1. Monopoly does mean single seller etymologically but you don't need to have a single seller to have a monopoly in truth. You just need an overwhelming market share. The funny thing is that being a monopoly is not enough to get you sued - how you maintain the monopoly and what you do with the resources of said monopoly is what gets you in trouble.
For example - Microsoft in 1998 was sued by the government for basically screwing its competition in the software market by using their monopolistic position in terms of OS to constantly make their competitor's software not work properly on their OS among other things. Microsoft held 86% of desktop OS then. The company split in two - one developed the software that run on the OS and the other developed the OS itself. Years later the OS popularity actually rose to 97% but they were not sued because of that.
In similar vein AT&T was broken up because they used funds from one of their monopolistic subsidiaries to subsidize their entire network while most of it was operating at a loss for the sole purpose of maintaining its monopoly that was in effect for about 10 years before the company was broken up.
Right now and for years back Google has been basically a monopoly when it comes to internet searches with over 90% market share but they are not doing anything illegal in order for that to get them into trouble. Although there is no official data but Valve seem to be in a similar position - they have basically monopolized the market with a very high market share but they are not doing anything scummy enough to warrant the attention of the legal system.
2. Exclusivity is not lack of competition. It is a competition on a different level. What you are competing for is exclusives and through that - customers. Epic and Steam and other stores are competing over developers and publishers with the terms they are offering them. Epic has some very enticing propositions with the increased revenue share and the guarantee of sales but Steam is also very alluring with it's overwhelming market share, the tools and features they are offering through steamworks and their increasing-with-sales revenue share model. Still whichever platform is chosen is based on the decision of the publishers and developers. And as we are talking timed exclusives in Epic's case it is up to the consumer to decide whether they would want to use the more-basic EGS that has the game right now or wait for the more feature-rich Steam release some time later. It is a competition for customers based on convenience - some would choose the convenience of having the game right now and others would choose the convenience of added features.
So I logged into the storefront today to see a fall sale and thought, this is crap, I don't know what is safe to buy. Not to mention when new games launch on epic store one of two things happen.
I think oh cool game, maybe add to wish list, oops no wish list; sorry if I forget about you.
Maybe I might want to buy this game, what are users saying about it? No idea because no reviews. Checks Youtube and twitch, nope, unless the game is abysmal no one will ever say enough about it to sway your view since most got a free review copy. What kind of launch bugs are people experiencing? No idea I guess maybe check reddit, again a crap shoot. It's like pissing blind into the wind next to an electric fence.
I don't mind using another storefront, but I'll say it again they need to get their shit together if they want to pull over more Steam users.
Comments
For example - Microsoft in 1998 was sued by the government for basically screwing its competition in the software market by using their monopolistic position in terms of OS to constantly make their competitor's software not work properly on their OS among other things. Microsoft held 86% of desktop OS then. The company split in two - one developed the software that run on the OS and the other developed the OS itself. Years later the OS popularity actually rose to 97% but they were not sued because of that.
In similar vein AT&T was broken up because they used funds from one of their monopolistic subsidiaries to subsidize their entire network while most of it was operating at a loss for the sole purpose of maintaining its monopoly that was in effect for about 10 years before the company was broken up.
Right now and for years back Google has been basically a monopoly when it comes to internet searches with over 90% market share but they are not doing anything illegal in order for that to get them into trouble. Although there is no official data but Valve seem to be in a similar position - they have basically monopolized the market with a very high market share but they are not doing anything scummy enough to warrant the attention of the legal system.
2. Exclusivity is not lack of competition. It is a competition on a different level. What you are competing for is exclusives and through that - customers. Epic and Steam and other stores are competing over developers and publishers with the terms they are offering them. Epic has some very enticing propositions with the increased revenue share and the guarantee of sales but Steam is also very alluring with it's overwhelming market share, the tools and features they are offering through steamworks and their increasing-with-sales revenue share model. Still whichever platform is chosen is based on the decision of the publishers and developers. And as we are talking timed exclusives in Epic's case it is up to the consumer to decide whether they would want to use the more-basic EGS that has the game right now or wait for the more feature-rich Steam release some time later. It is a competition for customers based on convenience - some would choose the convenience of having the game right now and others would choose the convenience of added features.
3. I agree