Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
I didn’t know Fall Guys got bought out. But then again, that was a flavor-of-the-week kind of game where streamers tried to care, then moved on and Fall Guys became irrelevant.
they probably have a legal team protecting thats why, or they are paying of some judges/politicans.
Because Valve has more money that someone winning a lawsuit can take from.
If Epic spent half as much money as they are suing organisations and instead funded developing their shop into a gaming community platform like Steam, they’d probably have caught up by now.
Epic Games Launcher would always end up a pile of shit anyway. Tim Sweeney is a fuckhead and he has lots of investors to please.
He’s also Tencent’s bitch too.
I don’t understand this I use it for rocket league occasionally and it all just works ™ ? I prefer Valve 100% to slopnite developers but the launcher seems fine to me. (On Linux Heroic is unironically better than steam which has a bunch of random bugs every few weeks)
To be honest, Epic is doing a good job of tearing down walled gardens in places like mobile, and we’ll probably be better off for it. But yeah, they’ve done a terrible job of competing with Steam.
They’re doing that because they want their own walled garden.
The problem there comes from Epic taking secret deals to settle those cases instead of let any precedent be set that would actually benefit customers.
They only did that because they wanted their walled garden to be there too. Tim Sweeney is just butthurt his walled garden isn’t the biggest
Of course, but…broken clock, you know? A large percentage of personal computers will be freed from Windows in large part because of Valve, even though they profit off of legalized child gambling addiction. And walled gardens in mobile will be broken down in large part because of Epic, which uses dark patterns to trick people out of their money in pursuit of a cultural hodge podge of nonsense that won’t even exist in a few decades.
“Gaming community.”
Steam and Epic are both malware.
I wouldn’t call them malware, but both Valve and Epic are not your friends and they have done a lot of bad shit (Valve was huge in enabling lootbox gameplay).
I wish they’d just focus on fixing Unreal. It’s a shit show.
Every time someone uses lumen the frame rate drops by roughly 2/3rds, it’s nuts.
Always has been
You dont like games that look like you have grease smeared over your monitor?
Sweeney is legit delulu tbh.
He literally said Epic’s launcher/store is ready as is, doesn’t need more development. It also runs in Unreal Engine, so you get Chromium (CEF) + Unreal Engine running just for one launcher/store.
At least on Linux you can run Unreal Editor without EGS (because it doesn’t exist on Linux) and if you’ve claimed any free games on Epic, you can use Heroic launcher to manage them easily.
if you’ve claimed any free games on Epic, you can use Heroic launcher to manage them easily.
Oooh. This is interesting. I wonder how much of the epic library is Linux compatible.
Everything except fortnite and a few other kernel level anticheat games
its not about making better product for epic. its about removing competition so they dont have to.
They could remove that competition by making a better product, but that is somehow always the last thing they’d ever think about. It never stops being so fucking weird with all these business people who go to great lengths to do shitty stuff and always end up making it worse for everyone except a quick buck for themselves, even though they could easily make a lot more for a longer time by simply doing a good job. But no, that would require anything other than immediate greed. Absolutely vile people.
deleted by creator
we are products and cattle for them, not customers. Their customers are other rich people they associate with and exchange favors and assets with.
I wonder if this is how it would be to live in world dominated by vampires.
deleted by creator
If they didn’t have fortnite and unreal engine money propping them up it would have closed by now. Hasn’t been profitable since it opened in 2018.
If they didn’t have Fortnite they probably wouldn’t even have the money to dump into Unreal Engine to make it where it is today. They probably would ask Tencent for more money and Tencent would have bought the rest of the company. The game engine business is just not as profitable as Fortnite, just look at Unity.
There’s an argument for using these services in the early stages because they often operate at a loss in the hope that they will secure a monopoly in the future. The trick is to immediately abandon them when they jack the price up. I recently heard that in the food delivery space virtually no one is turning a profit.
Even worse, it’s costing the food places you order from money. We have a lot of restaurants here that will give you free stuff if you do not use Thuisbezorgd which is owned by Just Eat Takeaway. They also own the American Grubhub since 2021 and are also active in the UK, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands.
-edit-
Correction they no longer own Grubhub, and are active in a lot more countries than I first thought, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Eat_Takeaway.com
As of late 2025, Just Eat now belongs to Prosus.
Why would a restaurant allow delivery services if it causes them to lose money?
They don’t get a choice.
