. I just want to say that Windew's UX sucks ass.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Steam is a monopoly because if devs try to sell on other stores, they will make less money.

That doesn't describe a monopoly at all. That just describes the free market.

Epic actually tried to get around this by offering very lucrative exclusivity deals to devs. That still didn't work.

I refuse to touch Epic because of their exclusivity deals. So in my case the exclusivity is actually harmful for sales..

[–] frezik@midwest.social 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That doesn’t describe a monopoly at all. That just describes the free market.

Libertarian much? The free market can and does create monopolies all the time. Libertarian philosophy doesn't believe it because it's an obvious flaw.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

None of that explains how "devs make more money selling on Steam" makes Steam a monopoly. Especially when as you've already said Epic has tried to pay devs directly for exclusivity as well give them a larger % of sales.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Devs make more money selling in Steam because all the customers are there. I know that accepting this means accepting libertarian philosophy is deeply flawed, but it isn't that complicated.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

None of that explains how "devs make more money selling on Steam" makes Steam a monopoly.

Your attempts at Ad Hominin in no way argues that Steam is a monopoly.

"People shop at Store A instead of Store B" does not necessitate that Store A is a monopoly. Maybe Store B is shit.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 0 points 26 minutes ago (1 children)

If store B is shit, and there isn't much else, then everyone flocks to store A. Then store A will be a monopoly.

You argue like a libertarian, too. As in naming off logical fallacies while completely missing the substance.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 minutes ago

You argue like a libertarian, too. As in naming off logical fallacies while completely missing the substance.

I don't know what makes me a libertarian in your eyes and I don't care. The point of the discussion has been about Steam being a "monopoly", and whatever label you apply to me does not discredit my arguments nor distract from the fact that your posts have no substance other than trying to apply a label to me instead of addressing the arguments being made.

If store B is shit, and there isn't much else, then everyone flocks to store A. Then store A will be a monopoly.

If Store B is shit so everyone flocks to Store A then:

What exactly is the problem? And
What do you suggest people do about it?

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And what did the horrible fanboys do? Boycott any dev who dared to accept an Epic deal.

So developers were forced to ditch Epic or lose sales.

[–] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 hour ago

Crying "fanboys" does not make Steam a monopoly.