Well, if some rando on the internet has Done Their Research then that's good enough for me! I am convinced!

Fuck it, I'll bite.

I will give it a try though. What prevent developers from pulling from steam. The answer is nothing except for a loss in potential revenue since that is where (75%) the majority of PC software is sold. There is also nothing preventing you from shutting off the power to your house. This doesn't suddenly make your power company not a monopoly.

How would there be loss in revenue if it were only available through stores which have better profit sharing? You think the people who want that game would not purchase it through a different store? That's literally how Steam got started. The reason developers don't is because they like Steam. I know this intimately.

Whether someone likes or dislikes a monopoly has no bearing on the monopoly. Just because you liked IE in Windows didn't mean that MS didn't leverage their monopoly in an attempt to make it the Internet standard.

That's because Windows was unfairly competing by having Internet Explorer preinstalled. That was what that case was about. I know because one of my family members works in Business Law and has extensive knowledge of monopolies and their standing in court with 20yrs of court experience. Did you know that if the DoJ evaluates a "monopoly" and finds consumers actually just prefer that product and nobody cares to compete, they'll leave it alone?

Also, the antitrust bit. Steam requires you to sell your product for the same price even if a competitor charges less of a cut. You are not allowed to sell it for less to increase the sales on another platform that charges less. This is anti-competitive and a clear sign of a monopoly.

That is not antitrust as the developer could choose not to sell on Steam and use their own launcher and selling service. It would be antitrust if they applied that to other games. E.g. if EGS sells a game, not owned by Epic, for less than what Steam offer and Steam took actions against games on Steam owned by Epic, that would be antitrust and monopolistic.

What would it take for that company to compete. They can't and that is the point. Even after Epic has thrown billions at the issue they have been unable to move the needle. This makes me laugh at your previous question about building your own steam competitor from scratch. Clearly you could do it in your basement with no help when a multi-billion dollar company can't manage it.

Epic has thrown billions at it because they haven't done shit to improve their storefront or community. They don't have hardly as many offerings or community support. Funny how Valve is able to manage a larger community just fine with fewer resources.

Please don't talk to me about court when you can't even agree to a basic fact. While I am not a lawyer I have studied monopoly laws and cases for years. That is why it is crystal clear that Steam is a monopoly.

Ha! I guess my family member who's gonna go to court tomorrow, was wrong about everything. Because I've been sending him our conversation. It is not as crystal as you believe.

Your statement about no one competing because they don't want to is false, but if it were true that would definitely make Steam a natural monopoly which I alluded to earlier.

It's still not a natural monopoly, because of other competitors in the same market space. This definition of monopoly is very difficult to define. Should Valve have to apologize for developers not offering their games on other platforms? Developers can use any storefront they want, but they mostly only use Steam, I wonder why? The option is there, consumers are very well aware of the options, yet they still choose Steam.

Does steam prevent you from downloading and using another marketplace. No, but Windows never prevented you from installing another browser either. Clearly you are grasping here and I think studying some monopoly cases could help you.

No, IE came preinstalled. That's what that issue was. Stop acting like Windows gained market share fairly, as Steam has.

Keep in mind the US government, in particular, has given up on enforcing monopolies in the digital space as seen by their refusal to hold Google accountable for their many monopolistic practices. So don't worry, me calling Steam a monopoly or you accepting this reality isn't going to change shit.

The current climate of the DoJ, as well as, the past three to four decades of the DoJ, is far too intricate and complex to address and relate to Steam. Why you do that? So silly.

You questions asking what would happen if Steam was broken up are missing the point. There are numerous policies that could be passed to ensure competition or just regulate the rights of consumers and publishers. I would recommend that Steam's anti-competitive policies be eliminated.

So, with your suggestion developers can under bid Steam however much they want? Congratulations, you just caused Steam to give away the game for free. They can do it. They have the market share to sustain the loss. You've improved nothing and demonstrated the knowledge you lack in part.

To answer your final question, because of Steams dominant market presence they keep prices high (despite their great sales) and take a disproportionally unfair cut for the work they do. This actively harms customers through lack of competition and anti-competitive practices.

They take 30% which is not unheard of in the mobile world. You can argue on whether a 70% cut for devs is enough, or not. I think it's fine for the amount of service Valve has provided the community and developers.

Let me put it this way. If you poured you life into a indie game project and made a million in sales, do you feel a 300k cut is fair? Clearly you would feel that is way too much and it is for a digital marketplace.

You absolute donkey. It's 70% for the developer and 30% for Valve. Not only that, there are different tiers going up to 80/20. You dolt. You fool. It's finished.