78
Steam is basically a PC gaming monopoly, so why isn’t anyone mad?
(www.digitaltrends.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
78 points (100.0% liked)
Gaming
34613 readers
406 users here now
From video gaming to card games and stuff in between, if it's gaming you can probably discuss it here!
Please Note: Gaming memes are permitted to be posted on Meme Mondays, but will otherwise be removed in an effort to allow other discussions to take place.
See also Gaming's sister community Tabletop Gaming.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Funny because they absolutely use those tactics even to this day. Among other things, they go around and tell developers not to set lower prices or discounts elsewhere if they want to be on Steam (see page 160 here).
Most of those conversations seem to be steam asking the vendor to allow them to lower the price it's being offered on steam to match the lower price it's being offered elsewhere (or remove the sale from steam). I dont see any threats to kick games off steam (though that could be implied) or demands to remove lower priced sales from elsewhere.
It doesnt look particularly abusive to my eye at least.
How explicit does Valve need to be for you to agree that they make the point clear? In one quote further in this thread, they say "we’d just choose to stop selling [the game]", in another, on p. 161, they say "we'll be ready to release [once you match the price]", prompting the dev to raise the price from $7 to $14 elsewhere. It's highly anticompetitive because it prevents other platforms from competing on price. Great discounts are instrumental as well, as noted by OP's very article.
I don't understand. If the price is $7 elsewhere, why try to release on Steam for twice that price?
Why did the dev have to increase the price elsewhere to "match the price", instead of matching the price to $7 on Steam?
Why would any store stock your product for the twice the price that it can be bought elsewhere? There is no obligation for them to stock a certain product (at any price).
I can't dictate what other stores price it at, but I can certainly refuse to sell it in mine if it is not profitable for me. How is that anticompetitve?
I'm glad we at least have moved on from people outright denying Valve does this to defending Valve doing this.
You'd have to ask the dev, but obviously Valve takes 30%, while the dev would get 100% on its own store. If there's a publisher involved, and publisher contracts often cover specific platforms, the dev would get much less than 70% on Steam.
Comparing Steam to traditional stores is incorrect. Even Valve's own argument in the same Wolfire case was that monopoly power requires a market share of 75%, which Steam exceeds.
So the dev wants all the benefits of selling on the Steam store while at the same time earning profits that they would if they sold it independently?
Am I reading that correctly?
As I said, we don't know the terms of their publishing contract, if any, so that would be a baseless assumption to make. I could also flip your argument and say they might not even want to sell on Steam, but feel forced to because of its monopoly power. It's one of the points of the class action lawsuit.
Not if they want to sell on steam, if they want steam to issue steam keys for purchases made outside of steam. Yes they literally let you use all the steam infrastructure for sales that they don't get to take a cut out of, with the requirement being you cannot undercut them for those sales.
If you want to sell for cheaper outside of steam you can, you just no longer can ask steam to issue extra keys beyond those sold on steam store.
Did you look at the page I pointed to? It's done irrespective of Steam key use. Look at the "Type of Product" column.
It seems a lot of those content type are regarding promotion on the steam store, so it means their games won't get featured on the front page (essentially steam advertising their game) if they are undercutting the sale of the content. On some it seems to be about in game purchases/DLCs, which also could be a problem if someone could buy those outside the system for far lower price and still use the version launched from steam (particularly if it's a free to play title)
A few of them do they clarify that they would still sell their stuff on steam but not promote them, but most of the other ones lack the context for this.
Their tactics including not only threats to delist but also threats to reduce visibility does not make it any better. If those numerous examples aren't crystal clear about the former, here's another quote from Valve (page 18 here):
When you say "undercutting the sale", I don't know what you mean. They are talking about developers setting lower prices outside Steam, which Valve obviously sees as a disadvantage to Steam. Your DLC example also does not make sense and I don't see that on the list. For a few of the quotes on the list, the type of parity is marked as content, but the overwhelming majority are related to price parity.