> Microsoft Game Studios doesn't have a lot of market share in PC games besides Minecraft

Wow, that sucks. They should acquire someone with a bigger catalogue!

They really should, but is Activision-Blizzard that company? Of the 7 Activision releases in 2020 to now 4 are Call of Duty, a game that's much more popular on consoles than on PC. Blizzard is the PC side of the company, but they are mostly games that are slowly dying due to mismanagement. The IP is very valuable, but current PC sales alone wouldn't make Microsoft dominant by a long shot.

They also acquired ZeniMax, which includes Arkane, id Software, Bethesda Games Studios and MachineGames.

And Obsidian Entertainment. And inXile.

> Microsoft Game Studios doesn't have a lot of market share in PC games besides Minecraft

You could see it coming that this is controversial.

1. Microsofts share in publishing video games isn't exactly what you'd call small. They acquired Zenimax Media [1] last year, which is kind of big. That said, Microsoft can't be seen as a dominator in the publishing market.

2. But the argument wasn't necessarily about who owns the most studios. Microsoft absolutely dominates in the platform market on PC. Games are developed for Windows. Period. Everything else is either niche or an extra.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_Media

I think my think my argument is mostly based on the precise wording. Make it slightly broader and it would no longer hold.

1) Microsoft holds a very respectable share of the video game market (especially if you ignore mobile). But their share of the PC game market specifically is much smaller.

2) Microsoft is the dominant platform of PC gaming without question. But that doesn't make the market attached to them. Being without alternative or having high switching costs is what makes you attached, not merely using it. Most games are inherently multi-platform, either because they are built in an engine that is or because they are also sold on other platforms (mostly consoles). Not having Linux, Mac or SteamOS builds is usually a business decision, not a technical one. You could argue that they are attached to Microsoft because that's where the consumers are, and that's true in a sense. But that limits what kind of benefit Microsoft can get out of the attachment and what kind of damage they can do - at most as much as it takes to get enough consumers to switch (dual boot, some SteamOS device, etc). In a world where games sell platforms the attachment isn't very strong

> If PC gaming is attached to anyone it's Valve

PC Gaming runs on Windows, not on Valve's OS (while valve is intending to change that progressively).

Which doesn't mean much as long as Windows runs on anything x86 and costs OEMs (relative) peanuts.

It's not like you have to pay royalties to Microsoft if you sell a PC game (but you do have to pay MS/Sony if it's a Xbox/PS game).

It's not either-or, it's both. Both Microsoft and Valve play pivotal roles in PC gaming.

Microsoft are using their platform positions to sell games on Xbox and PC in one, which others can't compete with (because Xbox is a closed market), and their deep pockets to fund Xbox Pass mean it is a little combative rather than genuinely competitive.