Valve is being sued because they are forcing others to follow policies that further entrenches Steam as the largest store.
Since Epic bought the game developer, it only applies to themselves. It is much harder to sue someone over a decision that only applies to something they own. How can a company be sued for not selling their product at a store? Should Valve be sued for not selling their own games on Epic or GOG?
Is Epic’s decision to only sell their games on their store annoying for users? Yes. But unfortunately, there is nothing illegal about. There would be a better chance of a lawsuit of Epic paying other game developers for exclusivity, but that would still not be easy as game exclusivity is still a significant factor on game consoles as well. Albeit much less than in the past.
Not allowing devs to sell steam download codes on other stores, But the ban only applies if they are selling the download code for cheaper than Steam
Not allowing devs to sell steam DLC download codes on other stores
I don’t think 1 or 2 puts other stores at any disadvantage. If a store wants to sell steam download codes then Valve has to get their normal cut. If they don’t want to pay the valve tax, then they don’t need to offer a Steam download code.
There are laws that say that abusing a monopoly is illegal. Steam is objectively a monopoly in pc games. Sure, you don’t have to use it, but it is basically impossible for indie developers to make a living without it.
Now, the question is if valve’s actions are actually abusing the monopoly, or normal business practices.
Notably, almost none of those are indie games, and almost any indie game that you did list came out in the 2000s like Roblox, before Steam was the behemoth it is today. Half of them are games by the same sets of AAA studios like Epic Games, Blizzard, and MiHoYo, and most Blizzard games have an entire franchise of games older than Steam itself to piggyback off of. Speaking of, anything by Blizzard isn’t even true… their most recent games like Diablo IV and Overwatch 2 are both on Steam. Tarkov is also on Steam now, but I’ll admit I’m splitting hairs here since it spent nearly a decade off of it. Though the fact that it released on Steam with its 1.0 update does say something.
So I really don’t think any of those games aside from debatably Tarkov shows that the average modern indie dev can be successful outside of Steam.
To be clear, the original comment I responded to said:
looks at Hytale doing quite well without even touching Steam
In response to a comment that said:
There are laws that say that abusing a monopoly is illegal. Steam is objectively a monopoly in pc games. Sure, you don’t have to use it, but it is basically impossible for indie developers to make a living without it.
I never moved the goalposts; modern indie devs were always the goalpost.
Hytale has incredible publicity for an indie release and caters to a target group that’s used to a separate launcher. Not comparable to the usual release.
Because, they aren't like Epic, who has been going around and locking games behind exclusivity deals. Name me one game by one developer, who Valve went to and was like "hey, I'm going to give you a $5 Million exclusivity deal. I'd like for your game to be available on our Steam platform for 2 years before you're allowed to sell anywhere else!"
I'm sure nobody can find that game. Meanwhile, Epic has done this to Metro: Exodus, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 1+2 for the PC and outright buying studios going "hey, delist your game on Steam and only be available to our platform."
How the fuck can that broad be so stupid to not notice that? But it's all Valve's fault, somehow.
I don’t understand the reply. I was replying to the topic. I’m not a fan of Epic either but people are being kinda stupid about some of the justifications for the hate.
I don’t know if valve are or aren’t abusing their monopolistic position. I am not a lawyer and i don’t have a horse in the race.
I was just answering to someone who said “if you don’t like valve policies, dont publish your games there”, which would be true for a normal business, but specifically not true of a monopoly, which steam is, unquestionably
Epic can do things much more freely, because they dont hold a monopoly on pc games
It's hard to really call Valve a monopoly when, there is competition. If there's no competition, then Valve would clearly be a monopoly.
It's not like back in the 90s when Microsoft bundled their Windows OS with Internet Explorer that edged out Netscape back then. Because there really wasn't a lot of browser alternatives available to have made it where competition was there. Microsoft was considered a monopoly back then because competition was very little during their peak then.
In the digital PC gaming landscape, it's entirely different. There are numerous marketplaces for digital games. And they're big enough to where Valve is just simply an alternative and can go without if someone chooses.
Valve doesn't force anyone to use Steam or strong-arms people to buy games from them. They just exist, the people have spoken both by their own loyalty and their wallets. And that made companies like Epic mad and jealous. They just came late into the game when Valve was developing itself.
