Generally, i do not feel great in term someone else simply got to much might because it will ultimately result for one single pole able to demand just about anything. In short term this might look convenient but in long term this is a pretty "one sided" thing in which everyone not sufficiently "powerful" may be doing nothing but losing. Because there is simply no equality anymore... you will get the offer "Steam or leave it" and "accept their terms or leave it"... kinda like a hard coded rule enforced by the majority. Because PC gaming is overall at least a 50% force nowadys, when it comes to the important franchises... it can not be avoided by anyone from this industry; and if so.... they are willing to accept a cut in revenue because the consumer support will be reduced a lot.

Yes, even Square Enix as a huge company will have to take care for their actions. Not so long ago a director was suggesting "go get a PS5" because the PC gamers, which basically means "Steam", was demanding a PC copy... and of course "on time". The director, short time after had to spell out a excuse because he was feeling the strong power and that basically no one could go "against" it. However, i highly doubt it will be for the best of all having some sort of "dictator-force" able to make everyone move according to their likings. Ultimately the gamers are not the "master-chiefs" when it comes to this construct... they may notice it as soon as Steam is "stripping" them from their reights, because the true "reins" is still on another spot... but the community is basically "handing out the power, as a symbiotic matter".

To me, the "perfect world" is a world in which every direction and way is considered equally... not a world "few poles", actually one single-pole, are basically dictating everything and all the others simply will have to shut their mouth. This is one of the most non-free condition someone can have... and not even the sheer mass of games can still "make me free" in a environment which is actually a huge "jail"... almost no one can break out of it anymore. Indeed a big controversy that a majority actually is enjoying this sort of jail. Although i never ever had the feeling the majority want to be free; this may be their own perception, not mine... and diversity is usually having many difficultys.

What would i do if i were in charge?
Generally i would consider PC market and console market 2 different matters, both with a high importance and with different gamers, only a handful of gamers using both at once in a regular way (such as myself). So it can be considered mainly different customers with a different approach and both will have to be taken into account.

Ultimately to me, from a economical perspective with some "common sense", i would try to support the 3 "strongest" forces on a certain spot, so the 3 strongest for PC and the 3 strongest for console at least. In this term GoG and Epic can be considered a part of it, aswell Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft. All the others... i may try to support them if it is possible from a economical perspective. In many terms it may be possible in term of "special offers" handed out... and in general, there is many special offers possible, especially for the owner of big franchises, so i think the chance for making it happen and trying to support several spots is still possible. However, i do understand when it comes to the first year... the strongest could be prefered because it simply will make it easyer fixing stuff. Although, what i do not get is why they can not spell out a certain release for some platforms, GoG and some others, no matter in term 1 year into the future... simply handing out a clear agreement and trying to build trust with "alternate customers"... this is in my mind critical and important for a healthy economy with many voices and several poles (for each market).

You're saying there's a needle in a haystack, but when asked "where?" you're just pointing to another haystack in a different farmer's field and saying the needle looks like one of the (admittedly many) needles that were found in that one.

Just because Windows' APIs had become an industry standard, MS didn't have to contribute to Wine to balance it up, although they did have to publish improved documentation without a restrictive license. GOG has written a wrapper library that drops into Windows builds to replace Steam's DLL, seems the same thing as Wine to me.

MS detected when Windows was running on DR DOS and behaved differently to when it was running on MS DOS, which was a prohibited action. The equivalent here would be if Steam added code to their SDK that detected the GOG wrapper library, but AFAIK Steam haven't done that.

So, exactly which actions are Steam taking, which they couldn't do if they were a monopoly?

It was a reply to the post that I quoted, it's about a different topic than your previous statement.

Excuse me, did you notice i was quoting you?

Apparently you will only see the stuff you want to see. Although this is kinda comparable to a huge mass of people, so you are in a well accepted spot. Obviously, you may not try to follow "another needle" because the matter seems that strict to you, there can only be a single valid focus, the one with the highest "legitimacy". This is kinda the behaviour of some single pointed fate, which i do clearly not enjoy.

Indeed, it is important trying to boost alternate ways. Vulkan is a good alternate option, but not at the refined spot DX is today, thanks to its "trust" from the industry. I would enjoy a second OS support aswell, for example Linux at least, which is indeed still a hard fight for the users actually using it. Actually, the PS5 is using a Linux-distribution... and is running pretty well using it, so it is indeed possible; it simply will need more support. Both, Linux and Vulkan is basically the "equivalent" of GoG if we try to compare it. Still, without enough of support from the industry, GoG themself clearly lacks the power of "breaking away" from the well etablished-rule: But even Steam, which got way higher power, is not truly interested... although Linux got some big boost.

Given Steam IS a monopoly, in that it has monopoly power over a market. I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.

Doing X in a competitive market doesn't mean you doing X as a monopoly is okay and doesn't have an effect on competition.

You don't have to be twirling a villainous moustache and plotting nefarious deeds in order to be subject to antitrust regulation.

Microsoft was subject to dozens of lawsuits and interventions, they were forced to have a member of the securities committee added to the board of directors.

