One of the hottest topics in gaming this week has been Valve's dominance in the PC gaming market, as its game distribution platform Steam boasts significantly larger user counts and revenue totals than competing storefronts. The news that a £656 million (roughly $900 million) anti-trust lawsuit in the UK has been given the go-ahead thrust Valve's business into the limelight, and sparked debates about whether or not any aspect of it is anti-competitive.
The lawsuit alleges that Valve enforces "Most-Favored Nation" price-parity clauses that prevent game developers from selling their games for less than they do on Steam on alternative platforms, which it argues enables the firm to charge devs an "excessive" 30% commission fee for every game purchase. This, it's claimed, has driven game prices up as publishers seek to recoup costs, resulting in a worse deal for consumers.
Today, in the USA, developers are free to steer users of iOS and Android apps to competing purchase methods. Apple and Google collect 0% on those transactions.On computers and smartphones, Valve is the only major store still holding onto the payments tie and 30% junk fee.January 30, 2026
Sweeney is referring to Epic's high-profile legal disputes against both Apple and Google that targeted their policies that prevented developers from linking to external payment methods in their apps, forcing them to use the iOS App Store and Google Play Store's systems and pay a 30% cut of their revenue to Apple and Google.
Ultimately, both companies were ordered to change these policies, and now Sweeney believes Valve should have to change its rule, too.
"Today, in the USA, developers are free to steer users of iOS and Android apps to competing purchase methods. Apple and Google collect 0% on those transactions," he explained. "On computers and smartphones, Valve is the only major store still holding onto the payments tie and 30% junk fee."
"This is the practice courts found illegal for Apple and Google," he added in another post.
Some have spoken out against Sweeney's point by highlighting games like GTA Online and Final Fantasy XIV that are on Steam and have payment systems separate from Steam's. However, he says the keyword here is "in-game"; the external shops titles like these use aren't linked in the games themselves, and have to be found outside of the game client.
It's true that this is the exact same policy that Epic successfully battled Apple and Google in court over, so it wouldn't surprise me if this specific part of Valve's Steam business ends up having to change in the future, also.
With that said, I do still think victory for larger anti-trust claims like the UK lawsuit Valve is up against will be extremely difficult for their proponents to achieve, though ultimately only time will tell. It will be interesting to see where that legal action against the Steam publisher goes, and if anything comes of it.
Do you agree with Tim Sweeney that Valve requiring developers to use Steam's payment systems for in-game purchases within Steam games is anti-competitive? How do you feel about the way it runs Steam in general? Share your thoughts in the comments, and make sure to vote in our poll.
Follow Windows Central on Google News to keep our latest news, insights, and features at the top of your feeds!
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
