I agree the DLC route is wrong... if only because it's such an unexplored territory, but I believe the debate people have over misuse of the word comes from their understanding that the end result of a monopoly is to fix a price and/or charge more than the product is worth.
One can argue that in regards to video games, that will never happen because the price is already set, as well as competition being not just other games of the genre, but other games in general. As well as, arguably, other systems, etc etc.
However, if we think of a monopoly as something that forces the hand of its customers, then that happens in games. It happens in 2k.
Once something dominates the market like that, they begin to slip things in like ads or usage statistics... think of the internet or YouTube or Google or Facebook. You don't *have* to use any of those things, but doing so is a good choice. They balance known BS/privacy issues/ads/etc with convenience. In the same way, I think that's what a 'new monopoly' is.
Legally, everything is so vast and hard to define so, you can't sue them for it. When I speak of it, I am speaking of that sort of 'bully' behavior that means you either have to give up something you like or endure it, as well as the lack of drive that competition brings.
And in our country, it seems a large, devoted company can get to that top spot and starve out the competition, then start adding in unwanted things.
-Smak