3 ms·
> If they were maintaining it through anticompetitive means, sure, but I've never seen anyone claim that they are They did get sued for having "anticompetitive
by protimewaster 2y ago
> If they were maintaining it through anticompetitive means, sure, but I've never seen anyone claim that they are
They did get sued for having "anticompetitive restraints on pricing" and "Federal Judge John C. Coughenour ruled that those claims were credible and that Steam gamers can claim compensation for Valve's illegal monopoly, but gamers, unlike developers, must file individual arbitrations to do so."
So, yes, it's been claimed and legally found that they have at least some anticompetitive practices, at least in the USA.
(Quoted text is from https://www.bucherlawfirm.com/steam-case-explained https://www.bucherlawfirm.com/steam-case-explained)
- lolinder 2y agoI did somehow miss this lawsuit, but this is an advertisement for the law firm, not actual documentation of the ruling, because the ruling hasn't been issued yet. The wording is very precise here: the judge ruled that those claims were credible and allowed the case to move forward. That is not the same thing as the judge siding with the plaintiffs.
- protimewaster 2y agoThat's true, but it's definitely not the case that nobody has accused Valve of being anticompetitive. They have a variety of plausibly anticompetitive practices and accusations. It's also possible that some gamers did actually get money from Valve via arbitration, so they could've been found to have acted in an anticompetitive way, separately from the lawsuit. I've not been able to find anyone specifically saying that they did the arbitration, though.