Well, my stance is very simple: monopolies aren't good in the long term, so we should always try to avoid them.
It's very simple, proper competition is good because it puts a limit on what a company/service can enforce to its customers, mostly in fear of losing them to their competing rivals, while encouraging them to keep improving over time.
That said, we should also be wary about the competition. Don't get me wrong, GOG is an excellent service and my only grief with it is that it doesn't have new many AAA games (mostly because their no DRM policy scares publishers), but I'm talking about one publisher stores and mostly the Windows Store.
Ubisoft, and EA services are almost (but only that) ok because they also sell products from other publishers, but EA's position on not releasing their new games on other stores like Steam damages us more than make us good. But we should not encourage them because we could end up in something like Battle.net, where we can only buy their games from their store, which could bring us to a situation where we'd have to install as many clients as publishers are out there. And that would not be good for anyone.
As for the WIndows Store, MSoft has proven time and time again that they're not to be trusted, and that they're not affraid to screw their customers in order to sell their newer products. That's why I don't want the Windows Store to take off. Thankfully, MSoft themselves are sabotaging their own store by now allowing cross-play with Steam and other measures.
In summary, we need several stores that compete with each other at the same level, but without breaking the ecosystem in a myriad of smaller clients.
As a side note, key stores like GMG, the Humble Store, etc. already provide certain competition, at least on price.
Please excuse my bad English.
Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070
Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.