For real? I don’t know how any of this works from the restaurant side. I thought they had to “join” something like GrubHub, that’s not the case?
it’s often more risky and expensive to hire, train and develop systems and communities like that, especially when doing it against the tide, than to just try to trip up the competition. It’s not just that it’s dificult and it costs money, but it’s not preferred because investors abhor risks.
Isn’t this seen in global politics all the time. When US says China is too dominant in X and we need to fight it. They are not saying that US will invest in shit that will help them compete. All or 90% of the actions is to try to trip up, sabotage and sanction the competition.
Just a bunch of crabs in a bucket.
Rocket League had a native Linux version, but they also pulled that.
And a Mac client.
What are they being sued for? I guess I missed this?
Also I guess it could be argued they only removed it from new sales whereas people who already owned those titles on Steam still have them on Steam.
As per my understanding (which isn’t saying much), Steam takes a 30% cut of each sale. In UK, someone with a specific agenda claimed to represent gamers as a class and sued reasoning that the 30% cut inflates the price of games globally even beyond Steam’s store, harming everyone.
Did i understand it right? No idea. What’s the actual goal here? Also no idea. Is Steam the “good guy” in all this? Of course not.
deleted by creator
I think devs actually get quite a bit for that 30%. Let’s present a hypothetical. What if Valve offered an option where you could list your game on Steam with no restrictions and they’d only take a 10% cut, but the tradeoff is, they won’t promote your game at all? Like, it won’t show up in any Steam storefront advertisements, can’t participate in sales, etc. - it’s still there if it’s linked to from off-Steam or if someone searches for it, but it won’t be promoted, period.
How do you think that would work out for developers? I’d argue not well, especially for small studios.
The promotion those games get applies to the game as a whole, not only through Steam - someone can see the promotion on Steam, then go shop around and buy it elsewhere. Why should Valve promote a game if they aren’t getting a cut of the sales?
Plus you get the download servers, payment processing, customer support, reviews, …
Well that’s stupid. If Steam charged less, the price of games wouldn’t change.
Developers and publishers would just pocket the difference.
deleted by creator
They are being accused of price fixing with the whole “can’t sell games for cheaper on other store fronts compared to the steam listing” thing
I’m pretty sure that Amazon also says that you can’t sell things on Amazon for more than you sell the same item elsewhere.
I’ve certainly seen a video claiming that.
Oh well that’s totally fair, honestly.
It locks out real competitive pricing.
It only applies to steam keys though. Like if you want to sell on other storefronts (like Epic) for cheaper, it’s perfectly fine. You simply can’t sell steam keys on other storefronts for cheaper. It’s not really “price fixing” as much as it is “Steam ensuring their servers aren’t used to download the game unless the dev has properly paid them for the key”…
Like imagine a company wants to sell more copies of their game. So they set up their own site to sell directly to consumers, and it’s cheaper than buying on Steam. This is totally fine. Consumers can still choose to add the standalone version as a non-Steam game to be able to launch it via Steam.
It’s only a breach of contract if they start offering steam keys for that same (cheaper) price, which allows the game to be downloaded via Steam, includes achievement integrations, includes Steam’s friend list “join game” multiplayer, includes Steam Deck/Steam Machine optimizations, etc… If they want all of those nice Steam integrations, they need an official Steam key. And that Steam key can’t be sold cheaper than on Steam’s official store.
It only applies to Steam product keys though, so developers cannot sell cheap Steam keys on other platforms while still taking advantage of Steam’s services.
I believe the problem is that it isn’t just Steam keys. There’s apparently emails from Valve employees that state that it’s all versions of the game, and that seems to be the real crux here. And if that’s true it’s pretty shitty, and they might actually lose this.
Do you have a source for that? All I can find on their Steamworks site is the rules on Steam keys being restricted, not other versions. Maybe I missed that email part in the news.
They were mentioned in a recent Youtube video by Bellular News. I haven’t read more about it myself.
I guess whether this is true or not will be a defining point of the whole lawsuit
Yes this is a more apt description, sorry, this whole thing has been stupid tbh.
How does it do that?
Which isn’t accurate and is more nuanced involving Steam keys like another user said. For instance, Prey is on sale for $6 on the PlayStation store but still $30 on Steam.
That’s because they can’t intimidate Bethesda with an email.
ah yes, they are price fixing by saying devs can’t set the price on steam (which the devs control) higher than the price on other platforms (which the devs also control)
That’s not true, it only applies if you’re selling a steam key. Devs are free to set the price on any platform they want, want proof? Check out the currently free game on epic which has never been free on Steam.
