Despite facing increased competition in the space, not least from the Epic Games Store, Valve’s platform is synonymous with PC gaming. The service is estimated to have made $10.8 billion in revenue during 2024, a new record for the Half-Life giant. Since it entered the PC distribution space back in 2018, the rival Epic Games Store has been making headway – and $1.09 billion last year – but Steam is still undeniably dominant within the space.
Valve earns a large part of its money from taking a 20-30% cut of sales revenue from developers and publishers. Despite other storefronts opening with lower overheads, Steam has stuck with taking this slice of sales revenue, and in doing so, it has been argued that Valve is unfairly taking a decent chunk of the profits of developers and publishers.
This might change, depending on how an ongoing class-action lawsuit initiated by Wolfire Games goes, but for the time being, Valve is making money hand over fist selling games on Steam. The platform boasts over 132 million users, so it’s perfectly reasonable that developers and publishers feel they have to use Steam – and give away a slice of their revenue – in order to reach the largest audience possible.
Excuse my frank speech but that’s absolute bollocks and lacks any understanding at all of how a monopoly works.
E: It’s so hilarious to watch the Lemmy idiots be like “lEaVe ThE mUlTiBiLlIoN dOlLaR cOmPaNy AlOnE!” when it comes to Nintentdo but when it’s Valve, then it’s totally cool for some reason.
Is there a monopoly though?
Other store fronts exist. They are usable and often sell the same games. It’s not Nestle owning half the food options in every food store, this is whole foods, vs all the other grocery stores.
You can get game pass and stream your games and never own them past your subscription lasts.
Or the Microsoft game store which isn’t great but exists. GOG gives you installers and has big games on it.
Fanatical, GMG, Humble Bundle, are all store fronts. You could even consider Nintendo and PlayStation to have their own game storefronts while needing their hardware.
Is Steam a monopoly?
Monopoly does not mean no other businesses exist.
Sure but it means there is no other competition though. That could be price collusion but epic takes a completely different cut amount and other stores have different prices for games.
Just because other definitions exist doesn’t answer the question, it avoids it by saying something else entirely.
Is Steam a monopoly?
Not correct either. Do you think Google has no competition?
This is a whataboutism.
Is steam a monopoly and how?
I don’t think you understand what a whataboutism is.
I don’t know why you keep asking me this question when I already answered it in my first comment. Yes, Steam is a monopoly, because they hold the overwhelming marketshare of PC gaming.
Your first comment in this chain that I am responding to is
Which is not a definition and thus why I am asking. You have not yet defined it yet seem insistent that it is.
And a whataboutism is when you bring up a parallel or comparable topic in an attempt to shift it. You brought up google in a discussion about Steam/Valve. That very much is.
Having a large user base is not a monopoly. Hershey doesn’t have a monopoly on chocolate for being the popular choice. People can and will at any time use competing products.
I remember, thanks.
You didn’t ask me for a definition.
I know what a whataboutism is. You dont. This is called an “example”. An example of a company that was legally ruled a monopoly but also has competition.
You’re missing the larger discussion around monopolies, and you’re mad because I disproved your position. You also didn’t answer my question while simultaneously repeatedly demanding that I answer yours.
You’re obviously just misrepresenting the statement I just made in the comment you just replied to.
I think it’s pretty clear at this point that you have no intention of a good faith discussion so I’m not going to entertain this any further.
The PC is an open platform. Even more so with Linux. Steam doesn’t force exclusivity, you’re free to host your game on Steam for discoverability while also self-distributing or using other storefronts. Valve’s 30% is a price that a studio chooses to pay, because they know that a ton of PC gamers like buying games on Steam.
If all you want out of a storefront is a payment processor, CDN, and possibly DRM, you can release on Steam, Epic, Itch, GOG, or all at once. You pick Steam (or Steam+others) instead of others because you know that enough PC gamers are willing to pay for your game on Steam, because they like Steam. Epic can tout its small cuts or exclusivity bonuses or “zero percent cuts on the first $x” deals, but game devs know that 100% of revenue on an Epic launch week is going to be a lower absolute number than 70% of revenue on a Steam one.
Hell, if Steam did lower their cut to undercut Epic (which they absolutely could do, especially since they don’t have any shareholders and thus just need to be profitable instead of demonstrating YoY growth), that would be a more “monopolistic” move in the PC gaming space. Remember, the alleged monopoly is over devs, not users. As a dev, the only reason you’d ever consider Epic instead of Steam for your game is that generous profit-share ratio. Steam could remove that only advantage overnight if it wanted to “compete”, and doesn’t. Valve will settle for winning exclusively on the merit of “being a platform that doesn’t suck, and hasn’t sucked for 20 years, and doesn’t have financial motivation to start sucking now”. Because Valve isn’t beholden to shareholder value, if they lowered their cuts to 10%, that ten billion in revenue would be closer to three billion… Which absolutely covers every employee’s salary, the hosting and bandwidth costs of their CDN, and material costs for their hardware. Instead, they consistently reinvest in not just sitting there doing nothing and also not ever sacrificing user experience for number go up. Steam Machines and the Steam Controller could fail without bringing down Valve. The Index and Deck could be produced at scale and aimed at niche audiences because hey, they could afford a failure.
