The Valve Effect: How Their Greedy Practices Hurt the Gaming Industry

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Valve has done more harm to the gaming industry than most companies, and it’s time we call them out for it. Steam might be convenient, but the cost of that convenience is staggering. Let’s start with ownership—or rather, the lack of it. Thanks to Valve, gamers no longer truly own the games they buy. Instead, they’re purchasing licenses that can be revoked at any time. If Steam decides to change its terms of service or a game gets delisted, you could lose access to something you paid for. Compare that to physical copies, where ownership is tangible and permanent. Valve has eroded consumer rights, and most people don’t even realize it.

Then there’s the digital tax—Valve’s infamous 30% cut on every game sold through Steam. This forces developers to raise prices, meaning consumers end up paying more. Smaller studios are hit hardest, as they can’t afford to absorb the loss like big publishers can. Valve’s greed keeps game prices artificially high, and they’ve used their dominance to suppress competition from other platforms that offer better deals.

Valve also mainstreamed predatory monetization models. Games like Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2 introduced loot boxes, microtransactions, and pay-to-win mechanics that exploit players’ psychology. These practices have spread like wildfire, turning gaming into a minefield of gambling mechanics and paywalls. Valve didn’t just allow this—they profited from it, setting a precedent that other companies eagerly followed.

Steam’s lack of curation is another slap in the face to consumers. Valve lets anything onto the platform, from unfinished games to outright scams. This flood of low-quality content makes it harder for players to find good games and undermines trust in the marketplace. Valve could invest in curating their store for better consumer trust, but they don’t—because they make money off listing fees and sales, regardless of a game’s quality. By abandoning curation, Valve has shifted the burden onto players, who have to sort through the mess themselves.

And let’s not forget Early Access, one of Valve’s most exploitative schemes. This program lets developers sell unfinished games, putting the financial risk of game development directly on players. Consumers essentially become investors, paying upfront for projects that may never be completed—but without any of the perks real investors get. No equity. No guarantees. Nothing. If a developer abandons an Early Access game, Valve faces zero accountability, while players are left with wasted money and broken promises. Valve profits from this system, exploiting players’ trust while avoiding the risks traditionally shouldered by publishers.

Finally, Valve’s antitrust concerns reveal just how far its dominance has gone. The company has faced multiple lawsuits accusing it of monopolistic practices. For example, Valve has been criticized for its platform most-favored-nations (PMFN) clause, which allegedly prevents developers from offering lower prices or better deals on competing platforms. This clause effectively locks developers into Steam’s ecosystem, stifling competition and keeping prices high for consumers. Additionally, Valve’s 30% commission has been called out as excessive compared to competitors like Epic Games Store and Microsoft Store, which charge only 12%. These practices have led to accusations that Valve is using its market dominance to suppress innovation and exploit both developers and players.

Valve’s practices have hurt consumers more than any other company in gaming. They’ve taken away ownership, raised prices, normalized exploitation, and shifted risks onto players—all while raking in billions. It’s time to stop excusing their behavior and demand better. Steam might be convenient, but the cost of that convenience is far too high.

And as for Gabe Newell—he isn't the lovable, fan-friendly character the internet makes him out to be. His business practices are far more in line with Bobby Kotick than most gamers would like to admit. Just because Valve makes beloved games doesn’t mean they deserve a free pass on their greed. It’s time to hold them accountable.


I felt this was a key point to highlight in the discussion:

Originally posted by Zarineth:

The only thing I agree with here is the lootbox argument. All the rest seem to be made up problems to me.
And evem then partially, as it seems like it's still greatly overblown out of proportion.

This raises another important concern:

Downplaying legitimate concerns is an act of bad faith because it dismisses real issues without addressing the facts or considering their broader impact. This approach minimizes the harm done to affected parties, undermines accountability, and derails meaningful discussion. By brushing aside well-documented problems, it allows systemic issues to persist unchecked, enabling harmful practices to take root and flourish.

This tendency to dismiss concerns is often amplified within fandoms surrounding platforms like Steam, as well as influencers and podcasters on Twitch, YouTube, Kick, and Rumble. These communities, bonded by a shared sense of identity and connection, frequently display behaviors that echo cult-like dynamics. Loyalty and idolization run deep, with platforms fostering parasocial relationships where fans form emotional bonds with creators through constant engagement, exclusive language, and financial contributions like subscriptions or donations.