There are not many objectively provable monopolies and i doubt that English law would support that claim without extremely strong evidence, generally utilities are the only ones that'd get close. A necessity with high fixed costs and infrastructure lock-in.
Steam has high market share in a segment, but not necessarily a distinct segment, I'm sure steam would argue that there are enough consumers who can and do substitute between pc and console and mobile, as well as other vendors so that their market power is mitigated by a fair amount of consumer mobility.
So what you're looking to prove is unlikely to be a pure "monopoly" but 'excess market power', and 'abuse of market power'. That is a complex legal art that the competition regulator is usually not that successful at proving, at least in English law.
Abuse of market power has to impact consumers not producers. There are always marginal producers struggling to make a profit - that happens in competitive markets, producers bidding prices down, some going out of business. I'm not saying I agree, but that's more or less how the law sees it, lookup what they let supermarkets get away with in contracts with farmers.
To show consumer harm from upstream market manipulation you'd probably have to show a material dearth of choice being created by steam policies in order to jack up prices. Maybe that can be demonstrated, but it's not simple and more likely to come down to subjective interpretation of the arguments and evidence from both sides rather than any unarguable objective truth.
If it were unarguable or objectively true then the CMA might lead the investigation itself instead of this being a private action. Though maybe this is too small a market for them to worry about.
You have to differentiate between a monopoly in economics and a monopoly in law.
In economics a monopoly is the only seller of a good with no other competition. If I am the only one who owns apple trees, I got a monopoly on apples.
In law a monopoly is someone who owns so much of the market that they can charge unfair prices. If I am the only one who owns large orchards full of the best kind of apple trees, it doesn’t really matter to me that someone else has a couple mediocre trees in their backyard. I am not a economics-monopoly, since someone else is also selling apples, but I hold enough of the market that I can set the price to whatever I want.
(Ok, the analogy isn’t perfect, but you get it, I hope. Basically the “excess market power” thing you talked about is the legal definition of a monopoly.)
Customers don’t necessarily need to be end customers. If steam is charging their business customers too much, that counts too. (It also affects the end customers too, btw.)
So the question is: If I don’t release a game on steam, will that cause it to underperform significantly? If so, does steam charge a lot above market price? If both of these questions are answered with yes, a lawsuit could be successful.
My point was that proving dominance and abuse is rarely objective fact. It sure isn't showing market share and that some games companies go out of business. They have to show the things that valve does to restrict competition - being popular isn't enough alone.
Your last question is quite a good example of how hard it is to prove because it includes counterfactual comparisons.
This might be why it seems (if the journo is to be believed) that they're going down the tie-ins angle for the DLC, not necessarily headline pricing. Thou the latter would probably a worse outcome for valve if guilty.
I could see Valve controlling a bit of a monopoly in the game launcher and gaming social media markets.
A pro-consumer change that the EU could impose would be to split up the game marketplace from the game launcher and gaming social media markets through intercompatible APIs.
Maybe you could download games from steam in GOG or Lutris, and the steam overlay works on GOG or Lutris too. Maybe your discord friends could show up in the Steam friend list.
Deadlock. As a parent and full time worker I don’t have time to commit to a new live service multiplayer. It would be amazing to be a teenager or student again and just grind that game as nolife.
Wow is kinda similar. Housing update seems like fun thing that they finally added but no way I have time to play wow.
Deadlock is no joke, the best game i have ever played. But i never played a maba before, so that part was completely new. Someone said that Deadlock might be the hardest game to learn, and they might be right. Deadlock is the only game that has ever made me nervous when i start playing. I’m glad i got into the game early, but even if you don’t want to learn, i think it’s worth downloading and walk around in the cursed apple or play some bot matches. The design and the feel of the game is one of a kind and it plays so smooth.
I played it when it was in closed beta. And as a fan of Overwatch and previous LoL player, Deadlock was super fun to play. But combination of high mechanical requirement and knowledge requirement it is hard to enjoy the game as casual peopler. Thank god now there is light version of Deadlock as Overwatch Stadium.
