I think we have two different definitions of monopoly here. The definition of monopoly to me has everything to do with a single entity's share of the market, not how they use it. They could be giving away all the games for free and paying other distributor's electric bills, they'd still be a monopoly to me. Almost all PC gaming goes through Steam one way or the other and Valve is sitting next to the levers that control the world. They are PC gaming.
My use of 'effective' was just to say that there are other players but they are so small as to be negligible.
Just checking the Wikipedia definition, which is what I would follow from schooling.
A monopoly exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity.
Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.
Only Supplier: Valve is not the only supplier of the goods. See Steamworks platform allowing other distributors to sell Steam keys at no cost. See: GMG, Amazon, Humble, etc.
Substitute goods: See Origin, Uplay, GOG, etc.
The quality of discussion is irrelevant if all discussion is inhibited. Maybe you should clarify why you posted the posting data in the first place. What relevance did it have for this thread?
I just thought the data was interesting, as the people in this thread generally have a good grasp on what direction Valve is headed in and why. Could explain why the quality of discussion in that thread is low.