Such intense loyalty can lead to the outright dismissal of valid criticism, creating an "us versus them" mentality that mirrors cult-like behaviors. Fans defend their favorite platforms or creators with unwavering devotion, ignoring legitimate concerns or silencing dissent. Algorithms exacerbate this dynamic by trapping fans in echo chambers that reinforce shared beliefs and deepen their sense of exclusivity. Over time, this dynamic concentrates power in the hands of creators or corporations, fostering groupthink and control that resemble traditional cult structures.

This behavior isn’t limited to influencers; it extends to gaming platforms, companies, and franchises. Take Valve, for example—its fanbase often rallies to shield the company from criticism, even when there’s clear evidence of exploitative practices. Emotional investment in the company or its games leads fans to dismiss legitimate concerns, enabling harmful practices to persist while shielding Valve from accountability.

At its core, this phenomenon is driven by a combination of factors: the human need for belonging, the deliberately constructed accessibility of creators and brands, and platforms designed to maximize engagement at any cost. While fandoms can bring people together and foster a sense of shared passion, unchecked loyalty often crosses into toxic territory, where devotion blinds people to the need for scrutiny and accountability.

[Zarineth]

The only thing I agree with here is the lootbox argument. All the rest seem to be made up problems to me.

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Originally posted by Zarineth:

The only thing I agree with here is the lootbox argument. All the rest seem to be made up problems to me.
And evem then partially, as it seems like it's still greatly overblown out of proportion.

This raises another important concern:

Downplaying legitimate concerns is an act of bad faith because it dismisses real issues without addressing the facts or considering their broader impact. This approach minimizes the harm done to affected parties, undermines accountability, and derails meaningful discussion. By brushing aside well-documented problems, it allows systemic issues to persist unchecked, enabling harmful practices to take root and flourish.

This tendency to dismiss concerns is often amplified within fandoms surrounding platforms like Steam, as well as influencers and podcasters on Twitch, YouTube, Kick, and Rumble. These communities, bonded by a shared sense of identity and connection, frequently display behaviors that echo cult-like dynamics. Loyalty and idolization run deep, with platforms fostering parasocial relationships where fans form emotional bonds with creators through constant engagement, exclusive language, and financial contributions like subscriptions or donations.

Such intense loyalty can lead to the outright dismissal of valid criticism, creating an "us versus them" mentality that mirrors cult-like behaviors. Fans defend their favorite platforms or creators with unwavering devotion, ignoring legitimate concerns or silencing dissent. Algorithms exacerbate this dynamic by trapping fans in echo chambers that reinforce shared beliefs and deepen their sense of exclusivity. Over time, this dynamic concentrates power in the hands of creators or corporations, fostering groupthink and control that resemble traditional cult structures.

This behavior isn’t limited to influencers; it extends to gaming platforms, companies, and franchises. Take Valve, for example—its fanbase often rallies to shield the company from criticism, even when there’s clear evidence of exploitative practices. Emotional investment in the company or its games leads fans to dismiss legitimate concerns, enabling harmful practices to persist while shielding Valve from accountability.

At its core, this phenomenon is driven by a combination of factors: the human need for belonging, the deliberately constructed accessibility of creators and brands, and platforms designed to maximize engagement at any cost. While fandoms can bring people together and foster a sense of shared passion, unchecked loyalty often crosses into toxic territory, where devotion blinds people to the need for scrutiny and accountability.

[Zarineth]

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Originally posted by Zarineth:

The only thing I agree with here is the lootbox argument. All the rest seem to be made up problems to me.
And evem then partially, as it seems like it's still greatly overblown out of proportion.

Downplaying legitimate concerns is an act of bad faith because it dismisses real issues without engaging with the facts or considering their broader impact. It minimizes the harm done to affected parties, undermines efforts to hold entities accountable, and shifts the conversation away from meaningful discussion. By brushing aside well-documented problems, it sidesteps the responsibility to address systemic issues—essentially enabling them to persist unchecked.

I mean, there doesn't seem to be many facts here, mostly opinions.

"Ownership" was never a thing.
Valve's cut doesn't rise prices, as shown by Epic.
Lootboxes as I said are a problem.
"Curation" is not helping, because then somwone else is telling you what you can play.
Early access is only a problem to people who a) can't read, b) can't manage expectations.
"Accusations" against steam for random things are common. Like the accusation on being a racist platform, because users use pepe the frog meme.
Also you claim, that valve artificially rises prices, when they have 0 say in the game’s price.

As I said, most are made-up problems.

I won't be addressing the gaslighting you went for in edit.

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Originally posted by Zarineth:

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Downplaying legitimate concerns is an act of bad faith because it dismisses real issues without engaging with the facts or considering their broader impact. It minimizes the harm done to affected parties, undermines efforts to hold entities accountable, and shifts the conversation away from meaningful discussion. By brushing aside well-documented problems, it sidesteps the responsibility to address systemic issues—essentially enabling them to persist unchecked.

I mean, there doesn't seem to be many facts here, mostly opinions.

"Ownership" was never a thing.
Valve's cut doesn't rise prices, as shown by Epic.
Lootboxes as I said are a problem.
"Curation" is not helping, because then somwone else is telling you what you can play.
Early access is only a problem to people who a) can't read, b) can't manage expectations.
"Accusations" against steam for random things are common. Like the accusation on being a racist platform, because users use pepe the frog meme.
Also you claim, that valve artificially rises prices, when they have 0 say in the game’s price.

As I said, most are made-up problems.

I won't be addressing the gaslighting you went for in edit.

You’re doubling down on dismissing these concerns without really engaging with them. It feels like bad faith because you’re brushing aside real issues without actually addressing the evidence or considering the impact. Saying these are “made-up problems” shuts down the conversation instead of contributing to it.

For instance, “ownership was never a thing” ignores the major shift from physical copies, where people had actual control over their games, to digital licenses that can be revoked or restricted. This isn’t a minor change—it fundamentally impacts how players interact with games.

Claiming Valve’s cut doesn’t affect prices oversimplifies things. Developers, especially smaller studios, often have to account for that 30% fee when pricing their games. It’s not Valve directly setting prices—it’s their policies shaping the decisions developers have to make.

The curation argument misses the point. It’s not about restricting what players can access—it’s about having better tools to sort through the flood of low-quality games on Steam. Valve’s current approach prioritizes quantity over quality, and that actively hurts consumers.

Early Access isn’t just a matter of reading or managing expectations. The system shifts risk onto players while offering no guarantees that developers will follow through. Many games get abandoned, leaving players with nothing for their investment. That’s a systemic issue, not just a misunderstanding.

Dismissing accusations without digging into them also feels lazy. Many critiques of Valve’s practices, like predatory monetization or antitrust concerns, are backed by actual industry trends and lawsuits. Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away—it just avoids grappling with them.

And while Valve doesn’t directly set prices, their 30% cut forces developers to adapt their pricing strategies. The impact is indirect but undeniable, especially for developers working with tight margins.

Calling valid concerns “made-up problems” without engaging with the context comes across as dismissive rather than constructive. If you disagree with these points, addressing them thoughtfully would go a lot further than brushing them aside. Let me know how you’d like to keep this going.

[(banned)]

Loot boxes are fine. As long as it's legal in a jurisdiction, Valve are free.to do what the ♥♥♥♥ they ever want. And time and time again they do that.

You are just not obligated to buy into what they do.

[datCookie]

I'm not going to respond to everything, only what I feel I can.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Valve has done more harm to the gaming industry than most companies, and it’s time we call them out for it. Steam might be convenient, but the cost of that convenience is staggering. Let’s start with ownership—or rather, the lack of it. Thanks to Valve, gamers no longer truly own the games they buy. Instead, they’re purchasing licenses that can be revoked at any time. If Steam decides to change its terms of service or a game gets delisted, you could lose access to something you paid for. Compare that to physical copies, where ownership is tangible and permanent. Valve has eroded consumer rights, and most people don’t even realize it.

Valve had nothing to do with users purchasing licenses to access a product in order to play it. This has been a thing since before Valve even existed as a company. I recently had this conversation on another thread, which prompted me to grab my Age of Empires 1 original disc, released in 1997, which comes with the "Mattel License Agreement", where one of the headings states "Grant of License." and then proceeds to list the conditions upon which the license has been granted to you, the purchaser and how you must adhere to it.

The digital landscape has merely changed how developers/publishers can enforce or prevent breach of the license you agree to upon purchase of a game, including the tying of said license to your account, regardless of the platform.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Then there’s the digital tax—Valve’s infamous 30% cut on every game sold through Steam. This forces developers to raise prices, meaning consumers end up paying more. Smaller studios are hit hardest, as they can’t afford to absorb the loss like big publishers can. Valve’s greed keeps game prices artificially high, and they’ve used their dominance to suppress competition from other platforms that offer better deals.