I went back to OW stadium because of deadlock, but i was sick of it pretty soon. It’s just not it for me. I think you can enjoy deadlock without being a good mechanical player, depending on the hero. The rough part is other people. Because of the moba part of it, people tend to get super angry. I never get angry because of video games, but even i can feel it. I’m not angry at other players, but it is frustrating to be in a team that is really bad, while the other team is really good. It happens a lot lately, and i never cared while i was learning, because it didn’t really matter. Now that i’m better at the game, or pretty good even, you just have players in your or the other team that just started playing and you usually just don’t win those. People get mad and it’s a whole thing.
Actually sony tried to fight it because of the COD franchise mainly but didn’t get into suing them, but they were a big part of the opposition when it came to governments giving approval of such a huge merger
I personal want a store that is native Linux. I have yet to find a store that does it better, no matter your OS. Epic, GOG, Amazon, ubisoft, and Xbox gamepass do not support or have a native Linux programs and require using Wine/proton to access their stores. Having an extra layer on top makes it hard to install games as all of them are expecting a C:/ that is just how any Linux OSes work.
Epic is irrelevant because Epic has not given anyone a single solitary reason to use their launcher and platform. Tim Sweeny loves the smell of his own shit in the morning after he takes a big wet dump in the toilet. So much so, he doesn't even flush for a while.
That launcher of theirs has a knack of sucking out all of your system resources, namely bandwidth and CPU, just to download games. Meanwhile, Valve gives you so many options to work around that.
They launched with a 12% service fee, dropped that service fee to 10%, and then dropped the service fee entirely for the first $1Mn in sales per year.
In June 2025, they released a new feature enabling developers to launch their own webshops hosted by the Epic Games Store. These webshops could offer players out-of-app purchases, as a more “cost-effective” alternative to in-app purchases.
They provide developers with free to generate license keys, and keyless integration with other e-shop stores including GOG, Humble Bundle, and Prime gaming.
They offer a user review system.
They also added cloud saves in July of 2025.
The thing is, they offer none of the other features Steam offers:
In-Home Streaming
Remote Play with Friends
Family Accounts
Achievements
Price Adjusted Bundles
Gifting Games
Shopping Cart
TV/Big Screen Mode
Epic launched their service in 2018. It’s been 7 years. The only reason not to offer feature parity (for a company that makes $4.6Bn - 5.7Bn in revenue, and a shop that makes $1.09Bn, you’d think they would be enticing users with the services they want.
What they have done instead is exclusivity deals that plenty of consumers complain about but devs don’t seem to care about so long as they’re getting paid.
So, the excuse that Steam got there first (as if it’s just about that and the reason their market share is what it is is because they have refined, adapted, and improved their service offering over time doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when steam has a significant percent of the market share (79.5% to epic’s 42.3%) but is only making twice the revenue of their rival store.
It makes sense for GOG or Itch.io who’s market cap is smaller by quite a lot to not offer the same feature parity. Each of those platforms has figured out they can offer other things to devs and consumers to make themselves competitive over time.
Sweeny’s attack is basically just a pitry party he’s throwing for himself because he doesn’t want to compete.
EditThis is a sanity check because I wasn’t correct with my numbers by mistake.
So, the excuse that Steam got there first (as if it’s just about that and the reason their market share is what it is is because they have refined, adapted, and improved their service offering over time doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when steam has a significant percent of the market share (79.5% to epic’s 42.3%) but is only making twice the revenue of their rival store.
These numbers are not correct and I was mistaken. In actuality Valve’s revenue is approximately 16 times that of Epic e-shop. It looks like an estimate of Steam’s game sales is that about $4Bn of their revenue last year was from Steam’s game sales. I am trying to corroborate that from other sources.
I’m still looking into and trying to parse out what percentage of steams sale last year were hardware (epic to my knowledge doesn’t have a hardware arm of their business), and it’s not immediately clear what how much they made on the e-shop portion of their business alone so I can get more comparable numbers.
What I have been able to find so far I’ve posted below, and I’ll try to remember to come back and do some math on that after I focus on the first thing.
Steam isn’t being sued by Sweeny, they are being sued on behalf of 14 million UK gamers.
Also, epic has an estimated 3% to 7% of the market share (not 42 which makes no sense with steam having the other 80%), yet they should be regulated as well. If you stopped bootlicking for half a second, you would realise that this isn’t about who’s the worst but the fact that they are all bad (except itch, bless them).
