If I don’t like what Comcast charges I don’t do a class action lawsuit.

That's a poor example, because in many markets, Comcast (or another cable provider) is the only option, or there's only one other option with much lower top-end speeds (e.g. DSL). So a class-action against Comcast may be a reasonable idea, since they're an actual monopoly in many markets.

The games industry is different. Steam does have a commanding share of the market, but there's no real lock-in there, a developer can choose to not publish there and succeed. Minecraft, famously, never released on Steam, and it has been wildly successful. Likewise for Blizzard games, like Starcraft and World of Warcraft.

Maybe a better comparison is grocery store chains? Walmart has something like 60% market share in the US, yet I have successfully been able to completely avoid shopping there.

Sure. Not being able to sell literal Steam keys on other platforms for less on other platforms for less according to the terms is the same as being prevented from selling on other platforms for less at all, nevermind that Valve gets a 0% cut on Steam Key Sales made like so.

Also, there is no mention of said policy in either the OP article, nor the separate article about the lawsuit it links to.

No, it is where it is because Valve decided it wanted to invest in it outside of it being a launcher/updater for Valve games.

And it's not really the first. The first was probably Battle.net by Blizzard, which initially was a way to connect players (chat and join games) back in the mid-90s. It wasn't a game sales/distribution service for many years, but it got there w/ the release of the dedicated desktop app in 2013 and had some of the core features that makes Steam special (chat and match making). In fact, I had the desktop app before I had a Steam account, which I created in ~2013 when Steam came to Linux (I switched to Linux in ~2009, and had played games on Windows for years before that). Blizzard was never interested in becoming a game distribution network, so Battle.net remained largely exclusive to Blizzard titles.

I wouldn't have bothered w/ Steam if it didn't provide value. I was fine managing games individually, and I bought many games from Humble Bundle and directly from devs for years before Steam became a thing. I only started preferring Steam when it provided features I couldn't get elsewhere. These days, it provides so much value since I'm a Linux user, that I honestly don't consider alternatives, because everything else is painful. Heroic launcher closes that gap substantially, so I'm actually considering buying more from GOG (outside of a handful of old games I can't find elsewhere).

If another launcher provided better value vs Steam, I'd switch in a heartbeat. I use both Steam and Heroic, and I still prefer Steam because it has great features like controller mapping. But if, say, GOG supported the features I care about on the platform I use, I'd probably switch to GOG because I also care about DRM-free games. But they don't, so I largely stick to Steam.

You are insistent on not changing your perspective on it being a monopoly because you want it to be one.

It's not like your scenario. Other people have figured it out. Epic game store is right there and so is GOG and others. People do buy from them and some prefer them.

The problem is that you want it to be a monopoly as an excuse for why people are using the service more than others. That is simply not the case. You ignore that people do shop around sometimes and others don't cause it's easy and not everyone is how you think of them.

You are Don Quixote yelling at the windmills thinking it's gonna save the country. Have an actual alternative you want instead of just being upset how things are.

Is there a monopoly though? Other store fronts exist.

Monopoly does not mean no other businesses exist.

Only if you are selling a steam key elsewhere, they ask you to treat them equivalently but that doesn't mean you can't do sales for your products on other platforms.

It's a little weird cause it would be like buying an apple app on android to use on apple but apple doesn't get the 30% anymore so they ask you to at least price it about the same so people don't avoid buying from them completely.

No valve means no steam controller, no proton compatibility layer (don't tell me to use wine I was there already) no steam deck, no freedom to game on any PC OS I want.

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Okay so if Steam takes 30% and Itch takes 5% then the same game could be sold for approx $64 on Steam and $47 on Itch and the developer would take the same-ish amount home? But if they priced them the same they would make more money from Itch

And if you sell Steam keys separately then the user would still go to Steam to download and Steam would make sure that it goes to one person's library and a bunch of other jazz.

You know that Proton is just streamlined and better funded Wine, a project with decades of history by now? If you’re looking for someone to thank for funding it, it’s CodeWeavers.

How’s your freedom to resell your games? Console gamers still have boxes and second hand market. Valve killed that on PC. Gamers ate Microsoft for attempting that, Valve somehow got away with it. At the time people said „but the prices are better” but how good are discounts these days?

Next thing you’ll tell me Android is good for Linux. How’s that working out for everyone?

So Battle.net started selling third party games when? Man, think your argument through before committing to paragraphs.

Valve supports Linux just to safeguard their monopoly. They killed native ports because they pushed Proton so hard. Alyx supported Linux natively even but check now.

All of this is pointless for most of the consumers. You’re making an argument that because they care for this niche it’s worth paying 30% cut. Most people would be fine with something to download and update their games with.

Question from the back?
How would Valve be broken up?
Would it be game developer and store front separated?
How would that aid or assist in the purchasers?

Valve good, belong to tribe now, gib upvotes.

And you think others can't argue when you lower yourself to the floor in order be angry without purpose. Smearing yourself in mud to show us just makes you a mess.

Like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local-loop_unbundling

Valve gets split into Valve backend (most rudimentary but common stuff so that owned games across storefronts in that backend carry over) and Valve store/developer/publisher. Other stores get access to backend, regulator stays at Valve backend to check if they don’t give preferential treatment to Valve store. Same rules for everyone. Then stores can decide how they utilise that infra, what features they provide and consumers make a decision on cost and benefits of those stores. You can make some transfer fee if needed because downloads are a variable cost.

Oh so like how I can buy my steam keys on fanatical but still download and play them via the steam backend while using a different frontend like LaunchBox?

And Steam could take a 30% fee on transactions while using their service?

Something like that?

No. GOG, EGS, Humble and anyone else who wants to join in and offer a store that connects to Valve backend. That store calls backend to check who owns what, pays them for downloads (base/updates/dlc) and that’s it. It would make Steam monopoly crumble in an instant, prices go down because stores compete on things that matter to consumers. Stores need to compete for developers too. Win win win.

I started to use user tags to make communication more efficient, I can adjust communication to members of the Valve tribe.

Me tag you in computer. Me know you Valve simp. Me pretend me Valve tribe. You know.

Wait but you can link Humble to steam and it checks what games you already own.

GOG wants you to just have the local game files and an installer so they don't need this and don't need Valve's backend. Why pay valve for each download when you can host it yourself and not worry about the fee? Itch seems to agree with that.

And then wouldn't everyone still be using Valve as a backend and they would have a monopoly on the infrastructure of all game downloads then? And could charge high rates to download?

So now you decided to be condescending because you view yourself as a superior human and deface yourself to what you think others are like? Wow. That's awful.

Humble still has to charge you entire Valve’s cut this way. 30% is way more than the real infra cost.

Valve backend is effectively a public utility in this scenario. This thing has been proven to work and bring prices down fast. Actual free market.