602
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? (lemmy.world)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/games@lemmy.world
164 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.

top 89 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 77 points 9 months ago (1 child)

Rocket League had a native Linux version, but they also pulled that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 287 points 9 months ago (31 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 31 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 64 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    its not about making better product for epic. its about removing competition so they dont have to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [+] 30 points 9 months ago (8 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (4 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (2 children)

    Why would a restaurant allow delivery services if it causes them to lose money?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I wish they'd just focus on fixing Unreal. It's a shit show.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    I don't understand this I use it for rocket league occasionally and it all just works (tm) ? 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)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 28 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 19 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Did they explain why moving to another country ment anything?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    I suspect Germany was the reason Kane and Lynch 1/2 was so heavily censored. They even got a bright orange bulletin on the Steam store page claiming that German citizens were unable to purchase or play the game.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 106 points 9 months ago

    Epic is trash, simple as

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 18 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 17 points 9 months ago

    Who sued who in the what now?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 32 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    That's what Apple charges devs in their "ecosystem" correct?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago*

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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..

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 31 points 9 months ago

    Because Valve has more money that someone winning a lawsuit can take from.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 42 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Because sweeney is greedy lying piece of shit, who’s using “think of poor developers being robbed by app stores” to cut himself bigger market share by suing fuck out of competitors

    Like they won over google and guess what? He fucked over “all the poor developers” and cut himself a juicy deal to settle antitrust case

    Fuck him, fuck Epic

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/01/23/epic-hypocrisy----google-gets-800-million-in-fortnite-antitrust-settlement

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [–] 14 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    TIL it was removed from steam. I play it on my deck all the time

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 23 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Yeah, it's no longer for sale. If you bought it before it was delisted, you can still download/play it through steam. What is fucking atrocious is that I had to go and make an account with epic to play. Well, they can spam and sell my 'nannerbanner'sfakeemailforepiccunts@proton.me' all they want. Fucking cunts. .

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 16 points 9 months ago

    Yeah, I bought my own domain specifically so I could set up a catch-all email service. Everything sent to my domain hits the same inbox, but I can easily see who has sold my info. If I start getting spam addressed to “walmart@example.com” then I know Walmart sold my info. And I can easily set a rule to automatically mark anything addressed to that burned account as spam.

    Lots of websites quickly caught onto the “just add a + after your regular email” trick, and set up an internal rule to remove any of the + tags. So that old trick is largely useless.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 41 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    No one gives a flat fuck about epics launcher.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • [–] 31 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Because it's a patent troll who has attempted this a few times before.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    Because Epic and Tencent should have first pick from the IP farm.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 46 points 9 months ago (24 children)

    Because Steam is the world's biggest games store on PC while Epic is statistically insignificant. What's the question?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 24 child comments
    •
  • [–] 66 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    epic is irrelevant because nobody wants it, not because steam is trying to crush competition.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [+] -38 points 9 months ago (1 child)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 33 points 9 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    What if I told you that the MAU count for Fortnite alone is more than half of the total MAU count for all of steam?

    Even if the only game on epic was Fortnite, that doesn't qualify as "statistically insignificant" no matter how you look at it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (17 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I'm being annoying, but why do you keep opening parentheses without closing them 😭

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (8 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    I never claimed steam was being sued by Sweeney. Sweeney made a statement about the steam lawsuit saying he agreed with it. https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/epic-games-boss-tim-sweeney-voices-support-for-usd900-million-steam-lawsuit-valve-is-the-only-major-store-still-holding-onto-the-payments-tie-and-30-percent-junk-fee/

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    From what I read, that $4BN number could be taken two ways. I don't know if that analyst excluded the games Valve developed, and that $4BN is games sales of everything else, or if that's what they made from their own titles. I didn't want to go through the rigamarole of Xitter to see the direct quote and I haven't had a chance to find it in the internet archive.

    I also kind of want a good run down of what steam offers to developers that makes their platform so attractive because my understanding is it's more than just e-shop services and that's one of the reasons I have seen touted as why people feel the service fee is reasonable.

    I didn't want to leave you on read, but I also am still looking up all kinds of random information to put together.

    Also, my confusion is because there are two different lawsuits involving the 30% cut of game sales.

    There's a class action lawsuit in the UK involving all of steams consumers there, predicated on the idea that the 30% service fee makes games more expensive to the detriment if those consumers.

    And there's a different class action lawsuit brought by developers Wolfire and Dark Catt representing every developer who uses Steam as an E-Shop platform, also over the 30% service fee and alleged anti-competitve practices (Wolfire say that Steam told them they couldn't sell their game anywhere else for less than it was available on Steam (even if they didn't use steams license keys)).

    I know I can come off as really terse, and tone is hard via text anyway. But thank you for addressing it.

    Sorry about yet another wall of text.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    I'm not reading the Google summary.

    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. https://gdconf.com/article/gdc-state-of-the-industry-most-devs-feel-steam-s-30-cut-isn-t-justified-many-prefer-10-15/

    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). https://twicethebits.com/2025/06/19/the-shift-to-digital-gaming-why-physical-sales-are-declining/

    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.

    PlayStation is getting sued for it, the trial is for March. This is specifically about the 30% (https://www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/15277722-alex-neill-class-representative-limited). (https://woodsford.com/woodsford-funded-5bn-class-action-against-sony-playstation-gets-go-ahead-in-uk-competition-appeal-tribunal/) .

    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.

    We are both writing walls of text.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›