People keep saying that and it still isn’t true. It was argued the dictionary definition wasn’t good enough, so how about US legal criteria to be considered a monopoly.

Federal criteria looks at three things: market power, exclusionary conduct, and business justification.

1. Market power: “…significant and durable market power — that is, the long term ability to raise price or exclude competitors.” You could argue this as I believe Steam has something like 75% of PC game sales. However I don’t think it would be difficult to argue that console gaming is also a market competitor which would bring their market share down some, but I’m not sure by how much. There is no hard limit for what market share is required for the firm to match this criteria. “if competitive forces or the entry of new firms could discipline the conduct of the leading firm, courts are unlikely to find that the firm has lasting market power.” It is likely that if steam began being anti consumer, the existing competitors could take advantage, or other markets could be developed. So this criteria is in the maybe column.
2. Exclusionary Conduct: “Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal.” This alone means that even if they have the market share to be investigated as a monopoly, they haven’t broken the law since they allow open competition against them. They have simply provided a superior product to consumers. “Exclusionary or predatory acts may include such things as exclusive supply or purchase agreements; tying; predatory pricing; or refusal to deal.” I am unaware of Steam doing any of this. Epic on the other hand, absolutely does.
3. Business Justification: “The monopolist may be competing on the merits in a way that benefits consumers through greater efficiency or a unique set of products or services.” Steam is providing a unique set of services that benefit the consumer. So it seems that have a business justification.

Put simply, Steam is not a monopoly by the dictionary definition and likely wouldn’t be found to be a monopoly in a legal sense either.

So World of Warcraft isn’t a game that exists? How about Fortnite? League of Legends? Genshin Impact? Minecraft? Those games never sold well and didn’t make any money.

Saying it again doesn’t make it less wrong. They are in a position where they could possibly use anticompetitive practices to become a monopoly or close to it. Currently they are not, and are not a quasi monopoly either. They simply have created a well rounded service that is preferred by a majority in the PC space.

If you want the store front to take a smaller cut then you can sell on itch. If you want to buy games without DRM then check out GOG. If you like shitty service, venture capitalists, enshittification, and AI slop then Epic has you covered.

So people put their games on Epic, GOG, itch, Xbox, PS5 and whatever else for funsies? Definitely not because people buy their game from those places. They can even put their game up on those other marketplaces without any penalty from steam. Almost like there are alternatives available. Having the largest market share and having large influence in a market does not equal a monopoly.

To maximize sales, you do need to put your product on Steam. That doesn’t mean it is a monopoly.

Steam likely could leverage their market position to become a monopoly, but they aren’t one now. Just because they are a vital part to any large scale game launch doesn’t make them a monopoly, quasi or otherwise.

I don’t think it is a particularly healthy market, and I wish there were even more options. That doesn’t change the fact all the monopoly talk has been driven by bad faith actors trying to attack steam without any real cause.

I guess I could have been more accurate by saying that Epic wants a larger market share without having to provide a quality product.

They are ignored in conversations like this because their existence undermines the monopoly accusations aimed at Steam. Talk like this isn’t about the reality, but trying to tear Steam down so Epic can compete without having to actually provide a good product.

If you use breeder reactors there is very little waste. And they extract significantly more energy from uranium than something like a light water reactor.

The US frequently exports light crude oil at a premium while purchasing heavy crude for less. The refineries in the US are largely set up for heavy crude, so it works out and nets a high profit for oil companies.

Not tone deaf. Just greedy and don’t actually give a fuck about their customers. Which is why they tried to kill the Chevy bolt, got rid of car play in the EVs and possibly other vehicles, have prioritized large trucks and SUVs because they get better profit margins. And that is just off the top of my head. I’m surr I could come up with more.