this post was submitted on 01 Feb 2026

-34 points (27.0% liked)

PC Gaming

14450 readers

750 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
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.

all 29 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 50 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This is not a win for gamers. That spin is wild.

[+] FauxLiving@lemmy.world -7 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I read the article and I'm not sure what I'm missing.

Their claim is that Valve's practices, such as the 30% platform fee are anti-competitive. The winners of the lawsuit would be the class of 'People who have purchased games from Steam' and the money that the lawsuit recovers would be paid to the class members.

I can't see the downside of possibly winning some money and having cheaper games on Steam.

[–] yaroto98@lemmy.world 22 points 2 months ago (3 children)

But the customers don't see this. You buy a $60 brand new game on epic vs steam vs nintendo vs prime vs anywhere else: the game isn't more expensive on steam because of their fees. The game is still $60, the publisher and studio make less money. In fact steam doesn't even set prices, the publisher does. Steam takes 30% to use the platform. Is that too much? Maybe, but this doesn't hurt the customer, this hurts the people wanting the profits, mostly the game publishers.

Taking this down to 10% won't drop the price of the game, it reduces the amount of money steam gets. The publisher gets more money. That's what changes. A few small indie games where the studio is also the publisher might drop the price, but they will be few and far between.

[–] Venat0r@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think you're right that thier commission won't really effect the price of games at all, as that's more driven by how much people can afford or are willing to pay for entertainment. It still could benefit gamers if the publisher/developer got more of the revenue from the games they purchased, as then the developers could more easily fund future development, especially indie games.

[–] yaroto98@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Yes for any game without a publisher. Most indie games use publishers so they can get paid while they're making the game. It's really only the games made in a basement on weekends that may see a price improvement.

[–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It most definitely does cost the customer more.

What your describing us not how pricing and economics works.

[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 6 points 2 months ago

In a competitive market, companies on the supply side are price accepting, like people on the demand side. Gaming in general is relatively competitive.

If a company can sell a game for 60 EUR, they won't sell it cheaper. If they can't make it for that cost, they won't sell it for more, they just won't make it.

Costs of producing the game generally have no direct impact on the market price.

[+] FauxLiving@lemmy.world -6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Maybe, but this doesn’t hurt the customer, this hurts the people wanting the profits, mostly the game publishers.

Trying to argue that adding a 30% tariff to a good doesn't cause the price to go up is nonsense. It is basic economics that a good which costs more will need to sell for more than a good that costs less.

I don't know if you've been paying attention to geopolitics, but this argument has already played out in the real world and to the surprise of nobody, raising costs via tariffs raise the costs to the end consumer.

Your games cost more because of fees like this.

This price pressure freezes out smaller developers who, if they didn't need to pay 30% of their gross revenue in fees, would otherwise have been able to run a successful business. Those small developers, which don't exist, are not making games and that means less variety in the market places and more domination by the large AAA developers.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Trying to argue that adding a 30% tariff to a good doesn't cause the price to go up is nonsense.

So why aren't EGS exclusives, which only takes a 12% cut and the dev of such exclusives also get a massive monetary incentive to be exclusive to the platform from Epic, not any cheaper than their contemporaries on any other marketplace? 🤔

Edit: Holy shit with the quintuple post hiccup 😵‍💫 Did not mean to spam; app just took a shit on me.

[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world -2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The post button did you dirty.

So why aren’t EGS exclusives, which only takes a 12% cut and the dev of such exclusives also get a massive monetary incentive to be exclusive to the platform from Epic, not any cheaper than their contemporaries on any other marketplace? 🤔

I don't know, I can only speculate. EGS makes a lot of decisions where they lose money on purpose in order to try to grow their business so their practices don't always fit neatly into a simple economics model. For example, giving away games for free isn't a rational business decision on the face, but they've decided that the future benefits will outweigh the costs.

If I had to guess a single reason. I would say that this is likely because AAA games have all essentially coalesced around specific price points. If a game is selling for 59.99 everywhere, then you'd certainly try to sell your game for 59.99 also. If you're selling with 12% fees ($52.80/unit) and they're selling with 30% fees ($42/unit) then your company is making more money and you're in a more favorable position should the competition try to lower prices to take your market share.

Selling for less than the market prices wouldn't make sense and the market price for all of this is primarily based on how Steam operates. Since Steam is the largest distributor, all price decisions are going to be primarily based on a market where prices include the 30% fee because the largest volume of, most, games' sales are through Steam.

This lawsuit may not go anywhere, but there is no world where we, the consumer, are hurt by Steam being challenged on their pricing model. The only outcomes here are pro-consumer and pro-indy developer (the people most price sensitive and so most affected by these fees as a percentage of total revenue).

[–] nyctre@piefed.social 12 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The only ones that won here are the lawyers. Simple as that.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 29 points 2 months ago

This completely biased news rag brought to you entirely by the plaintiff's law firm

[–] luciole@beehaw.org 26 points 2 months ago

Shotbolt is "representing" 14 million british gamers who didn't ask her anything. PC gamers have everything to lose with this trial. We're not winning anything here. On the other hand, this claim is well aligned with Epic CEO Tim Sweeny's constant rants.

[–] BCsven@lemmy.ca 12 points 2 months ago

Steam gets me off Microsoft spyware and onto Linux. If anything they have done the world a favour

[–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I am surprised how easily people are siding with Valve. I say this as someone who's last console was the SEGA and is happy to see Valve improve Linux gaming.

That being said the 30% fee cut is clearly only possible due to lack of competition. In a competitive market, the cut would go down to service cost + some margin (subject to competition).

I don't believe Valve or any other platform providers ever argued around economic reasoning for choosing specifically 30.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Lack of competition? WTF are you even talking about?

You've got Epic, GoG, itch.io, and not to mention publisher specific storefronts like origin, ubisoft's whatever the hell launcher for PC.

That's plenty of competition, it's just that they suck at actual competition or are comfortable in their niche market.

[–] Agent_Karyo@piefed.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That’s plenty of competition, it’s just that they suck at actual competition or are comfortable in their niche market.

I am not talking about the mere presence of competing entities. I am talking about market forces (in the real sense). If they were subject to market, they would not be able to charge an arbitrary 30% (because this figure would undercut to gain market share).

[–] 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.

[–] big_slap@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago

This is an important moment for any gamer who has purchased a Steam enabled game. That includes millions of gamers who have been impacted by the unfair practices that have resulted in them being overcharged. This is an opportunity for them to get redress and for this major platform to realise that when they act unlawfully, they will be challenged.

Is the plaintiff a crackpipe enthusiast? the prices set on steam also reflect the same prices on other store fronts. is she claming the prices set on steam dictate how publishers price their games on other digital stores?

if that was the case, why are epic exclusives like Alan Wake 2 or PlayStation exclusives (on launch) set at a high price? or Nintendo? what am I missing here?

spoiler

my question is rhetorical, I know what's going on lol