Valve's 30% is industry standard and the following link, from 2019, will show what cuts other stores take:

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard

To quote the article: Valve, GoG, XBOX games store (as well as the Microsoft Store), Playstation Store and the Nintendo shop all take a 30% cut of sales. The Microsoft store takes a 5-15% cut from apps sold on it. EGS takes a 12% cut (but does force a lot of exclusivity to developers) and the humble store takes 25%.

Valve's dominance comes from offering more for both consumers and developers than any other platform ever has and likely ever will.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Steam’s lack of curation is another slap in the face to consumers. Valve lets anything onto the platform, from unfinished games to outright scams. This flood of low-quality content makes it harder for players to find good games and undermines trust in the marketplace. Valve could invest in curating their store for better consumer trust, but they don’t—because they make money off listing fees and sales, regardless of a game’s quality. By abandoning curation, Valve has shifted the burden onto players, who have to sort through the mess themselves.

Steam do actually curate games that come onto their platform, as they have a list of games, or content within games that is not allowed. Scams can't be known until they reveal themselves, whereby Valve will remove the game from sale, blacklist the people responsible from ever selling a game on Steam and provide refunds out of their own pocket to anyone who got done by it.

"Low quality content" comes down to personal preference. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean others don't or can't enjoy it. Steam also offer the ability to customise your store experience, by filtering out games you don't like, allowing you to see more games you might like and offering a discovery queue filled with games similar to what you have been playing.

For Valve to curate to your standards, it would go against the core value of why they even made Steam in the first place; to connect players with entertainment and more recently, give developers more opportunity to showcase their work.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

And let’s not forget Early Access, one of Valve’s most exploitative schemes. This program lets developers sell unfinished games, putting the financial risk of game development directly on players. Consumers essentially become investors, paying upfront for projects that may never be completed—but without any of the perks real investors get. No equity. No guarantees. Nothing. If a developer abandons an Early Access game, Valve faces zero accountability, while players are left with wasted money and broken promises. Valve profits from this system, exploiting players’ trust while avoiding the risks traditionally shouldered by publishers.

I have answered this in the other thread, I will not type it out again here.

[Realigo Actual]

Point 1: If it was anybody else besides Valve, people would probably be paying some kind of monthly fee by now. There would be advertisements, and, what's the magic word, "co-marketing", all over the store. For a good while, my GOG account had more games than Steam. Then one day I realized that Gaben was mightier than DRM. Gaben is kind of like the bald ninja lady in Marvel. He wields dark forces, For Good!

Point 2: Valve's cut is based on industry-standard practices from yesteryear. Valve could have probably undercut the publishers back in 2003, and been fine operationally, thanks to the digital nature of the store, but said publishers would have become hostile to Steam. Also, in the old days, publisher deals could often be really horrible to developers, and retailers could also not keep up their end of the bargain as agreed often times. All that ♥♥♥♥ is dead and gone.

Point 3: Valve might have scaled mtx the f up, but none of their games are ripoffs, unlike many others peddling mtx. It's just a bunch of extra stuff. The whole game is there for people to play without that stuff. It's like an arcade game but you don't have to put a quarter to play, you just put quarters to play with a cool hat. There are methods to reduce item costs, and if it were anybody else, Nintendo for example, all of that crap would have been nuked from orbit long, long ago. Though, these days I think t's becoming somewhat more risky to interface with anything outside of Steam.

Point 4: Valve chose ease of access over restriction. It's not Valve's fault people abuse the opportunity to ship so easily on Steam. Just as always, this is an ongoing curation opportunity for media.

Point 5: I think Valve's decisions for Early Access come from being a developer and having the view of things from that side of the industry. A lot of times, developers couldn't find a publisher to fund a concept, and thus you'd get the story of these unknown or lesser-known developers doing ports, or outsourcing, or mobile ♥♥♥♥ for years before finally getting the chance to do the game they wanted to make. Now they can take a chance on it right away, but unfortunately abuse of the platform has made that route less valuable.