The opening up of their APIs was one of the biggest actions Microsoft had to undertake to promote competition. I don't know if you've coded commercial systems on Windows, but this was a huge undertaking for Microsoft. Hundreds of complex interconnected systems, vast swathes of their lucrative Back Office products all had to be made open for Microsoft's competitors.

The game industries reliance on Steamworks is exactly like commercial software's reliance on MS API's were in the 90's. Its the exact same needle in the exact same haystack.

Do I really have to say something to that?
You start with: "it wasn't a "freely made" choice to choose Steam (and playing games on Steam)" - only to end with:
"I made the choice to not use Steam (and not to play the games bound to Steam)".
That's two statements which are the exact opposite.
What is it now? All the others had been forced to use Steam - yet somehow you managed to escape the "Steam-Enforcement-Troopers"?

Free will is a thing, you know.
And it works in both directions.
You chose to not use Steam - others chose to use Steam.
Was anyone forced to either join Steam or to ignore it?
No.
Despite what many here apparently think, everybody had the same right to choose what is more important for them:
playing games (bound to the Steam platform), or making a statement against the DRM that came along with it (and forego the Steam-bound games).

Now, granted - you may not have liked, that you needed to make that choice...but sometimes we have to decide which of two "evils" is the lesser one for us...and then act accordingly.

For some that was accepting Steam - for you it was foregoing some games.
Free will - it's a real thing - not just a biblical concept.

Again: free will is a thing.
You saying "there is no real choice when it comes to "take it or leave it"", is like saying: "when you ever get offered cocaine, you have to snort it - there's no way around that".

Now, I have been offered a variety of drugs in my life - and I always declined to take them.

Free will. Making a choice. Everybody decides for themselves.

Sure! And "if wishes were horses, beggars would ride" and "shoulda, coulda, woulda".

I let you in on a secret:
Just because the majority's choice hasn't been to your liking, doesn't make the majority's choice any less of a choice than your own.

++++++++++

You and so many others here make the grave mistake of thinking:
"I don't like either of the choices offered to me (in this case: accepting Steam or forgoing some games), therefore there exists no choice at all!"

That's closing one's eyes to the RL facts.

Sometimes it's just that the only choice available, is to choose the one option (out of two (or more) disliked options), of which you think, it will be slightly easier bearable for you, than the alternative(s).

That's life.

And there's no use arguing it could be better, or trying to do anything to make it better

Suck it up and accept it

Finally, someone said it. Absolute delusion to believe GOG is in even the same universe as Steam or EGS sales or market share. Didn't GOG only make 3 million USD in one year? That's barely enough to pay for operating costs.

It was explained in my post but you continue to refuse to accept the distinction that a choice made when both parties have equal amounts of power and say in the matter is different from a choice made when one party has unequal amount of power and say in the matter. There are countless examples of this phenomenon in everyday reality; many are unfortunately far more grave than picking a game store.

Yeah because choosing the lesser of two evils has continued to work out so well for humankind, lmao. Why am I even bothering with such tripe. By all means go ahead and enjoy never demanding better or striving for anything worthwhile. But don't act like you're imparting some grand wisdom with this (non-)point. We've been getting fed this lie that "you hav to pick duh lesser evil!" since we were children. Some of us have been fortunate enough to realize that it needs to have a basis justified in reality, rather than just be endlessly declared as the means of supposedly "proving" itself.

More unsolicited "wisdom", thanks for that. Excuse me for a moment; I have to bend down and pick myself up by my bootstraps. Ah, there we go. But seriously...

If you posit, correctly mind you, that in SOME cases the only "choice" is from two or more disliked options. Then you are capable of understanding that in OTHER cases it is indeed possible to choose between options that are all liked

I'm bowing out but just food for thought, you keep declaring free will exists...not sure that is the case and there are actually reasons to believe the opposite. It's a very interesting area of philosophy and science, imo.

"Didn't GOG only make 3 million USD in one year?"
IIRC that was 2021 when the consolidated a number of losses, a big one being the operating costs of the Gwent infrastructure which were being moved out of GOG. If it was 2021 it means GOG made 142 Million more USD than Epic did in that period. Epic are running at huge losses at the moment.

Epic won't start to make a profit till 2025, it will be 2035 before the break even, so yeh, GoG actually not that bad off.

And 8% user Share isn't insignificant

The devs and publishers have the power to release their games on Steam (only)...and you have the power to reject buying their games there.
Reminder: the customer's power is in his/her wallet.
And the money is all the devs/publishers want, so...who has the bigger power?
We're still talking about video games here, right?
Not the climate change or human rights?

Sure. If there are such options (= all liked) on offer.

But - according to your last post - there was no "all liked" alternative option for you to choose from, when Steam came up, right?

According to you:
- people who chose Steam (against your wishes) had no other choice, and
- people like you, who chose to ignore Steam, also had no other choice.

So...what have your hypothetical "other cases" in which it is "indeed possible to choose options that are all liked" to do with this particular discussion?