

Hmm, that’s an interesting question. I don’t think splitting up steam makes sense, since they still provide a good service for everyone.
Maybe change the steam license (and everyone else’s) such that users are closer to actually owning copies of the games. Give the consumers some guarantees that go beyond good track record. As it stands, I think Steam would be able to charge you money per download of a game or require a subscription fee for you to be able to access your library or some shit like that, and most consumers would be effectively forced to pay up.
I don’t know though, perhaps it would be smarter to leave them alone and punish them only if they abuse their monopoly power, because leaving them alone has thus far resulted in a pretty healthy and thriving market.




This is just a question of semantics. If valve wanted to commit to anticompetitive practices they easily could (e.g. make it so that games published on steam can’t be published on other desktop storefronts as well, I think most publishers would be forced to stick with Steam). The only difference between our arguments is that what you call a “monopoly” is a company that actually commits to and controls the market with such practices and what I call a “monopoly” is a company that has enough market power to do so. (And I think both are totally sensible definitions of the word “monopoly”)