Steam provides developers with infinite steam keys that they can sell outside of steam for 100% profit, however those keys cannot be sold at a lesser price than what it’s sold on steam. Which honestly sounds like common sense.
deleted by creator
Sure, but that’s more about Valve not pursuing violations than anything else (in other comment I also mentioned how they turn a blind eye to Humble Bundle as well). But legally they could go after silent hill f and demand it be sold for a similar value to $31.49 since some time has passed and stem users have not been offered a comparable offer. I think what’s in the clause they make people sign is more important than whether they enforce it or not, because if it was about price parity with other stores then it would be abusive (even if they didn’t enforced it always), but if it is about selling something they provide then it’s not abusive even if they do enforced it always.
deleted by creator
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.
The only answer with an actual articulate explanation has 30% downvotes because the average gamer IQ is double digits.
Isn’t valve being sued for
-
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.
So the entire problem is about restrictions on steam codes?
It’s a restriction on where you can get a DLC you paid for. The fact that you paid for it at Walmart shouldn’t matter.
-
They essentially removed games that I owned and made it so I could no longer play them by drippy Linux support.
Which ones?
Valve isn’t forcing anyone to use their platform.
If Steam’s terms aren’t satisfactory for developers, then they don’t have to use Steam.
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.
looks at Hytale doing quite well without even touching Steam
Got any other modern examples than just the one game that had a massive following for the last 7 years of development?
Star Citizen I guess. If by “well” it is meant “making lots of money”
But yeah it’s not realistic at all for 99+% of devs/games
Anything by Blizzard, Escape from Tarkov, Minecraft, Roblox, Valorant/LoL/TFT, Genshin Impact/HSR, Fortnite and more.
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.
You asked a question, I answered. You didn’t like the answer so now you move the goalposts.
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.
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.
UK law basically doesn’t use the term.
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 would say they aren’t.
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 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.
hey, I’m going to give you a $5 Million exclusivity deal
This isn’t something they need to.do, as they have a monopoly.
…Okay?
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.
They could still compete on I don’t know, features, quality instead of anti-consumer practices.
Also true, but that’s not what I’m replying to.
I dunno, killing the idea of ownership of games was pretty bad.
I don’t think any amount of Proton patches submitted is going to bring that back.
Steam didn’t do that. Even Super Nintendo cartridges tried to claim in the Terms and Conditions that you legally didn’t own the copy you paid for. It was never contested, and thus we have the current software ownership debacle.
Apparently a lot of games don’t have DRMs on Steam. The only thing missing is a badge indicating this.
So at least you own these…
Yes, some of them can be launched directly from the exe without the steam client, or with some modifications to the game files.
Here’s a list of DRM free games: https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games_on_Steam
Also it’s kind of silly how people automatically blame Steam for this, even though Valve does not force you to use DRM to publish to Steam. It is the developers themselves that chose to add DRM or tie themselves to the Steam API so that the game can’t run without it.
So for example getting Dorfromantik or Citizen Sleeper from Steam or GOG is virtually equivalent in terms of ownership.
Steam didn’t do that. Even when you bought a physical disk you didn’t own the game. Microsoft is the one you should be blaming for how software is licensed over actually being sold to you. It was them who really pushed for that shit in the fucking 80s.
But Steam didn’t kill the idea of ownership of games? It never existed for digital distribution (or even physical with DRM), which existed before Steam.
because of the anti-competitive price restrictions that Valve often imposes on game developers and producers (the Price Parity Obligations). This means a publisher or developer would not be able to list a game on another platform as well as Steam, unless the prices offered on Steam is the same or lower. This applies to games on all other distribution stores (including online and physical stores) not just those distributed by Steam Keys
Textbook anti-trust lawsuit. Different from what Epic does, I doubt they impose such rules on developers.
Because Epic and Tencent should have first pick from the IP farm.
Marketshare, and you have to remember the difference between platform and store. If Epic made them exclusive to the Epic Machine™ then there would be a problem but moving from Steam to Epic doesn’t remove Windows support.
Imagine Target bought Great Value (Walmart brand) and moved it from Walmart to target. Would anyone care?
It does remove easy Linux compatibility. Also you can run any storefront on steam deck, so not sure what your point is about hardware
A hypothetical Epic console.
Heroic gives Linux support and has the added benefit of being third party.
Who sued who in the what now?
This would be like if someone sued Walmart for letting their local store go out of business.
