Moreover, Microsoft doesn't have a flagship product which they're using to abuse their monopoly position. The other four do: Apple has its app store, Google has its search+ads vertical and its app store, Amazon has its delivery service, and Facebook has its social+ads vertical.
EDIT: And I think I know the reason why. Imagine your kid has a birthday party and invites Alice, Bob and Charlie from school. All is fine. Imagine now that he invites everyone from his grade. Everyone except David. That is bound to piss David off a lot.
Oh and I think game deals are cleared in advance, while app removals happen after you've already done the work.
They've also helped pay for the console with hardware sold at a loss (near-loss nowadays after the PS3 loss mess). So it was seen as a necessary "evil" by most.
The one being seen nowadays as bad -- which answers your "everyone except David" metaphor -- is Epic Games buying "everyone except Steam" exclusivity deals. But that topic is too deep to go into here.
It's a common sentiment that Sherman Antitrust was a prerequisite for prosecuting and breaking up trusts a century ago; we needed powerful legislative tools in order to even define and understand the abuses that those corporations brought upon us. Similarly, I have heard many people suggest that we will need new legislation in order to properly describe what Amazon has built in terms of systems which deliberately abuse labor, control shoppers, and grift the public.
And there was some hoopla a year ago about the windows licensing terms changing in a way that made migrating Windows workloads from on prem to cloud difficult for the main cloud providers except for Azure.
You can commit a crime multiple times, you just can't be punished for the same instance twice. Maybe I understand this wrong though.