They have the highest market share because every other platform has been shit (until gog), and customers voted with their wallet. They aren’t squeezing competition out, everyone else needs to suck less.
If you think removing those abusive clauses will have an impact on the market you’re delusional.
Third party sellers have no reason to have a lower price on a different store, unless the store itself is paying them the offset of a lower price. That’s only going to suffocate smaller stores that don’t have money to burn.
And the stores with first party games can already create a bigger incentive for their store by keeping their games store exclusive because it would be the only place to play that particular game (it’s why streaming services have gone down the route of exclusivity). Also having the game with a higher price point on Steam would just lead to a controversy which will hurts sales and damage the reputation of the company.
You mean that people who came up with those laws, as a consequence of monopolies abusing their power, were delusional. Take a step back to think what’s more likely.
In case you were not paying attention you said Valve has to remove abusive clauses, which there is only one in question here and that’s about price parity, so other stores could compete. At not point did you mention any actual laws and at no point did I mention anything remotely related to laws. I said you thinking that removing that one clause will make other stores competitive is delusional thinking.
EDIT: And I got blocked. I guess that says all there is to say about OP.
They have the highest market share because every other platform has been shit (until gog), and customers voted with their wallet. They aren’t squeezing competition out, everyone else needs to suck less.
And Valve has to remove abusive clauses from their agreements with the devs so that it can actually happen, yes.
If you think removing those abusive clauses will have an impact on the market you’re delusional.
Third party sellers have no reason to have a lower price on a different store, unless the store itself is paying them the offset of a lower price. That’s only going to suffocate smaller stores that don’t have money to burn.
And the stores with first party games can already create a bigger incentive for their store by keeping their games store exclusive because it would be the only place to play that particular game (it’s why streaming services have gone down the route of exclusivity). Also having the game with a higher price point on Steam would just lead to a controversy which will hurts sales and damage the reputation of the company.
Removing the price parity clause will do nothing.
You mean that people who came up with those laws, as a consequence of monopolies abusing their power, were delusional. Take a step back to think what’s more likely.
In case you were not paying attention you said Valve has to remove abusive clauses, which there is only one in question here and that’s about price parity, so other stores could compete. At not point did you mention any actual laws and at no point did I mention anything remotely related to laws. I said you thinking that removing that one clause will make other stores competitive is delusional thinking.
EDIT: And I got blocked. I guess that says all there is to say about OP.
Go gaslight someone else.