Toggle sidebar

Valve/Steam is being sued for his monopoly

  • Thread starter Thread starter Noctosphere
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 4,609
  • Replies Replies 64
  • Likes Likes 6
Jayro said:
Monopoly?

*Stares at all the other game stores, jealous that Steam got a headstart and operates their business successfully*

What monopoly?
Click to expand...
I honestly hate using all the other launchers as it feels so unintuitive. Steam did it right.
 
Jayro said:
Monopoly?

*Stares at all the other game stores, jealous that Steam got a headstart and operates their business successfully*

What monopoly?
Click to expand...
As mentionned a couple of time, a monopoly isn't just the fact of having no competition. The fact of being so big that it prevents any major competition can also be considered a monopoly (lawfully speaking). However, I have to wonder if they really have any competition, as in, is there really anyone who tried to be a direct competitor?
Valve/Steam main product is the storefront and all the services they offer to gamers and publishers (Steam Input for all other controllers, Proton for Linux Users, Cloud Saving, forums, workshop, etc.).
Is there really any other who have their storefront as a main product line? EA App, Ubisoft Connect, EGS, Battle.net, they all produce video games too. Of course Valve/Steam also produce games, but don't you dare tell me it's their main product. They barely release a game every three years, and even if they almost all are big hits, they certainly are not their main product.
As far as I'm aware, there is only two other storefront who could claim to be actual competitors : GoG, who is no longer owned by CD Projekt since December 2025, and itch.io
 
  • Like
Reactions: Marc_LFD
Noctosphere said:
As mentionned a couple of time, a monopoly isn't just the fact of having no competition. The fact of being so big that it prevents any major competition can also be considered a monopoly (lawfully speaking). However, I have to wonder if they really have any competition, as in, is there really anyone who tried to be a direct competitor?
Valve/Steam main product is the storefront and all the services they offer to gamers and publishers (Steam Input for all other controllers, Proton for Linux Users, Cloud Saving, forums, workshop, etc.).
Is there really any other who have their storefront as a main product line? EA App, Ubisoft Connect, EGS, Battle.net, they all produce video games too. Of course Valve/Steam also produce games, but don't you dare tell me it's their main product. They barely release a game every three years, and even if they almost all are big hits, they certainly are not their main product.
As far as I'm aware, there is only two other storefront who could claim to be actual competitors : GoG, who is no longer owned by CD Projekt since December 2025, and itch.io
Click to expand...
If anything, I'd say EPIC Store would be their biggest competition at the moment.
 
Noctosphere said:
There is another case involving Steam that is about to begin
Steam VS Rothschild
Or basically, Steam VS Patent Troll
Let's hope this one can set a precedent
https://www.litigai.org/cases/67569388/valve-corporation-v-rothschild/overview
Click to expand...
Yeah saw that, and it seems that Patent Troll supreme has punched a wall this time, as he tried to get Valve to pay for a patent they already have a permanent contract for. It also seems like Valve are going for Rothschild instead of one of his companies, so fingers crossed, that he gets spanked in court.
 
Last edited by Reiten,
  • Like
Reactions: Marc_LFD and Noctosphere
SaberLilly said:
The only reason why Steam is being called a monopoly is because the only other online video game distributors are Epic Game Store, and EA Origin, and both of them suck massively in comparison, my favorite argument is the whole "oh the 30% commission charge is too much" 30% is literally the high end of the industry standard, but its still within the industry standards! I'm 100% certain that if Valve charged less, we'd be hearing of another UK lawsuit for unfairly undercutting the competition or some nonsense like that.
Click to expand...
The thing is it used to be that publishers took 70% of the profits. But I'm not against a publisher/provider making less... I also think monopoly laws are required, it gets weird when there is one dominant actor in a business, IMO of course.

Then again, change the percentage and that probably won't end up in saved money for the customer anyway.

Capitalism pretty much ends up the same way as communism, one actor buys up or destroys all competition.

The only thing I know of that had differentiated from this was prowrestling territories pre 1980. That probably just shows my ignorance and isn't easy to implement in a free market anyway.
 
TVL said:
The thing is it used to be that publishers took 70% of the profits. But I'm not against a publisher/provider making less... I also think monopoly laws are required, it gets weird when there is one dominant actor in a business, IMO of course.

Then again, change the percentage and that probably won't end up in saved money for the customer anyway.

Capitalism pretty much ends up the same way as communism, one actor buys up or destroys all competition.

