Competition in capitalism is always better than a lack thereof. But, we've not busted monopolies in a significant way since Ma Bell. And, even if we were, at 75% of the global market share they'd not warrant any action yet.

There's going to be a dominant organization because late stage capitalism sucks. And, I'd rather it be Valve than some alternative trying to fuck me over at every opportunity.

The thing is, steam's market dominance is one of user choice rather than anticompetitive strategies or lack of alternatives. Steam doesn't do exclusives, they don't charge you for external sales, they don't even prevent you from selling steam keys outside the platform, or users from launching non steam games in the client. The only real restriction is that access to steam services requires a license in the active steam account. Even valve-produced devices like the steam deck can install from other stores.

Sure, dominance is bad in an abstract theoretical way and it'd be nice if Gog, itch.io, etc were more competitive, but Steam is dominant because consumers actively choose it.

Yeah! Other publishers should open their own stores and compete!

.....

Oh wait no fuck oh god oh what have we done

Neither is publicly traded. Neither of us know the numbers.

Does Steam make money on hosting indie games?

How does one research such a question?

I don't need answers. I had them before I made my second post above.

Good luck to you.