High aspect ratio for loitering.

There’s a ‘but the bad things’ buried in the middle, desperately wanting a line break.

I did the same thing initially and tried re-reading it as sass. Especially if “TF2 neglect” was considered positive.

Maybe there isn’t one.

This is what I’m talking about: people think monopoly = bad, so if I say Valve has a monopoly, I must want them burned to the ground. Nah. They’re mostly fine. Having only one good option is precarious, but it is still a good option. For now.

But they’re still a monopoly. We should say so, because it’s true, and important. It shapes the entire PC gaming market.

The tactical I-beam is definitely a choice.

Fuck off calling it a mistake, AP. They did it on purpose and they’re trying to do it again.

“Use the torrents, damn!”

Oregon and Vermont, yeah, that tracks.

Colorado and New Mexico: “In this weather? It’s your funeral.”

South Park has been political for a quarter century running. Libertarian dipshits don’t know what the word means. Nothing they do is politics, because they’re the default. Like how they don’t have an accent, or an ethnicity. Those are ways other people are being different at them.

None of that is what defines a monopoly.

There’s only one store that matters. They have unthreatened supermajority marketshare. Customers go there by default - sometimes exclusively. Developers can sell there, or they’re basically fucked.

What you’re concerned about are anti-competitive practices. But some businesses don’t need those, to lack any relevant competition. It can just happen. They didn’t do anything wrong. They’re still monopolies.

I’ve gotta be one of six people on Earth who learned about it from Clerks: The Animated series.

Your king!

Alan Wake 2 didn’t make its money back for a year despite being a huge game on the second-biggest service.

Steam doesn’t care about other stores because other stores do not matter. They can let other stores sell Steam keys, and it still doesn’t threaten their untouchable market share.

And if his yacht sinks, we’re boned.

While many accuse Valve of monopolising the PC gaming market, others argue that Steam’s dominance is simply the result of doing things right.

These assertions do not contradict. I cannot overstress that.

This whole article is ‘Valve’s monopoly is fine because they did things right.’

Having one good store is not, in itself, a problem. But it does mean we’re one fuckup away from having no good stores.

Saying it’s a monopoly doesn’t mean it needs solving. Anti-competitive behavior is a problem - but being a monopoly doesn’t require that abuse, and you don’t need a monopoly to exercise that abuse.

Yet people get deeply fricking weird about saying it’s a monopoly.

It’s naked taboo. It’s people feeling icky about a word, and actively refusing to engage in rational argument about meaning. When someone has dogmatically internalized that monopoly=bad and Steam=good, the text doesn’t matter. Even pointing out things they just said gets dismissed as some kind of attack against The Good Store.™

We have to start from plain acknowledgement that Steam’s competitors do not matter. They are plentiful and irrelevant. Explaining why they are doesn’t change that they are.

So we’re acknowledging it’s a monopoly? Cool. Defense is still an acknowledgement. I’ve had the weirdest goddamn arguments with people insisting they’d never shop anywhere else, and if games aren’t on there it’s their own fault they’re doomed… but how dare anyone use the m-word! Obviously that can only mean one seller with absolute control, like how Standard Oil owned all 85% of the market.

You haven’t explained shit to me yet!

You don’t know what explaining shit would look like!

Ah, so you just spit words into the void and mock anyone who tries engaging with them.

Troll.

God forbid anyone act like you believe the things you say, in a logical manner that can be interrogated or defended. You, the protagonist of reality, have spoken. End of story, period, other cliches meaning la la la not listening.

I don’t think you have an argument. You’ve got a conclusion, yes, but when asked to even reiterate how you got there, all you have is performative sneering.

YOU misread MY argument, and now - being asked to please explain what you’re posturing about - you’re posturing harder.

Do you care about this topic or are you just trolling?