The thing about Valve is they hold the weird position of being chaotic neutral as far as monopolies go.
Nearly all PC bought or built run windows.
Nearly all PC games developed are developed only to run on windows because each OS runs a different API.
Windows requires DirectX for PC gaming and Microsoft doesn't charge any licencing fees.
Most developers aren't going to bother with developing games for Mac or Linux unless they are fairly big.
Activision/Blizzard was one of the few companies that regularly released their games for Mac os.
Microsoft just bought Activision/Blizzard.
Valve makes money off of the PC gaming market by being a storefront / distributor.
For about 20 years valve has been making money in the market that should have easily also been dominated by Microsoft, but Microsoft was focused on console gaming when they didn't seem to realize they had the ultimate console in nearly every home.
Apple has no stake in PC gaming. Sony has basically no stake in PC gaming. Nintendo has absolutely no stake in PC gaming. Which essentially leaves individual developers running their weird launchers and store fronts, Valve with steam, Epic with Epic Store, gog, and Microsoft.
Epic , gog , and the weird launchers they aren't ever going to make enough ground to topple a Steam Library because they use the same formula Valve already perfected.
Microsoft has game pass which promises a low monthly fee for unlimited gaming as opposed to to buying games outright which is a very popular model especially if you have interest in a game but don't want to risk buying it and never playing , one of the classic symptoms of seasonal steam sales.
Microsoft could take over the PC games market in this way.
Valve, has been throwing money at developing an os that runs on Linux and bridges the gap caused by the reliance on directx and a Linux based OS.
Valve knows that getting people to switch to a new os is a special kind of 'no one is doing that'. You either already run Linux or you're waiting for gaming to be more prominent on Linux and everyone else is in the never going to happen category.
Enter Steam OS. That weird Big Picture function no one on PC uses. The Steam Link, that tiny box that took PC gaming to the living room tv. Steam Machines, the PCs preloaded with steam OS that no body really went for. And finally, the Steam Deck, the Trojan horse, it's existence a lesson from every failure and training users in the os and it's offerings.
The thing is, yeah, Valve wants to make money, they are a company, it's their prime directive. But they arent going out and buying up game developers to make themselves bigger, they are spending money on open source projects and letting that stuff stay in the wild. If steam fails Gabe said there is a plan in place that everyone keeps the entirety of their library . If Game pass fails there isn't anything to keep because you aren't buying the games. The thing about Valve is, they have never tried to actively harm their customers. They aren't setting prices for anything but their hardware. They aren't creating loot boxes or micro transactions. There is very little need for competition in this area because the only they to compete against is a better cut for developers. It's the one situation I think we can point to where limited competition gave us one of the better results.
What are we going to get if someone like Microsoft takes the major role in PC gaming?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram