this post was submitted on 03 Nov 2026
288 points (94.2% liked)
PC Gaming
15937 readers
1061 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What's with all the shade on GOG and itch? They're great, and arguably serve other segments of the gaming market better already. The only difference is that Steam has a dominant position in online and AAA PC gaming, which is all corpos actually care about.
They are ignored in conversations like this because their existence undermines the monopoly accusations aimed at Steam. Talk like this isn't about the reality, but trying to tear Steam down so Epic can compete without having to actually provide a good product.
Epic doesnt want to compete. It wants a to have a nice fat profit to he carved out for it so it can keep its investors happy with forever growth.
I guess I could have been more accurate by saying that Epic wants a larger market share without having to provide a quality product.
Tim Sweeney would rather die than see another company get a single cent of income from fortnite.
epic should fucking die and its c suite should be used to reproduce the Tuskegee experiment.
Wish people would start asking Epic why they aren't letting Alan Wake 2 be released on GOG and itch, since they act like Steam is the only platform and attack it to avoid being asked why they are holding the game hostage from coming out on other platforms.
100% on point
It‘s a quasi monopoly. Their service cannot be ignored if you want your product to succeed on the market. You cannot choose a valid alternative. This is not about malevolence on Valve’s side, but a market reality.
It’s not. The only reason people see it as such is because valve has consumers trust they act in the consumers best interest.
Other companies hate this, because it doesn’t allow them to do some anti consumer practices
There is definitely a strong network effect. If Valve started enshittifying, it is impossible for customers to completely switch to a competitor without losing their community, their game library, their game controller, their gaming portable, and access to steam-exclusive games.
It is very much an early Facebook situation, but Valve has never enshittified.
It is for publishers as customers, not for users of course. You can't realistically navigate around their service if you want to make money with your game.
Where are you getting this from? Yes you can absolutely do this. Mojang did this for decades a la Minecraft, Dwarf Fortress did this for decades. Roblox is massive. World of Warcraft, I mean, yes you can absolutely make a hit title, sell well, and have nothing to do with Steam.
Edit: The most recent example right now is Hytale, which is purposely not on Steam and reached 1M+ active players in the first week.
blizzard was really doing well with diablo and overwatch before they decided to be stupid af. now those games are on steam LOL
dear blizzard: too late LOL
Destiny too, like it wasn't like they were doing bad before bringing titles over to Steam. It's clear they wanted more money which is why they did that lol. They were already making plenty and decided they wanted to make more
Destiny went to Steam because Bungies contract with Activision ended and wasn't extended.
You're listing absolute unicorns. Ask any dev/publisher that want to release a game and they will 100% not skip Steam.
That's a lot of Unicorns that don't fit your narrative lol. I could list more, but I think I already proved my point. Yes it's possible to publish a game and be successful without Steam, and yes it's been done multiple times across the existence of Steam.
yes, please list more. it's not "my" narrative, it's economic realism. ask some devs.
League of Legends, Genshin Impact, fucking Star Citizen isn't even a proper game (yet?) and it's the highest grossing game-related kickstarter in the history of kickstarters. The 5th highest kickstarter ever. StarCraft series, Diablo (up to 4), Lineage series, FIFA Online, really anything Tencent touches that has online capabilities. And of course the OG Ultima Online which still runs today.
None of these even really scratch the surface of the massive Korean/Asian PC gaming markets or the Browser-only games that were wildly successful in the days of Facebook lmao
Existing customer bases are a requirement. Asian markets are different, true.
That just reinforces my argument, and it sounds like we finally agree: You don't need Steam or Valve to make a financially successful game. You need an audience. Steam provides a big one, but you can absolutely garner that audience outside of Steam and the examples I provided are proof of that.
Plenty of studios and developers build that audience outside of Steam using the massive swathe of social media outlets to this day. Hypixel was/is a massive Minecraft server with a huge number of daily players and their growth in popularity was mostly through forums, and later Discord. Minecraft itself started with forum posts and grew purely through word of mouth. Dwarf Fortress was free for a very long time and lived purely off donations before it eventually came to Steam after it already had a massive audience. None of them had any base to speak of from the start. They built those audiences and none of that build up happened through Steam.
The reason I'm even bothering is because people newer to game dev read threads like this. Tell them "Steam is required" and they don't try anything else. Then the lack of success stories gets used as proof that Steam is required even when it's not. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, and it's wrong.
You don't need Steam, but it is really not advisable to skip them, to a point where you do need to publish there. That makes it a quasi monopoly, whether Valve intended to do that doesn't matter. These exception are still extremely rare (and Hytale could only build an audience because Minecraft was already there without Steam). On r/gamedev, the question is almost never asked (a telling sign already), but here's an instance where it has been asked and fellow indie game devs and professionals are pretty clear on the necessity of Steam: https://archive.ph/b7202
To maximize sales, you do need to put your product on Steam. That doesn't mean it is a monopoly.
Steam likely could leverage their market position to become a monopoly, but they aren't one now. Just because they are a vital part to any large scale game launch doesn't make them a monopoly, quasi or otherwise.
I don't think it is a particularly healthy market, and I wish there were even more options. That doesn't change the fact all the monopoly talk has been driven by bad faith actors trying to attack steam without any real cause.
Not maximizing sales, having any sales to speak of at all.
So people put their games on Epic, GOG, itch, Xbox, PS5 and whatever else for funsies? Definitely not because people buy their game from those places. They can even put their game up on those other marketplaces without any penalty from steam. Almost like there are alternatives available. Having the largest market share and having large influence in a market does not equal a monopoly.
quasi monopoly
Saying it again doesn't make it less wrong. They are in a position where they could possibly use anticompetitive practices to become a monopoly or close to it. Currently they are not, and are not a quasi monopoly either. They simply have created a well rounded service that is preferred by a majority in the PC space.
If you want the store front to take a smaller cut then you can sell on itch. If you want to buy games without DRM then check out GOG. If you like shitty service, venture capitalists, enshittification, and AI slop then Epic has you covered.
It's not a quasi monopoly for me, the user, but for publisher who want to sell games. They have to go through Steam if they want to sell on PC. This would be an absolute no-brainer if it wasn't tangled up in some bullshit culture war.
So World of Warcraft isn't a game that exists? How about Fortnite? League of Legends? Genshin Impact? Minecraft? Those games never sold well and didn't make any money.
This isn’t about it being impossible to circumvent steam as a dev. This is about Steam being so powerful, that they can do whatever they like. That’s why they’re a quasi monopoly, not an outright monopoly.
Not putting your game on Steam is only viable for very few developers these days. Besides, WoW, LoL and Minecraft released and gained traction in a time, when Steam was not nearly as bis as they are today.
Back then a most games still shipped on DVD with either disc based copy protection or a number of other launchers (Ubisoft Game Launcher, EA Origin, Games for Windows Live, Rockstar Games Launcher), which do mostly still exist in one form or another but drifted into irrelevance as Steam grew to the near insurmountable power house they are today.
Or do you think EA, Ubisoft and Rockstar would put their games on Steam, paying a 20-30% cut of each game sold to the store, if they wouldn’t lose more money telling people to get their games on their own, existing distribution systems? (something AA and indie devs do not have)
And I’m not saying Steam didn’t earn its crown. They are feature complete, mostly pro consumer and have a less shit interface than its competitors.
But if they decided tomorrow, that devs had to pay 10% more per game sold, most devs would have to budge or sell significantly less games.
And they might, when the day comes that Gaben isn’t in charge anymore. And we’ll all have to take it because their competition is either too small (GOG) or too stupid (Epic) to properly compete. And I don’t like that. I’d much prefer Epic didn’t suck.
I cannot do that if there is no existing customer base like in those examples.
Huh? Steam is absolutely a monopoly in PC game sales.
Monopoly doesn't mean there are no alternatives. It means controlling an overwhelming share of the market.
Even Google has a monopoly w.r.t. search engines despite controlling less of its market than Steam does. If your site is deindexed by Google alone you might as well not exist for most of the population.
People keep saying that and it still isn't true. It was argued the dictionary definition wasn't good enough, so how about US legal criteria to be considered a monopoly.
Federal criteria looks at three things: market power, exclusionary conduct, and business justification.
Put simply, Steam is not a monopoly by the dictionary definition and likely wouldn't be found to be a monopoly in a legal sense either.
Am I missing something here? Just because Steam doesn't violate the (comparatively weak) US antitrust law does not make it not a monopoly. Especially when there are clearly legal ways to have a monopoly according to point 2 and point 3.
Sorry home slice, but those facts you're dropping are a little too accurate for ol' Timbo's liking.
Haven't had someone hit me with 'home slice' in a minute. Flameo, hotman.
Now I can't help but wonder what the Venn diagram of c/pcgaming and people who get "Flameo, hotman" looks like.
It felt like a safe assumption. I bet even the highly niche agenda-driven weirdos on Lemmy have good taste in cartoons.
At the very least, you sized the recipient up well. Otherwise, it would have been rough, buddy.
I don't find the ubiquity of Steam as strong as it was say 15 years ago. People are far more open to having their games on different platforms, they just don't particularly care for the Epic Games store.
I think the argument you are making is the right one though: you need to offer something different. Serve a different segment, and have some nice features to attract people. That's kind of it.