the problem with this logic is that you can then make the argument that every single store in existence is trying to set up a monopoly... Heck, you should probably start boycotting gOg over Galaxy.

That control is fluid, dynamic. Power concentration is a problem that generates disgrace always, and is a must be vigilant. Itś not about taking sides (GOG or Steam or whatever). It is about not letting supremacy takes place. Now I'm strong GOG supporter, as Fireflower too, direct sales and some HB. If GOG turns to be a monopoly de facto, I turn side again.
And yes, every single store will probably try be a monopoly. Which does not mean that I should let it be passivly or strongly support it until it reaches that status. Itś an eternal strugle at equilibrating forces.

But what can you do? Steam is popular because it works. Therefore to stop this you need to either- a) make a better system or -b) purposely choose a system with less functionality/not working as well. a is difficult, b is illogical.what to do?

Could always go back to getting software on 3.5 inch floppy disks...

I do b). And it is perfectly logical. I abandonned Steam some years ago and never got back. I now look for games in other places (GOG mostly). I abandonned Windows some years ago and never got back. I now use Linux distros (Mint mostly, Tails in an USB when out of home).
Of course, I'm not intending to change the world. I'm a single person. If lots more do, well, the possiblity of change turns to be real.
Iḿ not capable of making better systems too, so I support the ones that make/try them.
I don't have all the games that I want nor all the softwares that I need since they are tied to an OS. I look to circunvent that in many ways, not obtaining sucess always.
It's an ethical position that may create a path to pratical changes, but it is not a guarantee.

I said it is debatable whether they intended to be a monopoly 10 years ago. There are design and usage policy changes which took place 4 years after launch that introduced the heavy restrictions Steam now has.

However their current market position is monopolistic, and their policies are detrimental to the market. For the majority of games you have no other option but use Steam, and using Steam effectively replaces your license for a Valve controlled subscription.

Its Software as a Service, with out VALVe having to own the software it rents.

Not being able to own the game you buy is a big problem.

EA recently shut down another game, DarkSpore; Although i don't know if i'd care for the game, now i will never have the chance due to always online DRM and EA server requirements being offline.

I'm still not getting it. You can sideload universal apps using all the technology that Microsoft is supposedly 'locking it to their store', which you probably don't really need. Where's the big deal now?

That said, here's an interesting piece of news...
http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/4/11162038/microsoft-windows-10-tim-sweeney-epic-games-uwp-response

The kicker for all of these people who will bash Microsoft for defaulting a toggle to a default that they don't like? The default for sideloading apps is ON according to the article and my personal experience. Upon reseting Windows, I never accessed the toggle to sideloading apps; but after doing that just yesterday, I noticed it was on. I shrugged it off, but now I know it's the current default. Not that it matters anyways since the toggles are provided as is and it's up to you to play with the toggle, but this is for those who will bash anything for the default settings while ignoring the fact there's options.

Which Is why I "support" windows store.
Its not perfect, far from it. But Steam needs to have viable competition and Windows Store has a chance to be that. In terms of end use, it is 10 times fairer than Steam.

I think most of the arguments thrown at the windows Store can be equally applied to Steam, yet VALVe has this untouchable holy aura. It is said "Any sufficiently advanced technology can be mistaken for magic", I believe "Any sufficiently popular tech company can be mistaken for religion"

but what I do not get, is the reason for you to support a store which is deliberately setting themselves up as a monopoly, over one that accidentally became one due to popularity (and actually advice against it...) . To me it just feels... wrong.

Since your using VALVe's advice as defence, do you have a link to this? As I said I can easily see them saying "Use our API but get your game out on plenty of other sites/store", but dubious about them actively saying "don't use our API and sell elsewhere".

I don't think VALVe's current domination of the PC gaming market is accidental. Gabe is an extremely clever business person. There is no possibility of doubt regarding its policies which eroded consumer rights, those are very purposeful and are in now way accidental.

I don't think Microsoft are saintly, I think UWP has many flaw and the Windows Store is a horrible mess.

What I believe, very strongly, is that the vast majority of the PC gaming market is devoid choice. It is Steam or nothing. And that is a really bad situation which has lead to the near total erosion of consumer rights. These rights are slowly returning due to legislation and increased competition.

a bit reworded now, shorter than before, but:

8. Do you require exclusivity for titles you sell on Steam?
We think you should get your game in front of as many people as you can, therefore we do not require exclusivity on titles.

https://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/FAQ.php

Cheers.
If you think as Steam as just a Store then that looks like they're being Altruistic.

However Steam isn't just a Store, The Store is secondary (or even tertiary) its primarily a content delivery system with DRM.
If you are using Steam as your distribution, then it doesn't matter where or how you sell, the end user is still bound to Steam.

So my interpretation of that is, "all roads lead to Steam". That is however shaped from my view of VALVe.

no, I dont think Steam is being altruistic, like all other stores the main aim is profit. As with gOg. But I see Steam as a lesser evil compared to Windows store.

For me, as a father with 5 gaming children, it is the reverse.
VALVe's policy of one active game per account combined with the fact there is no choice but to use Steam for most games, compared to Windows Store's more liberal usage policy puts Windows Store much lower on the "evil" scale.

All companies aim to make a profit, however VALVe has exploited the discrepancy between the pace of technology and the ability of Law to adapt. As said before, it is not solely the fault of VALVe, however it is engrained into their changing SSA, with the latest iteration further entrenching its claim over your licenses.

Would I like an option that wasn't Steam or Windows Store? Absolutely. But right now for a game I really wanted Windows Store was the only other choice.