Your enjoyment of their product doesn’t mean it isn’t having a serious and negative impact on the industry. Amazon is really convenient too, can you defend them next please?
I was quickly googling market share stuff on break so I misread the Epic e-shop market share vs Epic’s full market share outside that.
The fact that Steam only makes double what epic e-shop makes with literally 11 times the market influence?
What regulations are you expecting out of this? How will that have a positive effect on consumers?
I never said this was about good or bad. I pointed out pros and cons of using each service which extrapolated quite literally to why consumers choose Steam over Epic.
A monopolistic corp who uses anit-consumer/anti-competitve tactics to remain a market leader/? monopoly is illegal. And it’s regulated.
The only reason steam is being investigated at all is because 2 or 3 out of literal thousands of game developers have made a claim that steam is threatening to remove their game if they try to sell it on other game stores for cheaper than steam (not steam keys, but using another stores licensing keys).
That hasn’t been proven and if it is, a further investigation into how wide spread that behavior is would still be needed to prove that Valve or Steam came by their market share illegally.
Also the fact that you brought up Amazon as the foil to your argument at the end is laughable. For multiple reasons.
Steams revenue was 16b (edit: it’s 4b) in 2025, epics was 1b in 2024. At least click the links instead of pasting what the Google summary tells you. You are mixing up epics store revenue with their unreal engine revenue.
The fact is any game store front is a money printing machine mostly because of the rampant price fixing, hard to enter markets and abuse from those that hold the lion share of that market (Steam, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo).
That money is being sucked out of the companies that are actually making games, and is leading to a reduction in quality, layoffs and bankruptcies.
For regulation, we could easily have limits on the percentage store fronts are allowed to demand for digital media, but each time there’s a lawsuit, a bunch of idiots loudly fight it. Lawmakers aren’t going to enact laws that go against what the lobbyist want, especially if the majority of the population have been instructed that the boot is for their benefit.
Your list of pros and cons doesn’t matter, every player being compared is bad. It’s just a defense in favor of Gabens yacht fleet at this point. Exclaiming that steam shouldn’t change because you like their product, even though it’s clearly having an impact, is the same as defending Amazon because drop shipping is easier than going to the store.
Fyi, I use both, I literally own a steam deck and the sd card came from Amazon. Defending their practices is just fucking weak though.
I’m not reading the Google summary. There is no Google summary for me. That shit is deep sixed. I don’t want it. I love it when people automatically assume that I must be using Generative AI to get some silly answer off the internet.
The fact is any game store front is a money printing machine mostly because of the rampant price fixing, hard to enter markets and abuse from those that hold the lion share of that market (Steam, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo).
If so then Epic should have caught up by now, no?
That money is being sucked out of the companies that are actually making games, and is leading to a reduction in quality, layoffs and bankruptcies.
Please back that up. The game developers seeing bankruptcies are seeing them because of gross mismanagement and a never ending attempt to deliver crap that their consumers don’t want. Pushing the “bleeding edge” of graphics while making games that sell poorly because they want to charge $60-70 for a game even 5 years after it came out.
And that’s with the proliferation of crap like in game micro transactions, season passes, DRM, and internet sanity checks to even play single player games.
Indie developers are caught in the lurch, but that’s generally the case with any small business, and on top of that the regulation will probably harm them more than it will help them because the percentage of sales pays for things that they use to market their game.
What is the limit on what store fronts can charge going to be? How much is too much? What does that 30% pay for? Do you know? Does it scale by user base?
Would other store fronts who charge less be more successful by a meaningful amount if they were charging the same?
It literally doesn’t matter where your products come from. I own more computer games on disc from physical stores than I do from steam. I have paid for more than one game on both steam, switch, PS4, or physical copy. I’m not trying to call Steam the good guy here.
But I do not trust the developer who originally brought the lawsuit because even now most of the other devs who have games for sale on steam have not attempted to make a statement, join the class action, or even make a complaint about what is alleged.
On top of that, why sue only steam if this is a problem. Nobody is suing Nintendo, PlayStation, or Microsoft over this.
I also never said “steam shouldn’t change”, or that steam shouldn’t take a smaller cut.
I feel like you scanned right over half of what I did say so you could be snotty in your response. You have a good day dude.
Okay, but your stats are still wrong? (Edit: so are some of mine though, disregard me being a dick here). Using AI wasn’t my point.
