Why? What are the negative aspects of breaking up Steam that way? I can’t think of any. I provided plenty of benefits both to consumers and developers.

This is a whataboutism. Is steam a monopoly and how?

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.

I don't think you understand what a whataboutism is. I don't know why you keep asking me this question when I already answered it in my first comment. Yes, Steam is a monopoly, because they hold the overwhelming marketshare of PC gaming.

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.

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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

Your first comment in this chain that I am responding to is > Excuse my frank speech but that's *absolute bollocks* and lacks any understanding at all of how a monopoly works. Which is not a definition and thus why I am asking. You have not yet defined it yet seem insistent that it is. And a whataboutism is when you bring up a parallel or comparable topic in an attempt to shift it. You brought up google in a discussion about Steam/Valve. That very much is. Having a large user base is not a monopoly. Hershey doesn't have a monopoly on chocolate for being the popular choice. People can and will at any time use competing products.

It’s easy to do that when you employ couple of hundred people while taking 30% cut of 90% of PC game sales.

Off topic

> Your first comment in this chain that I am responding to is I remember, thanks. > You have not yet defined it yet seem insistent that it is. You didn't ask me for a definition. > And a whataboutism is I know what a whataboutism is. You dont. This is called an "example". An example of a company that was legally ruled a monopoly but also has competition. > You brought up google in a discussion about Steam/Valve. You're missing the larger discussion around monopolies, and you're mad because I disproved your position. You also didn't answer my question while simultaneously repeatedly demanding that I answer yours. > Having a large user base is not a monopoly. You're obviously just misrepresenting the statement I just made in the comment you just replied to. I think it's pretty clear at this point that you have no intention of a good faith discussion so I'm not going to entertain this any further.

Valve good, belong to tribe now, gib upvotes.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.