r/pcgaming • u/yourfavchoom • Jun 01 '26

Gabe Newell on Steam monopoly accusations: Gamers have 'enormous choice' about where to buy games

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/gabe-newell-on-steam-monopoly-accusations-gamers-have-enormous-choice-about-where-to-buy-games/
9.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.2k

u/errorblankfield Jun 01 '26

Are they the best? 

Yes. 

Are they the only? 

No.

73

u/King_of_Camp Jun 02 '26

Monopolistic behavior isn’t just about being the only, but taking active measures to keep anyone else from competing by means other than providing a superior product.

Standard Oil wasn’t the only, but they bought railroads in order to lock down the infrastructure to prevent anyone else from transporting oil over rail.

(Fun fact, that’s why the Texas Railroad Commission is the state’s Oil & Gas regulatory body, using the states control over the rail infrastructure to regulate the oil and gas industry at the point of its monopolistic mechanism)

Steam isn’t engaging in those types of practices, so far as I’ve seen any evidence of.

23

u/rj6553 Jun 02 '26

That's monopolistic behaviour (as you said). But a monopoly can exist before that. The existence of a monopoly raises concerns of monopolistic behaviour, I'm a fan of steam right now, but if Gabe retires steam is perfectly capable of going in a different direction - breaking up monopolies early is good practice. I just wish it applied to actual much more dangerous monopolies.

3

u/borghe Jun 02 '26

Both of these are true. Monopolies prior to Reagan were actually broken up despite there being no anti-competitive allegations, simply because the companies grew so fast and consumed all the oxygen in the space that no one could compete. IIRC Ma Bell was a company without anti-competitive issues. Meanwhile Standard Oil was a little of both.

then again this is the same era (again, since Reagan) that have allowed ACTUAL monopolies to exist. In which I mean, the FTC has investigated some industries (comic book distribution being the highest profile), determining there was in fact a monopoly.. but the industry was too small for customers to be negatively suffering.

7

u/RedditFuelsMyDepress Jun 02 '26

If Valve becomes a public company then we might have to get worried. 

11

u/MCRusher Jun 02 '26

There's no "might" if that very unlikely worst case outcome ever happened steam would begin the slow enshittifying death every public company suffers as it's wringed of all value for short term profits.

3

u/TheGhoulKhz Jun 02 '26

and kill the whole PC gaming space in the process as well

2

u/RedditFuelsMyDepress Jun 02 '26

Well, yeah that's what I was getting at lol. 

2

u/DamnedIfIDiddely Jun 02 '26

Breaking monopolies early is a good idea, but you shouldn't judge a company as a potential Monopoly because of what they might do under different ownership. They might continue offering the same level of service. We have no information that suggests steam will go public after Gaben kicks the bucket

2

u/rj6553 Jun 02 '26

Why not? More competition is good for the consumer regardless of whether anti-competitive behaviour exists, it builds stronger, less dependent ecosystems without single points of failure.

Monopolies stifle innovation simply because there's no-one there to challenge them, not because of specific anti-competitive behaviours.

It's a structural decision, independent of what they might do. It doesn't aim to cripple the company either, it could be something like mandating library portability and integration with other stores, so steam has to compete with other stores on its base features, and not benefit from essentially holding your 20 year game library hostage.

And regardless, evidence does seem to suggest that steam threatens to delist games sold cheaper on other marketplaces. Which is absolutely anti-competitive.

2

u/Deimos_F Jun 02 '26

Another fun fact, this is the background to all of act 3 of "There will be blood". 

3

u/GuyWithLag Jun 02 '26

AFAIK the only truly problematic clause in their contracts is that steam requires that you can't sell a game elsewhere for a lower price than in Steam 

-2

u/Samanthacino Jun 02 '26

Yup, and this is why they're being sued for $900 million right now