I never claimed steam was being sued by Sweeney. Sweeney made a statement about the steam lawsuit saying he agreed with it. pcgamer.com/…/epic-games-boss-tim-sweeney-voices-…
I was quickly googling market share stuff on break so I misread the Epic e-shop market share vs Epic’s full market share outside that.
The fact that Steam only makes double what epic e-shop makes with literally 11 times the market influence?
What regulations are you expecting out of this? How will that have a positive effect on consumers?
I never said this was about good or bad. I pointed out pros and cons of using each service which extrapolated quite literally to why consumers choose Steam over Epic.
A monopolistic corp who uses anit-consumer/anti-competitve tactics to remain a market leader/? monopoly is illegal. And it’s regulated.
The only reason steam is being investigated at all is because 2 or 3 out of literal thousands of game developers have made a claim that steam is threatening to remove their game if they try to sell it on other game stores for cheaper than steam (not steam keys, but using another stores licensing keys).
That hasn’t been proven and if it is, a further investigation into how wide spread that behavior is would still be needed to prove that Valve or Steam came by their market share illegally.
Also the fact that you brought up Amazon as the foil to your argument at the end is laughable. For multiple reasons.
Grimy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Steams revenue was 16b in 2025, epics was 1b in 2024. At least click the links instead of pasting what the Google summary tells you. You are mixing up epics store revenue with their unreal engine revenue.
The fact is any game store front is a money printing machine mostly because of the rampant price fixing, hard to enter markets and abuse from those that hold the lion share of that market (Steam, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo).
That money is being sucked out of the companies that are actually making games, and is leading to a reduction in quality, layoffs and bankruptcies.
For regulation, we could easily have limits on the percentage store fronts are allowed to demand for digital media, but each time there’s a lawsuit, a bunch of idiots loudly fight it. Lawmakers aren’t going to enact laws that go against what the lobbyist want, especially if the majority of the population have been instructed that the boot is for their benefit.
Your list of pros and cons doesn’t matter, every player being compared is bad. It’s just a defense in favor of Gabens yacht fleet at this point. Exclaiming that steam shouldn’t change because you like their product, even though it’s clearly having an impact, is the same as defending Amazon because drop shipping is easier than going to the store.
Fyi, I use both, I literally own a steam deck and the sd card came from Amazon. Defending their practices is just fucking weak though.
sukhmel@programming.dev 10 hours ago
I expect that no cap on storefront share of the price will be set as a result of this lawsuit or any other.
I also expect that even if Steam reduce their cut to 3%, prices will not get lower, and bankruptcies and lay-offs will go on as usual
Maybe I’m just pessimistic, don’t know
atrielienz@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
I can’t corroborate that Steam’s revenue for the e-shop was $16Bn. The best estimate that I have is that their game sales netted them $4Bn last year. I’m still trying to find a better source for that. However we may both be wrong here.
Grimy@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
Ya, I misread it. It’s 4bn.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
I’m not reading the Google summary. There is no Google summary for me. That shit is deep sixed. I don’t want it. I love it when people automatically assume that I must be using Generative AI to get some silly answer off the internet.
If so then Epic should have caught up by now, no?
Please back that up. The game developers seeing bankruptcies are seeing them because of gross mismanagement and a never ending attempt to deliver crap that their consumers don’t want. Pushing the “bleeding edge” of graphics while making games that sell poorly because they want to charge $60-70 for a game even 5 years after it came out.
And that’s with the proliferation of crap like in game micro transactions, season passes, DRM, and internet sanity checks to even play single player games.
Indie developers are caught in the lurch, but that’s generally the case with any small business, and on top of that the regulation will probably harm them more than it will help them because the percentage of sales pays for things that they use to market their game.
What is the limit on what store fronts can charge going to be? How much is too much? What does that 30% pay for? Do you know? Does it scale by user base?
Would other store fronts who charge less be more successful by a meaningful amount if they were charging the same?
It literally doesn’t matter where your products come from. I own more computer games on disc from physical stores than I do from steam. I have paid for more than one game on both steam, switch, PS4, or physical copy. I’m not trying to call Steam the good guy here.
But I do not trust the developer who originally brought the lawsuit because even now most of the other devs who have games for sale on steam have not attempted to make a statement, join the class action, or even make a complaint about what is alleged.
On top of that, why sue only steam if this is a problem. Nobody is suing Nintendo, PlayStation, or Microsoft over this.
I also never said “steam shouldn’t change”, or that steam shouldn’t take a smaller cut.
I feel like you scanned right over half of what I did say so you could be snotty in your response. You have a good day dude.
Grimy@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Okay, but your stats are still wrong? Using AI wasn’t my point.
Is making 1 000 million in a year with something like 5% not catching up? Do you think any of these billion dollar stores are running at cost?
In what world does having a vampire sucking up 30% of your revenue not affect a company. It seems pretty easy to understand, but quantifying it would mean some pretty in depth studies and getting information from bankrupt companies. I do know most devs don’t like it. gdconf.com/…/gdc-state-of-the-industry-most-devs-…
And yes, all those points you mention are happening, but having a huge chunk of your profits taken like that obviously aggravates it.
I know it pays for Gabens yacht fleet worth 1.5 billion lol. We do have rough numbers. We know their employees count and revenue, and that they are making an estimated 11 million per employee from an article by the financial Times. That doesn’t include data atorage but I doubt the cost of offering downloads is anywhere near there revenue. If you told me 1 billion (a tenth of their revenue), I’d laugh in your face.
What are you on about? Stores don’t even stock physical discs for PC Games. How many of those are from the past 5 years? Last year had 95% of games sold digitally (PC and consoles). twicethebits.com/…/the-shift-to-digital-gaming-wh…
What dev? This is about a UK lawsuit on behalf of UK gamers. I can’t find anything about a devs involvement. Between this and the silly statistics, you just seem thoroughly uninformed on the subject.
PlayStation is getting sued for it, the trial is for March. This is specifically about the 30% (…org.uk/…/15277722-alex-neill-class-representativ…)(woodsford.com/woodsford-funded-5bn-class-action-a…).
I want to point out that this is pure whataboutism, just like the OP. But what about epic, but what about nintendo. Bla bla bla. All of them deserve to get sued, stop defending the ones who it happens to just because you like their product.
Then the proper response would be “yes, steam does deserve to get sued, epics behavior doesn’t even have anything to do with the subject, but they also deserve to get sued”. Like what’s your point then? Why make a bullet point of things steam does well if you aren’t trying to imply that they are “good enough to be allowed to abuse”.
We are both writing walls of text. I can make a list of things you keep scanning over as well.