• their employees
• the developers that use the platform to sell products
• the customers that use the platform to buy products

Valve has a fiscal responsibility to maintain solvency. if they allow their competition to undercut them while at the same time abuse the system to sell products at a higher price, they risk opening a rift for consumers to flood to a cheaper platform and thus weakening their solvency and profitability.

if their competition wants to sell from their own platform at a cheaper rate, they need to make their products exclusive to their own platform.

this is marketing 101.

tired of people claiming Valve has a monopoly when it's very clear that this is manufactured because competition is unable or unwilling to develop a better solution than Valve. that's not monopolistic, that's just business.

Nobody said Netflix had a monopoly when they put blockbuster out of business. nobody claimed monopoly when Walmart put your local grocery chains out of business. nobody claimed monopoly when Nintendo put atari and Sega out of business. know why? because a monopoly requires exclusive rights to sell a commodity or service. can you buy games outside of Steam? YES! then it's not a monopoly.

antitrust my ass. Google had an antitrust suit. why? because the OS they maintained locked down app access to only their delivery platform. THAT'S a monopoly.