More like the local store suing Walmart for putting them out of business, but only after they pushed away all of their customers with bad ideas and flashy gimmicks
Walmart didn’t let local stores go out of business, it deliberately undercut local stores in order to drive them out if business.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but you get my point.
I’m still bitter at Steam for taking a bunch of my single-player games off me that I’d already paid for when I moved to another country, and refusing to refund me because I’d already played 10 hours. Also the support guy treated me like I was a criminal for even trying.
Did they explain why moving to another country ment anything?
There was a time when the swastika was not allowed to be shown in games because of a law in Germany, causing Wolfenstein (the uncencored version) to be banned. Maybe the country in question has similar laws?
That only made it so that you couldn’t buy games with symbols like the swastika. I used to live abroad and moved back to germany and kept all my games.
Some games are region-locked because the localisation is done by building another binary, Fallouts were like that, and some other I can’t remember, maybe it was this
I too am afraid to change region because Valve is very opaque in how they change availability, and there definitely were precedents of games not just being delisted but still available if you have them, but also disappearing completely from you library
Some countries have huge taxes on entertainment while others have nearly none. I’d guess he moved to a county with a higher tax rate and Valve can’t just have people using a VPN to circumvent their local taxes. Valve is left without a way to determine where you were when you’d purchased the game so they geo lock the titles to where you purchased them.
I haven’t really looked deeply into this issue but what caught my eye was the claim that a 30% fee was excessive. I’m no insider into video game publishing but 30% is the standard retail markup for many things. If you bought a candy bar today, it probably cost the mini mart you bought it from 70% of what they’re charging.
That’s what Apple charges devs in their “ecosystem” correct?
thats what apple forces and imposes on any developer that uses the app store, which is most of them since on ios alt stores are only a thing on eu and japan afaik
Depends if you’re a big developer or some indie one. Big developers commonly don’t pay fees or have special deals (Uber, etc.). Smaller ones pay 15% up to 1 million downloads, then it’s 30%. So if you want to pay less, get really rich first.
That being said, this is on top of the VAT, not part of it. Still charging 30% in 2026 feels criminal and greedy. This applies to nearly all big corporations, including Valve Corporation with Gabe’s fleet of yachts and company making more money per employee than any other company. It made more sense to take 30% cut when 100Gb of HDD costed thousand dollars, internet was metered in megabytes and the whole infrastructure was just not there yet, but this “industry standart” tax never changed even tho for them distributing apps has become far, far cheaper than it used to.
Just letting you know that you commented the same thing twice.
Retail needs a location to store and sell their product. They need employees as well. One small Walmart has as many employees as steam does. Retails also buys the product in bulk, there is a bigger risk involved if it doesn’t sell or even sells slowly.
Huge difference imo.
and steam needs data centers and servers and power and all the stuff to keep those running. ultimately though it didn’t matter. if steam thinks that their ecosystem is worth charging that much, then it’s up to the dev to decide if what steam provides is worth it to them
We don’t know how much it costs for their servers but I doubt it’s anywhere near what they charge devs. Gaben having an 11bn dollar net worth kind of points to that.
The biggest problem is that it isn’t up to devs since steam has market dominance. Not putting your game on steam is basically suicide, they have close to 90% of the PC market…
market dominance is not a monopoly. market dominance is a label given to the most successful product. and the product is successful because they offer a service that none else seems to be able to or wish to fulfill.
devs can choose to sell their game on steam, or windows live, or gog, epic game store, playstation, nintendo online, android app store, ios app store, on their own site, eb games, or the back of their car, what ever.
are all of these equally effective? nope. when you put your game on steam you get, the vast user base cultivated by valve, server space to host your game, massive server upload speeds, a built in store front, the discussion boards, steam game cloud, the stream overlays and stream input, steam workshop, community hubs, steam achievements, global money processing, themed sales, two special discovery windows. blah blah blah.
again, it’s up to the dev to decide if they want to pay 30% for these things.
to put it in perspective, when epic game store has a sale, steam makes a profit.
For brick and mortar, which has significantly more costs to make up than digital. Which is the entire point of this suit. And steam’s policy requires that no game can be regularly priced cheaper than on their platform - artificially raising prices across the board.
It’s bizarre seeing everyone here defend steam here just because they don’t like who’s saying it.
Steam provides more than just a one time exchange of download for money, so I wouldn’t exactly compare it to a store where you walk out the door and your exchange is completed. As a leftists, I think Steam makes too much money and should charge less and pay more but in a capitalist nation i don’t see Epic having a successful case