If so then Epic should have caught up by now, no?
Is making 1 000 million in a year with something like 5% not catching up? Do you think any of these billion dollar stores are running at cost?
Please back that up.
Having a vampire sucking up 30% of your revenue does affect a company but quantifying it would mean some pretty in depth studies and getting information from bankrupt companies. I do know most devs don’t like it. gdconf.com/…/gdc-state-of-the-industry-most-devs-…
And yes, all those points you mention are happening, but having a huge chunk of your profits taken like that obviously aggravates it.
What does that 30% pay for? Do you know?
I know it pays for Gabens yacht fleet worth 1.5 billion lol. We do have rough numbers. We know their employees count and revenue, and that they are making an estimated 11 million per employee from an article by the financial Times. That doesn’t include data atorage but I doubt the cost of offering downloads is anywhere near there revenue.
I own more computer games on disc from physical stores than I do from steam.
Stores don’t even stock physical discs for PC Games. How many of those are from the past 5 years? Last year had 95% of games sold digitally (PC and consoles). twicethebits.com/…/the-shift-to-digital-gaming-wh…
But I do not trust the developer who originally brought the lawsuit
What dev? This is about a UK lawsuit on behalf of UK gamers. I can’t find anything about a devs involvement.
Nobody is suing Nintendo, PlayStation, or Microsoft over this.
I want to point out that this is pure whataboutism, just like the OP. But what about epic, but what about nintendo. All of them deserve to get sued.
I also never said
Then the proper response would be “yes, steam does deserve to get sued, epics behavior doesn’t even have anything to do with the subject, but they also deserve to get sued”. Like what’s your point then? Why make a bullet point of things steam does well if you aren’t trying to imply that they are “good enough to be allowed to abuse”.
I feel like you scanned right over half of what I did say.
I can’t corroborate that Steam’s revenue for the e-shop was $16Bn. The best estimate that I have is that their game sales netted them $4Bn last year. I’m still trying to find a better source for that. However we may both be wrong here.
Ya, I misread it and I’m way off. It’s 4bn. Epic also made a lot less, my stats are not for gross revenue but generated revenue before they split it with the devs. Amateur hour over here (me, not you).
I went off in my other comment and was a bit of a dick throughout the convo. It just feels like someone is being robbed here. 4bn is a lot of money and, from the wolffire lawsuit leak, they have less than 100 people working on steam full time.
I am definitely not on epic side here, but the reason they had to pay for exclusivity for games is because valve doesn’t allow any games on steam to be sold cheaper elsewhere. Which developers follow because steam brings in a lot of revenue.
Without that, epic could try to compete with steam (and its extra features) by offering lower prices, and letting the consumer make the choice of features vs price.
But valve policies effectively make it impossible for any new marketplace to compete.
That’s false. They do not allow steam keys (free to generate steam licenses of games) to be sold cheaper anywhere else for less than the game is sold for on steam. And in exchange, the profits on those game licenses sold elsewhere the developer gets to keep 100% of.
It is alleged by one developer that steam told them they can’t sell their game for less on other stores even if they use a different company to generate the license keys. But that hasn’t been proven. And since only 2 other developers are backing the new class action lawsuit out of literally thousands of devs who would be effected this way if it were true, it logically doesn’t make sense. The dev who brought the first lawsuit that go thrown out? Their game is still up on Steam.
The fact is, Epic is making half the revenue Steam is with 11 times less market share, and not gaining market share because customers don’t want to use their store. Customers don’t want free games they want services that work.
You’re alleging that Valve is doing something anti-competitive to maintain their market share here and you still haven’t given me what I asked for.
What regulations are you expecting to be imposed, and how will that detrimentally or positively effect the consumers?
They do not allow steam keys (free to generate steam licenses of games) to be sold cheaper anywhere else for less than the game is sold for on steam.
That itself is false too with a quick look at isthereanydeals showing lot of steam games being sold cheaper outside of the steam store.
Even the Steam key guidelines don’t explicitly state that steam keys can’t be sold cheaper.
It’s OK to run a discount for Steam Keys on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.
Key word being comparable which is why if you are a user of isthereanydeals or /r/gamedeals you’ve likely gotten most of your steam games from outside the official Steam store.
