this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026
-34 points (27.0% liked)

PC Gaming

14456 readers
440 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
-34
PC gamers win the first battle against Valve Corporation as £656m competition claim receives judicial approval (milberg.co.uk)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by Beep@lemmus.org to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The UK specialist competition tribunal has certified the £656m legal claim against Valve brought by children’s rights campaigner, Vicki Shotbolt. This marks a significant first victory for the class of around 14 million PC gamers against Valve – the owner of popular gaming platform, Steam.

The claim alleges that Valve has abused its dominant position in the PC gaming market under UK competition law by imposing excessive commission charges and anti-competitive restrictions on game developers selling gaming titles on the Steam platform.

These excessive commission charges are passed onto consumers by way of increased prices for PC games and in-game content.

Ms Shotbolt, the class representative, asserts that Valve’s conduct has increased the prices of games across the entire market. Therefore the class is not limited to Steam users but also includes purchasers of PC games and downloadable content on other gaming platforms and distribution channels.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] charles@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Alternatively, one can argue that the 30% cut has allowed Valve to develop a product which is superior to the competition and that's why gamers often choose to buy their games there instead of other platforms. When Steam first became available, it was pretty terrible and there's plenty of historical articles that clearly highlight that fact. Now, over the years, Valve has reinvested a share of their profits to improve the platform to a point where it is arguably the best product on the market. The 30% fee isn't "anti competitive", if it were, there wouldn't be so many other options around. Punishing valve for having a superior product is just absurd.

[–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 0 points 1 month ago

By definition, a competitive fee/rate is controlled by the market, not by a single entity that set a rate ~20+ years ago.

This is not matter of punishing anyone, but recognizing reality; massive network effects, immense switching costs and lack of market driven rate setting.