I'm eager yo use GOG in Linux. Meanwhile, Steam is fine.

Gamers can buy wherever they want. But game devs either sell on Steam or they basically don't sell at all.
It's not a full monopoly. He just has a quasi monopoly. And there are rumors that devs who sell cheaper on other platforms risk not being shown to buyers on Steam...
With great power comes great opportunity for abusing that power to take more middle man tax.

Yes, but before Valve you had a lot more choice, because you could buy things in actual shops. I didn't have to wait until the handful of predetermined "sale weeks" a year to actually get games at budget prices.

And it's not just Valve, but if they ever go public or bust, you'll all wonder how you were ever fooled for so long.

This is your weekly reminder at this point that Valve is a corporation and that corporations are not your friends nor your allies.

It's so clear that so many people here DIDN'T read the article, which is further compounded by the author not understanding the meaning of monopoly vs anti-competitive practices. Just so we are all on the same page:

A monopoly is a market structure where a single company or entity is the sole supplier of a specific product or service, with no viable substitutes. Because it lacks competition, a monopolist can dictate prices, prevent new competitors from entering the market, and influence quality.

Anti-competitive behavior refers to actions taken by a business or organization to limit, restrict or eliminate competition in a market, usually in order to gain an unfair advantage or dominate the market. These practices are often considered illegal or unethical and can harm consumers, other businesses and the broader economy. Anti-competitive behavior is used by business and governments to lessen competition within the markets so that monopolies and dominant firms can generate supernormal profit margins and deter competitors from the market. Therefore, it is heavily regulated and punishable by law in cases where it substantially affects the market.

This isn't about steam being a better service, (even though it IS a better service,) or being a monopoly, (it isn't.) The lawsuit is about anti-competitive practices.

The lawsuit pertains to steam allegedly disallowing devs to price games lower on other platforms. If this is true, it's a move that prevents competition. Maybe other digital storefronts are shittier, but they might make up for it by taking a smaller cut from game devs, which allows them to sell at a lower price on GOG, or EPIC. If Steam is forcing devs to charge the same price on all platforms, or preventing them from offering discounts on those other platforms when they aren't offered on Steam, then it doesn't matter where I buy the game. This is a form of price fixing, except it isn't an agreement being done between digital storefronts behind closed doors, the price fixing is allegedly happening by steam leveraging the developers

Imagine you are going to buy Tide laundry detergent. You can go to Walmart, Target, or your local grocery store. They all carry the same exact same 125 fl oz bottle. Walmart has it for the lowest price, Target is the next highest, and the local grocer has the highest price for the item. Does my local grocery store get to force Walmart to raise their prices to match their own?

My local grocery store might charge a little bit more, but I prefer to shop there because it's closer to me, and the stores are better organized making it easier for me to find what I want. Personally I LOATHE shopping at Walmart. I happen to be willing to pay more for a better experience when buying the same product. Other people might not give a shit about the shopping experience and just want the lowest price, so they go to Walmart.

I refuse to touch EPIC game store. I think it's a subpar product. But if my buddy is telling me about a game he got for free through their storefront and raves about what a good game it is, I'm gonna buy it off of steam, instead of getting it for free, because steam is a digital storefront I trust, and provides a good customer experience.

I realize laundry detergent isn't the same as video game software, but I think my example demonstrates how competition can work and how fucked up it would be if the allegations against steam are true.

"Buy" games on Steam? Sure wish they let you own them.

He’s not wrong. But the price fixing has to go. I shouldn’t have to pay physical prices for a digital product.

Billionaires shouldn't exist.

An earned monopoly is still a monopoly. Anyone who feels that the power that Steam wields in the gaming market is not an issue, I urge you to think or learn about why monopolies are harmful -- not in relation to steam. Think about a manufacturer of gizmos completely cornering the gizmo market and what that would mean for the people wanting to buy gizmos, as time passes. Don't think in terms of the laws or definitions of some specific country, just think about the effect it would have on society. Worst case scenario you lose some time and gain some insight on monopolies

Valve has a monopoly at being the only online gaming storefront that doesn't suck.

Around the 2010's, both MS and Google were seen as "noble monopolies". Even if Steam is the better video game distributors, always stand on more than one leg when it comes to buying games.

Start with SpaceX

Here's the thing. There are other places. Epic, Amazon Gaming, Origin/Battlenet/Ubi, itch, Microsoft store, gog...

Most suck at discoverability or they don't have the variety of Steam. Some are shitty by design (Origin, Ubi, Battlenet) - intended to only get you to play their games. Others like itch aren't built for scaling out to deliver thousands of big games.

This isn't a thing like Apple's walled garden, I feel like this is Steam out performing the competition.