The only thing I know of that had differentiated from this was prowrestling territories pre 1980. That probably just shows my ignorance and isn't easy to implement in a free market anyway.
Click to expand...
What if I told you that there is a clear monopoly in the province of Quebec for what is now known as something of necessity?
In Quebec, there is only two internet service provider, Bell and Videotron. All other provider are only subsidiaries of or under contract with these two. Can we really qualify this as "a monopoly" if there are only two actors and nothing else? I mean, there is competion, that's for sure, but since there is only the two of them, they don't need to improve their product, don't they? One of them has a very fast internet speed, is extremely expensive, and has a very shitty tech/client support. The other one is still working with coaxial cable, their fastest internet speed doesn't even reach 1gbps and their upload speed is capped at 50mbps.
Are we facing a monopoly here? A duopoly?
 
Noctosphere said:
What if I told you that there is a clear monopoly in the province of Quebec for what is now known as something of necessity?
In Quebec, there is only two internet service provider, Bell and Videotron. All other provider are only subsidiaries of or under contract with these two. Can we really qualify this as "a monopoly" if there are only two actors and nothing else? I mean, there is competion, that's for sure, but since there is only the two of them, they don't need to improve their product, don't they? One of them has a very fast internet speed, is extremely expensive, and has a very shitty tech/client support. The other one is still working with coaxial cable, their fastest internet speed doesn't even reach 1gbps and their upload speed is capped at 50mbps.
Are we facing a monopoly here? A duopoly?
Click to expand...

How is that even possible in such a big area? Somebody has to own the fiber net... That should IMO be the state/province/municipal and divided on everyone in taxes (sorry if I'm going all Karl Marx on you 😄) and then you let free actors offer their service.

I know about this issue, but only in very small areas, small part of a city where you could choose either to have a provider or go online using your cellphone's data traffic.
 
It's not a monopoly if there are plenty of alternatives and the only reason people don't use them is because they're shit and Steam is way better. I know it's well intentioned but the UK government doesn't know what they're talking about.

The one thing they are right about is that the 30% fee is too high. If anything good is to come out of this, it would have to be lowering of the fee.
 
TVL said:
How is that even possible in such a big area? Somebody has to own the fiber net... That should IMO be the state/province/municipal and divided on everyone in taxes (sorry if I'm going all Karl Marx on you 😄) and then you let free actors offer their service.

I know about this issue, but only in very small areas, small part of a city where you could choose either to have a provider or go online using your cellphone's data traffic.
Click to expand...
Well, there are places where Bell, one of the ISP, doesn't even offer any real thing
Here's a list of all the "fast and reliable" internet they offer at one adress (close to Montreal, a metropolis)
1770154644405.png

Also, in Quebec, there is already a lot of monopolies owned by the state. We call it "nationalising" and internet was already discussed about. Cellphone provider also are among those who rip the hell out of us.
Here's a small list of what we already nationalised, here in Quebec (may not be a complete list and is probably missing a few things) :
Electricity
Gambling
Alcohol
Cannabis/Marijuana
Camping (not a joke)
Health and care (any life-saving/life-risk care is unauthorised in private clinic. They also have monopoly when it comes blood/organs/any donation)
Car insurance (Not your car itself, but anything else is. Driving liscence, plates, in case of a car accident, there is no other insurance involved in case of injuries)
 
Steam is only a monopoly because the multitude of other options suck 🫏 - EGS murdered its own reputation right out of the gate through its exclusivity deals (no longer does them, to my knowledge, but too little too late) and never has gotten the same amount of platform features either. Origin is EA's, and...well, EA, enough said; generally not open to non-EA games either, afaik.
Bethesda once had a launcher, because of course it did; not sure if that's still around. Ubisoft has one, I know that, but...Ubisoft, ugh.

The only worthwhile one that isn't Steam is GOG - and they're not trying to really compete against Steam, not head-to-head anyway. GOG Galaxy is for DRM-free games, especially really old titles, mainly.

It's not exactly Steam's fault they can be seen as a "monopoly" - it started the whole thing, after all; a pioneer, and no worthy contenders have shown up over the years. The only one that could have rivalled them shot itself in the foot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Noctosphere
AkiraKurusu said:
Bethesda once had a launcher, because of course it did; not sure if that's still around.
Click to expand...
It's not, it was absorbed by Steam. In its final days, you were able to (and might still be able to?) transfer licenses by linking accounts, and as a result, everything you had on your Bethesda account showed up on your Steam account. Even freebies.
 
  • Wow
Reactions: AkiraKurusu

Site & Scene News

Go to forum More news

Popular threads in this forum

Gaming Apple Android  Nintendo reveals their newest mobile game to release soon

Emulation  CEMU high threat alert on Linux

Megaman X for the SNES gets native PC Port

Sony agreed to a $7.85 million class action settlement to resolve claims it violated federal antitrust laws by monopolizing the digital game market

Gaming  Bubsy 4D releases to less-than-spectacular reviews

Forza Horizon 6 Files Reportedly Leak Through Steam Ahead of Release

Neon Odyssey - Official Announcement

Simpsons Hit & Run Android Port