Why is Valve being sued for almost $900 million, but Epic Games wasn't sued when they bought Rocket League and Fall Guys to remove them from steam?
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
Same reason nobody, not even Sony, sued M$ for buying Activision-King and Bethesda.
-
Why is Epic insignificant?
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 pity party he's throwing for himself because he doesn't want to compete.
Edit
This 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 sales last year were hardware (epic to my knowledge doesn't have a hardware arm of their business), and it's not immediately clear 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.
https://gamalytic.com/blog/steam-revenue-infographic
https://80.lv/articles/valve-earned-over-usd4-billion-on-steam-alone-in-2025-analysts-say
Shopping kart
Yes. The shopping kart feature. Something online stores and webshops came with when the Internet looked like MS Paint.
Somehow absent on a modern platform...
-
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.
-
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 expect that no cap on storefront share of the price will be set as a result of this lawsuit or any other.
I also expect that even if Steam reduce their cut to 3%, prices will not get lower, and bankruptcies and lay-offs will go on as usual
Maybe I'm just pessimistic, don't know
-
Same reason nobody, not even Sony, sued M$ for buying Activision-King and Bethesda.
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
-
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
-
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.
I just keep hearing claims, but nothing actually definitive when it comes to sources. Do you have any actual evidence that price is not supposed to be lower, because I don't see clear language stating that in the steam key documentation.
And then when it comes to real world price tracking it doesn't fit with the claims that devs aren't allowed to sell steam keys cheaper.
That's what makes it unclear. What is the definition of not worse or comparable? It could be interrupted as $41 vs $31 meeting the definition while selling for $10 but going no lower than $41 would be considered a breech. There's no clear language of it has to be equal or can't be lower. It's language with a lot of flexibility.
That's why I don't feel like claims of people saying Steam keys can't be lower with such confidence is appropriate. The sources we have at hand isn't cut and dry and actual prices don't fit those claims either to state it as a fact.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
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.
-
They essentially removed games that I owned and made it so I could no longer play them by drippy Linux support.
Which ones?
-
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.
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.
-
Did they explain why moving to another country ment anything?
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.
-
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
-
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
Why would a restaurant allow delivery services if it causes them to lose money?
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
Why is Valve being sued for almost $900 million
"The legal action, originally filed in 2024 by digital rights campaigner Vicki Shotbolt"
Vicki is a leading campaigner for children’s digital rights, with over 20 years of senior leadership experience in national charities. She is the founder and CEO of Parent Zone, an organisation that works with families and global brands to improve the lives of children in today’s digital world.
(Source: https://steamyouoweus.co.uk/about-us/)
That is why Valve is being sued for 900 million. Because Vicki Shotbolt wanted to. Why did she want to? Here is her claim (in her own words, not mine):
But Steam’s prices appear to be the lowest?
Steam can offer the lowest prices 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. This allows Valve to maintain the monopoly position it has for PC Games as there is not real incentive for gamers to go elsewhere where a game may be cheaper (which would then in turn enable those other platforms to improve).
It is also not possible to offer add-on content on other distribution platforms for cheaper or at an earlier time: this limits the ability of rivals to compete on price and enables Valve to charge the consumer higher prices in the absence of competition. The claim argues that the add-on content is a separate product, and that through the price restrictions and inability to purchase add-on content from another distribution platform or the developer itself Valve has illegally tied these products and limited consumer choice. Consumers must then purchase via Steam and pay its commission charge.
In the UK, dominant companies are not allowed to charge excessive prices. The claim argues that Valve’s commission rate of up to 30% is excessive given: competitors lower commission rates; the way the platform operates for the consumer; and the high level of profit that Valve is making absent a viable competitor (which its behaviour directly restricts as developers are not permitted to list games at lower prices on competing platforms). This unfair commission charge is paid for by the consumer.
"[...] but Epic Games wasn't sued when they bought Rocket League and Fall Guys to remove them from steam?
Steam has a much easier claim to be considered a monopoly. It's a little like (note: I never said it's exactly like or it is very much like—I only said it's a little like) Chrome being a monopoly for web browsers—everyone chooses to install chrome on their computers when they install a PC and prefer not to use the pre-installed Edge or Safari. Very few people install Epic games, much like very few people install Firefox. If you want to game on PC, you pretty much have to install Steam to play with your friends you know? Otherwise you're kinda lame and don't have friends.
-
Their approach feels like how lot of companies are currently focusing on AI to market to investors and AI data centers directly, and ignoring what consumers want assuming their opinions are of little relevance. Like how Microsoft doesn't care if people dont want copilot, and keeps talking up the corporate side with the assumption that they know people will use Microsoft no matter what.
Which is much like Epic with them focusing more on giving money to publishers to lock up titles in the past like Final Fantasy 7 Remake from Square Enix over concerning themselves with the demographic of people buying the product.
Its not a consumer focused business model, because the idea of consumers not buying it is impossible to comprehend. Their headlines never seem to be around how its better for the consumer and the benefits to using them over the competition.
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.
-
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..
-
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, ...
-
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.
30% is the standard retail markup for many things
It most certainly is not standard in retail. Most retail stores have a margin of a couple percentage points. Walmart, for example, is ~3% net margin most years
Unless you're trying to compare wholesale price to final consumer price. In which case I would say that's a silly and pointless thing to compare, but even then it's far smaller than 30% across retail and varies wildly based on the individual item being sold
A 30% cut is only really common in the tech sector where the underlying economics make it feasible
