this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
148 points (95.1% liked)
PC Master Race
21288 readers
959 users here now
A community for PC Master Race.
Rules:
- No bigotry: Including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No NSFW content.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- Be thoughtful and helpful: especially when new beginners have questions.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"Monopoly" is neither illegal nor immoral. It's a de facto label given based on observation. A "good" company can still be a monopoly.
Steam distributes ~75% of all PC games. It took me less than 30 seconds to find that that was the same market share needed to indict USMC in 1954. This is what happens when you hahave an entire (multiple?) generations who have grown up with gutted anti-trust policies.
ETA from my other comment ITT but worth reiterating:
ETA: Monopolies are generally allowed to exist in the US until they start either harming customers or engaging in flagrant anticompetitive measures. Without either of these, there is no victim class to sue. The Sherman Act makes it much easier to litigate instances of "harming customers."
There are tons of existing private monopolies in the market today that are allowed to exist just because no one's sued for harm. The Govt. doesn't just go around trust busting without cause.
The glass bottle industry is dominated by Owens, which has a ~85% market share but is allowed to continue because they're ostensibly the best for the economy. Glass bottles are cheap to buy and no one's really eager to start a competing plant. If either of those changed then trust busting might begin, but that doesn't mean they're not already a monopoly.
You can argue what kind of monopoly that Steam is, but the idea that it's not is completely unfounded in reality.