I think some people just assume Steam sales must be the cheapest and don’t look beyond it.
At Rocket Bags, we specialize in creating high-quality custom-branded bags and promotional accessories for various corporate needs. By visiting our website, you can browse a wide selection of bespoke and stock items designed for professional branding. We focus on delivering durable products that help organizations maintain a consistent and recognizable identity.
Diablo III and IV don’t have a monopoly on the genre. There’s Titan Quest, Grim Dawn, and the Borderlands games, all playable offline, even in multiplayer. They’re not exactly Diablo, but you’ll hardly get closer than Grim Dawn, and there’s no reason you need to be married to the Diablo IP anyway. That kind of brand stickiness is how you get taken advantage of.
Personally, when something like that doesn’t respect my values, I’m not even finding myself tempted by them these days. Oh, it’s always online? It’s dead to me. There’s a deluge of other stuff to play, including games that are similar but respect my values.
I've played a lot of ARPGs and every one of them has their different flavors. But, I'm a type that wants a specific flavor and trying other flavors just makes me feel like it's not good enough. It's kind of like it's a discount version of that flavor I like. I'm playing a game that's inspired by the game that defined the genre. Just to expand a little, I am not trying to say that the games mentioned are terrible. I've touched upon Grim Dawn and Titan a few times.
But a lot of the time, my mood and feeling always darts for Diablo.
I feel that, Im a huge diablo fan but 4 was incredibly disappointing. FWIW i think path of exile gets the closest to the formula, I’ve also had a lot of fun with early access in poe2
I’m in a similar boat. I don’t know if you’ve heard the news, but it looks like some of the old D2 devs are now working on Darkhaven. It’s not out yet, but there’s hope!
I’m a very recent fan of loot games, and I only briefly tried Torchlight 1 as more of an academic exercise to see how the genre evolved over time. There was some special sauce that I observed starting around Borderlands 3 or Pre-Sequel (that I suspect originated in Diablo 3) around class design that was still absent from Torchlight. Other than that, I didn’t form much of an opinion on it.
I’d love to play games like Fortnight, PUBG, and League of Legends (I know, don’t judge me), but they don’t work on Linux, so they’re just a no-go for me. I used to play GTA V Online, but they added kernel anticheat to that too, and now I don’t play that anymore.
I have Windows, but I’m not booting into another partition just to play a game. I use it for compiling my software for Windows users, and that’s already too much of a pain in the ass. I cannot stand Windows. It’s a bloated mess, and I don’t understand how anyone gets any actual work done on it. Just navigating it feels like a chore.
I can’t even play Apex anymore because EA decided Linux players cheat, and therefore, must be categorically banned from playing. All they did was turn off that switch for Proton/WINE support.
didn’t know they added kernel anticheat to gta online, thought they just disallowed linux players. i had 5k hours on it, didn’t really play anything else for almost 10 years. dropped it entirely that day because it’s not worth using a worse OS, and turns out single player is more fun anyway with mods. will also pirate gta 6 and play it without windblows, suck my shrimp rockstar.
Similar. I played a lot of Diablo 2 back in the day, but Blizzard got a lot worse as a game publisher during the years they were focused on WoW. I’m not super interested in starting up on Diablo 3 or 4 or even Starcraft 2.
For a different direction on this – I played Subnautica. It was terrifying. I’m not going to get the expansion or Subnautica 2 when it comes out. shudder
An OG D2 mod, adds a load of content and changes things dramatically, vibrant MP scene, and even after having spent most of a decade playing D2 back in the day it’s changed enough to feel new and shiny again.
Oh man I missed you starting this up! So glad you picked up Cult of the Lamb! I absolutely ADORE that game, and I’ve been meaning to go back to it since all of the updates (and now with the new DLC too!) I originally 100%'d the full game, but since the updates they added more achievements, so I gotta get back into and re-earn my 100% again lol
Happy to see you’re enjoying it, and best of luck with the rest of the game!
(P. S. I respect the hell outta ya for being able to keep this daily posting up, it’s fuckin awesome😎)
It's fascinating to see these historic NG and MG locomotives preserved at Ambala station, showcasing India's rich railway heritage. For a modern thrill, check out the exciting challenges of slope rider game
bin.pol.social
Aktywne