Steam's business model is convenience first. If someone wants to do something don't get in their way. That's how they can be a monopoly and no one complains, because there's very few walls or barriers. Every time there have been barriers, steam not accepting games, NSFW games, crypto, AI, they either get out of their way, or take a reasonable philosophical/ethical stance. Even if you disagree with their stance its hard to be angry about it and often their stance changes or gains nuance to it as time goes on.
I'm with you for the most part, but they aren't a monopoly. The definition changes depending on who you ask, I'm going by the overwhelming market share + providing barriers to entry to competitors. They do debatably meet the market share, but I'd argue not the practices that bar the existence of competitors.
I feel like they've been very careful to not meet that second criteria and it's been healthy to the games market as a whole. GoG has a different niche, humble bundle sells wholesale discounts, and every company has their own store, for better or worse.
Meanwhile epic gets on my nerves because it's been throwing around exclusivity deals to their platform and throwing around free games, which are both tactics to try to undermine the others in the market. If they had the kind of userbase steam has, yes I'd say that would be a monopoly.
I mostly agree, it's more a matter of exposure and, as you say market share. It's a weird situation to be in, that in order to really get the most sales on PC you need to be on steam.
Steam's business model is convenience first. If someone wants to do something don't get in their way. That's how they can be a monopoly and no one complains, because there's very few walls or barriers. Every time there have been barriers, steam not accepting games, NSFW games, crypto, AI, they either get out of their way, or take a reasonable philosophical/ethical stance. Even if you disagree with their stance its hard to be angry about it and often their stance changes or gains nuance to it as time goes on.
I'm with you for the most part, but they aren't a monopoly. The definition changes depending on who you ask, I'm going by the overwhelming market share + providing barriers to entry to competitors. They do debatably meet the market share, but I'd argue not the practices that bar the existence of competitors.
I feel like they've been very careful to not meet that second criteria and it's been healthy to the games market as a whole. GoG has a different niche, humble bundle sells wholesale discounts, and every company has their own store, for better or worse.
Meanwhile epic gets on my nerves because it's been throwing around exclusivity deals to their platform and throwing around free games, which are both tactics to try to undermine the others in the market. If they had the kind of userbase steam has, yes I'd say that would be a monopoly.
I mostly agree, it's more a matter of exposure and, as you say market share. It's a weird situation to be in, that in order to really get the most sales on PC you need to be on steam.