No its not. Its a fee they have to pay because they have no other option, because Steam is a monopoly. Even CDPR, who literally owns their own game store, lists their games on Steam, because there’s no way they could ever be successful without it.
CDPR judges that selling on Steam is enough of a boost that it’s worth the cost. Riot (for example) doesn’t. If you think every game company or indie studio feels mandated to use Steam, that’s a hugely consolebrained take. Nintendo has a monopoly. Want your game on Switch? Follow Nintendo’s terms and list on Nintendo’s store. Apple has a monopoly, challenged recently. Want your app on iPhone? Follow Apple’s terms and list on Apple’s store. Want your game on Windows PC? Upload an EXE somewhere. Sell a disc. Run your own launcher. Or license out to Steam/Epic/whoever.
The only reason you get more sales on Steam is because the PC gaming userbase overwhelmingly prefers Steam. Hell, I play Guild Wars 2, a 12 year old MMO that “launched” on Steam a couple years ago. You can still buy and play that game without any third parties getting involved at all, and always could. It doesn’t have any Steam achievements, doesn’t benefit from any Steam features, and has a decade old community in spaces other than Steam ones. ArenaNet decided that exposure via Steam recommendations was worth losing $x/player to list on Steam.
If Steam had an exclusivity clause, that’d be another matter entirely. As it stands, listing on Steam doesn’t prevent you from also listing your game elsewhere or bypassing the entire storefront middleman scheme.
I literally just explained this in the comment you just replied to.
You can upload it wherever you want and create whatever launcher you want, you will be unsuccessful. Fucking EA did this for 8 years, failed, and went back to Steam. As did Ubisoft. You simply won’t be successful without Steam. That’s what a monopoly is.
Ah yes. Massively unsuccessful games like… checks notes League of Legends. World of Warcraft. Fortnite: Battle Royale.
The magic part of the PC is that if your independently distributed game does fail, you can still, after the fact, decide to slap it on someone’s storefront in a desperate attempt for eyeballs - see Overwatch 2. Why not double dip? It only costs you hypothetical money you haven’t made yet. Am I supposed to be sad that E fucking A failed to install their shareholder value store on my computer?
These games are both about as old as Steam itself. Their playerbase was created in a different market.
No, you’re just supposed to recognize why it failed.
For me, it failed because I wasn’t willing to install some shareholder-driven company’s storefront app on my computer just to play Mass Effect 3, so I pirated Mass Effect 3. Then I got to watch it fail because it turns out I wasn’t the only one willing to skip/pirate games because they came with Origin attached to them.
Epic’s exclusives are the exact same.
I get my PC games from five sources. Steam, GOG’s website, Itch’s website, standalone launchers (I’d probably be okay with a “store” of games as small as the Riot launcher, but I don’t use that because I don’t install rootkit anticheat), and piracy. Launcherless Itch and GOG have convenience parity with piracy with the added benefit of the devs getting paid (and the ease of acquiring updates), and I’ll usually use them over Steam if available. Itch could easily get bought by a corp like Humble did and CDPR is already a shareholder value company, but they sell DRM-free products that I can use even after the stores die / sell out.
A recent launch I paid for and didn’t use Steam for is “The Bazaar” - it has a standalone launcher. The game went pay to win so I uninstalled it, but its lack of presence on Steam didn’t keep me from playing it.
I’ll use stuff other than Steam no problem. But I’ll always cheer when a platform owned and operated by a shareholder backed company dies in favor of one that isn’t. My experience in the hobby space of PC gaming is better when there aren’t exclusives locked on EA Origin or UPlay or Microsoft UWP store or Epic, because I might want to play those games without installing a stock-ticker company’s adware on my computer. Having the space “capitalism free” is unrealistic, unless we’re talking “pirate everything”. I’ll settle for “profit driven” over “YOY growth driven” leaders in the space any day of the week.
Now, if Steam’s position as the best distributor/launcher platform is a de facto “monopoly”, what’s the solution to that? Anecdotally I know plenty of people that play non-Steam games while not playing any Epic games. Epic tries to fight Steam by directly paying developers to not publish on Steam, and also effectively guaranteeing studios a financial success by cutting a deal to put their game up for “free” on the Epic storefront. Plenty of games have been “Free” on Epic while full price on Steam. Valve tries to fight Epic by… Acting like Epic doesn’t exist. They don’t chase exclusives or get into a price war with Epic.
Steam is the most popular platform for PC game releases. A subset of users will not consider ever using other platforms. If we accept this as the definition of “monopoly” the way we’d say Windows has a monopoly on x64 PCs, how would changing the revenue split for devs (which appears to be the issue this company’s suing Valve over) alleviate this “monopoly”? Sounds to me like forcing Steam to explicitly allow “the game is more expensive on Steam” tactics would just make Steam even more of a no-brainer for devs over stuff like Epic or their own platform.
You could say that paying the devs/studios a better cut is the point, and I’d see the validity in the argument. But it’s completely unrelated to whether or not Valve operates as a monopoly.
Everyone is not you