What Advantages Has STEAM Brought to 2K, Firaxis and the Civilization Franchise?

[Wyrda Edocsil]

Monopolies are not illegal in the US. MxM was right.

They are illegal. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act clearly states that monopolies are illegal, with some very specific exceptions, which were later added- sports and utilities. This law is not always enforced, but is a law, and therefore is illegal to break by having a monopoly. MxM's statement that domination of the market is only illegal if it is misused is technically incorrect. However, if a company is not misusing their monopoly, and is not the only company that offers a certain product, a judge might rule that the company does not have a monopoly, and so, the company is, in effect, allowed to break the law. A company meeting the aforementioned criteria might also might not even be brought to court, being, again, allowed to perform illegal actions.

[MxM]

They are illegal. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act specifically states that monopolies are illegal, with some very specific exceptions, which were later added- sports and utilities. This law is not always enforced, but is a law, and therefore is illegal to break by having a monopoly. MxM's statement that domination of the market is only illegal if it is misused is technically incorrect. However, if a company is not misusing their monopoly, and is not the only company that offers a certain product, a judge might rule that the company does not have a monopoly, and so, the company is, in effect, allowed to break the law. A company meeting the aforementioned criteria might also might not even be brought to court, being, again, allowed to perform illegal actions.

It is my understanding that there is a very thin legal distinction that what is illegal is attempted action to monopolize, to "conspire" to monopolize, because such behavior is ruled anti-competitive. If for whatever reason you become a "good monopoly" without any exercise of a monopoly power or of anti-competitive behavior, then the law can not be applied. It is a thin line but as I understand it is there. For example, if for whatever Apple Inc. just adopts Windows without any pressure from Microsoft, then Microsoft would not be punished for becoming a monopoly. However, if it turns out, that Bill conspired to Steve to do that, that would be illegal.

[Asher]

They are illegal. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act clearly states that monopolies are illegal, with some very specific exceptions, which were later added- sports and utilities. This law is not always enforced, but is a law, and therefore is illegal to break by having a monopoly. MxM's statement that domination of the market is only illegal if it is misused is technically incorrect. However, if a company is not misusing their monopoly, and is not the only company that offers a certain product, a judge might rule that the company does not have a monopoly, and so, the company is, in effect, allowed to break the law. A company meeting the aforementioned criteria might also might not even be brought to court, being, again, allowed to perform illegal actions.

You are mistaken. Having a monopoly is not illegal in the USA, abusing the monopoly is.

[MRT144]

Why hate? DRM and removal of the choice for us to have CD only game or game with another downloader (D2D or Impulse). Being forced to something generate hate. Being forced to something restrictive (Steam DRM, necessity to run steam to run the game) generates more hate. And while all of that you listed is good, that could have been done differently and less restrictive to just Steam. You behave as if all those things has never been done outside of steam.

Also, when there is just one distributer who wins the competition (effectively Steam) it creates a monopoly, which is bad for us, customers at the end.

QQ, you're really thinking in generalities that don't fit Steam.

[MRT144]

They are illegal. Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act clearly states that monopolies are illegal, with some very specific exceptions, which were later added- sports and utilities. This law is not always enforced, but is a law, and therefore is illegal to break by having a monopoly. MxM's statement that domination of the market is only illegal if it is misused is technically incorrect. However, if a company is not misusing their monopoly, and is not the only company that offers a certain product, a judge might rule that the company does not have a monopoly, and so, the company is, in effect, allowed to break the law. A company meeting the aforementioned criteria might also might not even be brought to court, being, again, allowed to perform illegal actions.

Bidding on the ability to deliver content is hardly a monopoly anyway.

[Wyrda Edocsil]

It is my understanding that there is a very thin legal distinction that what is illegal is attempted action to monopolize, to "conspire" to monopolize, because such behavior is ruled anti-competitive. If for whatever reason you become a "good monopoly" without any exercise of a monopoly power or of anti-competitive behavior, then the law can not be applied. It is a thin line but as I understand it is there. For example, if for whatever Apple Inc. just adopts Windows without any pressure from Microsoft, then Microsoft would not be punished for becoming a monopoly. However, if it turns out, that Bill conspired to Steve to do that, that would be illegal.

