227
72% of devs believe Steam has a monopoly on PC games, according to study
(www.gamesindustry.biz)
this post was submitted on 04 Nov 2025
227 points (92.2% liked)
Steam
14528 readers
3 users here now
Steam is a video game digital distribution service by Valve.
Steam News | Steam Beta Client news
Useful tools:
SteamDB
SteamCharts
Issue tracker for Linux version of Steam
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Valve: Has reasonably priced games on sale frequently
Makes the Steam Deck
Actively supports Linux, both for VR and regular gaming
Has the best customer service out of any competitor
Has the best store experience out of any competitor
I mean.....it's not surprising that they're a monopoly, but that doesn't make them a bad one.
I fear for the day GabeN has to pass on the torch ๐
Which one of his 3 mega yachts do you think he'll pop his clogs on?
Who makes the games? ๐ค
Valve has made games. Damn good ones at that.
You know HALF-LIFE Counter Strike Portal Team Fortress 2
and are the makers of the source engine powering Titanfall 1, 2, Apex and a lot more
Oh yeah when did those come out and how much of Valve's revenue do they account for lol?
If you count only Valve's own games' sales, those earned nowhere as much as the steam market trade of TF2 hats and CS skins
Exactly, Valve's success has been defined by the extent to which they have financialized their few games, stretched their IP, and used that as a games publisher. It's because they're a rentier with no games of their own any more that they are a virtual economy monopoly...
Benevolent Dictatorship?
More of an elected monarchy really..
All hail king Gabe!
Not really. You can choose to go somewhere else at any time. Even the Steam Deck is open to installing a different OS that doesn't even include the Steam store.
I like that their services are so good they don't even need to make any restrictions to get you into using them. If I installed another OS on my steam deck, I would still install the Steam store...
Why isn't their cut mentioned? This seems like the most important information.
The owner of the marketplace has the right to charge merchants who sell their goods in a safe place provided by the owner, especially when the market itself is delivering and garunteeing the product works.
So yeah, Valve takes more than other companies, but unlike say Epic Games valve is actually making sure the devs deliver a working product.
... Am I still on lemmy?
The whole thread is a corporate talk and ~~Apple~~ Steam fan mix. Your first paragraph...
We're discussing a monopoly, and all I am reading is how good a product they're making.
Shouldn't the discussion also be about their costs, margins?
Is the market difficult to enter by its nature? How much would the users and developers benefit from more competition?
And I still dont know their cut.
Steam isn't blocking anyone from competing as far as I'm aware. It's just that most customers don't to switch to a new platform because none of the competition is better than they are and we don't want to have to juggle multiple launchers. If Steam started being assholes to the customers or developers stopped putting games on there we'd look at other options.
Supposing Steam is a monopoly what remedy do propose that wouldn't make the user experience worse for their customers?
Be pedantic as you want, steam makes no bones about it being 30%.
And unlike other marketplaces, Steam doesn't demand exclusivity. If anything they encourage publishers and developers to put their content on other storefronts or other alternatives that are available. Unlike, say Origin, Epic Games or what ever the hell Ubisoft was trying to.
Steam taking 30% may seem steep but they do a lot of support for developers in addition to the largest PC marketplace out there, complete with built in communities around new games where developers can directly interact with players of their game(s.) As long as the game works as advertised, Steam has historically done very little to penalize or inhibit developers on the market place. And nearly every case of it that has come to light has been admitted to be a mistake and rectify, such in the case of Hatred, or has been transparent about a third party stopping short of legal action, such as in the case of the Mastercard censorship scandal.
Compare that to Epic Games, who provides basically no support to developers, no community features or anyway to connect with other people who enjoy that specific game or those like it, and actively spies on users and is somewhat infamous for downloads servers to sporadically go down or corrupt a game require multiple attempts to ensure the product works. All while taking 12%
Steam isn't perfect, they've screwed stuff up and missed a few bad actors in their midst before, but overall they are very pro-consumer and provide an open and fair platform where indie games can get showcased on the front page of the store as much if not more so than AAA games with million dollar advertising campaigns. Many of those indie games never would have seen the light of day without steam.
Steam is basically today what Netflix was in the late 00s/early 10s. A massive collection of content for people to enjoy that actively opposed the idea of exclusivity or preventing other. Where Epic is actively trying to push gaming to where Streaming is today by trying to bribe publishers and developers with better deals and kick backs if they agree to put their game on EGS exclusively for 6 to 18 months if not permanently.