The term "monopoly" is actually easy to describe: If, due to economic reasons, you can NOT avoid someone then it is actually a monopoly in a relative term. In a absolute term planet Earth may have a monopoly because not sure humans can live for extented period without planet Earth. Even if they go to Mars, they still need support from Earth. In a relative term, if CDPR can not avoid Steam because it would be to critical for their purse... then it is a "relative" monopoly.

If i want a good performing "top notch GPU", then i can only go to Nvidia... this is another relative monopoly... actually on this exact piece even absolute. They can charge almost any price because who is competing? Nobody...

Not difficult to understand... there is simply a relative and a absolute level and yes a lot of such monopoly, no matter how it is called, does exist.

Sure, we can discus if it is "good or bad" or maybe both at once or not good nor bad... this is a complicated matter. What can be said for sure: To the customers... not having "options" means they got a "high grade of DRM" or in other words a high dependency which can produce a lot of issues such as "crazy prices" or in general "highly, one sided, controlled conditions". Remember: Not only a gamer is a "customer"; even a publisher could be one of those customers... so this issue is way bigger than someone may expect.

Oh I agree with that, but seeing as it's a dumbass definition probably used extensively by a side that wants to muck up their competition, I wanted to call it out.

Just didn't sit right with me that there is now an automatic conflation of successful to monopolistic. Former implies a positive and latter a negative.