Technically neither did Internet Explorer in the late 1990s when Microsoft got their weiner smacked. They got hit for “monopolistic practices” which are still a violation of antitrust.
To use a paraphrase of Gamezone’s argument, there were plenty of browsers other than Internet Explorer, people just chose to use IE. But was it really a choice or were they subtly pushed into it at the expense of others?
I imagine a competent lawyer with a large enough warchest could make a similar case against Valve/Steam. The existence of other launchers and storefronts doesn’t mitigate potential antitrust behavior. How many people “choose” Steam because there’s simply no other choice?
What monopolistic practices is Valve engaged in? Epic charges developers/publishers a lower fee to put games on their platform, so Valve isn't using their market share to undermine their prices in an effort to keep Epic from succeeding (although the reverse is certainly true). Valve does not engage in exclusivity behavior, so they aren't using their market share to keep games off of Epic (although the reverse is certainly true).
There is always going to be a biggest person in the room. Valve is the biggest person in the PC storefront room. There is nothing wrong with being the biggest person in the room, but there is something wrong with actively trying to prevent others from becoming as big or bigger than you. I don't know of a single instance in which Valve is using their market share to strongarm the competition. There are no monopolistic practices that Valve is engaging in that I am aware of.
The biggest difference between Epic and Valve is ownership:
- Valve is run by an actual gamer who loves video games.
- Gabe wants the industry to succeed, but he doesn't want that to come at the cost of gamers (insofar as he refuses to engage in exclusivity practices because that limits choice.
- Gabe has grown the Steam storefront massively, and provided a haven for people to keep gaming guides and discussion.
- The Steam community can upload Guides to help with issues.
- The Steam community can discuss every game on the Steam platform.
- Non-Steam gamers use Steam forums for discussion and troubleshooting.
- Epic is run by a rat-faced cuck who doesn't give a shit if gamers are disenfranchised as long as he makes money.
- Tim Sweeny engaged in exclusivity practices, artificially limiting gamers' choice on where to buy content.
- Tim Sweeny blocks people on social media for calling him out for his behavior.
- The Epic Games Store took forever to get achievements and a shopping cart despite Epic making money hand-over-foot from Unreal Engine and Fortnite.
- Epic does not have a community the way that Steam does, nor have they invested into improving their storefront beyond adding features that should have existed since launch (achievements and a shopping cart).
Epic games sucks, and it is because their owner has no vision for the industry, but rather a simple, narrow vision for his own profit.