If Apple started using Windows, it would not be a monopoly. Two separate companies selling the same product does not create a monopoly, as long as the two companies do not conspire to raise their prices together, basically creating a monopoly using two companies. If Apple ceased to exist, though, Microsoft would have a monopoly, and would be in violation of antitrust laws, so, as I mentioned before, Bill Gates payed Steve Jobs in order to keep Apple in business in the 1990's, so that Microsoft could continue to exist as a single company, rather than being split up, as Bell Telephone was. Steve Jobs gladly took the money, and with it, created the iPod, and, since then, Apple has begun to slowly drain Microsoft's profits.

As for the point about having a monopoly being legal if it is not abused, it is not. Very few true monopolies have existed throughout American history, though some companies have come dangerously close. Those true monopolies either fell under the category of sports and utilities, which are exempt from the law, or were broken into many smaller companies. Walmart is nowhere near being a monopoly. A monopoly exists only when a company has so little competition that it can mandate prices, raising them to absurd heights, without losing all of their business to cheaper competition. Walmart could never do this. If they were to raise their prices above other grocery stores', people would start shopping at other grocery stores. However, if Apple were eliminated, Microsoft would have a monopoly, because, no matter how much they raised their prices, they wouldn't lose too much business, because people would have no real alternative.

[Asher]

If Apple started using Windows, it would not be a monopoly.

Uh, yes, it would...

You're really out to lunch here, buddy.

It is very well known that monopolies themselves are not illegal, but anticompetitive acts by someone in a monopolistic position is. Microsoft is legally a monopoly according to the US courts and government, but it remains intact today because they've agreed to stop their anticompetitive acts. But they remain a monopoly, in the legal sense of the US government. And it remains legal.

[Wyrda Edocsil]

Uh, yes, it would...

You're really out to lunch here, buddy.

It is very well known that monopolies themselves are not illegal, but anticompetitive acts by someone in a monopolistic position is. Microsoft is legally a monopoly according to the US courts and government, but it remains intact today because they've agreed to stop their anticompetitive acts. But they remain a monopoly, in the legal sense of the US government. And it remains legal.

Apple's existence is the only reason that Microsoft continues to exist. Because Apple exists, Microsoft does not have total control over the market, because people can still choose to use Apple's products, and courts can claim that Microsoft does not have a monopoly. Also, why would Apple using Windows create a monopoly? Steve Jobs would be sued by Bill Gates if he used a Windows OS (even though the original Windows OS was stolen from Steve Jobs), but, if Bill Gates somehow didn't notice that Apple started using Windows, or sold them the operating system, Apple could produce and sell the OS and products which used the OS, completely independent of Microsoft, which would not destroy competition. Only one product might be available, but, as long as two companies are selling it at a price that is not determined by an agreement between the two companies, competition still exists, no one company has control over the entire market, and a monopoly does not exist.

One might be allowed to have a monopoly, but it is still technically illegal to have one.

[Asher]

Apple's existence is the only reason that Microsoft continues to exist.

You have some reading to do. Look at the DoJ vs MS.

The court's ruling that MS is a monopoly is still the letter of the law. It's not illegal to have a monopoly.

It is illegal to abuse the position, which MS was punished for.

[Proteus_MST]

Wouldn´t count Unix/Linux as competitors as well?

If new MS operating systems are too expensive for people, they could still switch to Linux,
which is free, after all.

[MxM]

QQ, you're really thinking in generalities that don't fit Steam.

Strange, I thought it should be another way around, services fitting people, not people fitting services. Silly me.

[MRT144]

Strange, I thought it should be another way around, services fitting people, not people fitting services. Silly me.

Valve bid on this piece of business and won. It happens all the time in content distribution.

[MxM]

Valve bid on this piece of business and won. It happens all the time in content distribution.

I do not see your point. AT&T won at the time as well, and at the end government used anti-trust law to destroy the company. What's good for business does not always mean good for the consumer. And in games, I am consumer. So saying that "it is good for business" is not good argument for me to begin with.

[Asher]

If consumers really didn't like Steamworks, they would not buy Steamworks-powered games. They vote with their dollar.

So far, Steam is dominating the industry. For good reason. The minority who has issues with it needs to get used to it, or vote with their dollars.

[MRT144]

I do not see your point. AT&T won at the time as well, and at the end government used anti-trust law to destroy the company. What's good for business does not always mean good for the consumer. And in games, I am consumer. So saying that "it is good for business" is not good argument for me to begin with.

It's not that it's good for business, it's that you're looking at this from the perspective of a black and white position. 2K and Firaxis were customers looking for a distribution and DRM solution and sent out RFPs to multiple companies. They were customers too. Why should your consumer interests trump theirs?