Point: 6 Cannot believe you make the case that Microsoft would be better good guy than Valve. They might be a better good guy than Epic... maybe, but once Microsoft was in control you would find the biz side of Microsoft would take over and it might not look so nice anymore. There's two sides to Microsoft. There's the engineering side, and the business side. When things are going well for MS, it is the business side that starts firing on all cylinders, even sometimes to the detriment of the engineering side. Also, there are discounted versions of Steam games all over the place, and you better believe that if it were anybody else besides Valve, eg. Nintendo, that crap would have been nuked from orbit with extreme prejudice years ago.

I am sickened by the nonsense you doth opine.

[Boblin the Goblin]

This reads like it was generated through AI and then just copied over piece by piece.

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Originally posted by datCookie:

I'm not going to respond to everything, only what I feel I can.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Valve has done more harm to the gaming industry than most companies, and it’s time we call them out for it. Steam might be convenient, but the cost of that convenience is staggering. Let’s start with ownership—or rather, the lack of it. Thanks to Valve, gamers no longer truly own the games they buy. Instead, they’re purchasing licenses that can be revoked at any time. If Steam decides to change its terms of service or a game gets delisted, you could lose access to something you paid for. Compare that to physical copies, where ownership is tangible and permanent. Valve has eroded consumer rights, and most people don’t even realize it.

Valve had nothing to do with users purchasing licenses to access a product in order to play it. This has been a thing since before Valve even existed as a company. I recently had this conversation on another thread, which prompted me to grab my Age of Empires 1 original disc, released in 1997, which comes with the "Mattel License Agreement", where one of the headings states "Grant of License." and then proceeds to list the conditions upon which the license has been granted to you, the purchaser and how you must adhere to it.

The digital landscape has merely changed how developers/publishers can enforce or prevent breach of the license you agree to upon purchase of a game, including the tying of said license to your account, regardless of the platform.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Then there’s the digital tax—Valve’s infamous 30% cut on every game sold through Steam. This forces developers to raise prices, meaning consumers end up paying more. Smaller studios are hit hardest, as they can’t afford to absorb the loss like big publishers can. Valve’s greed keeps game prices artificially high, and they’ve used their dominance to suppress competition from other platforms that offer better deals.

Valve's 30% is industry standard and the following link, from 2019, will show what cuts other stores take:

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard

To quote the article: Valve, GoG, XBOX games store (as well as the Microsoft Store), Playstation Store and the Nintendo shop all take a 30% cut of sales. The Microsoft store takes a 5-15% cut from apps sold on it. EGS takes a 12% cut (but does force a lot of exclusivity to developers) and the humble store takes 25%.

Valve's dominance comes from offering more for both consumers and developers than any other platform ever has and likely ever will.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Steam’s lack of curation is another slap in the face to consumers. Valve lets anything onto the platform, from unfinished games to outright scams. This flood of low-quality content makes it harder for players to find good games and undermines trust in the marketplace. Valve could invest in curating their store for better consumer trust, but they don’t—because they make money off listing fees and sales, regardless of a game’s quality. By abandoning curation, Valve has shifted the burden onto players, who have to sort through the mess themselves.

Steam do actually curate games that come onto their platform, as they have a list of games, or content within games that is not allowed. Scams can't be known until they reveal themselves, whereby Valve will remove the game from sale, blacklist the people responsible from ever selling a game on Steam and provide refunds out of their own pocket to anyone who got done by it.

"Low quality content" comes down to personal preference. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean others don't or can't enjoy it. Steam also offer the ability to customise your store experience, by filtering out games you don't like, allowing you to see more games you might like and offering a discovery queue filled with games similar to what you have been playing.

For Valve to curate to your standards, it would go against the core value of why they even made Steam in the first place; to connect players with entertainment and more recently, give developers more opportunity to showcase their work.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

And let’s not forget Early Access, one of Valve’s most exploitative schemes. This program lets developers sell unfinished games, putting the financial risk of game development directly on players. Consumers essentially become investors, paying upfront for projects that may never be completed—but without any of the perks real investors get. No equity. No guarantees. Nothing. If a developer abandons an Early Access game, Valve faces zero accountability, while players are left with wasted money and broken promises. Valve profits from this system, exploiting players’ trust while avoiding the risks traditionally shouldered by publishers.

I have answered this in the other thread, I will not type it out again here.

Regarding ownership, while it’s true that licensing agreements have existed for decades, the way they were enforced with physical copies gave players more control. With digital licensing tied to platforms like Steam, that control is gone—players are entirely dependent on Steam’s terms of service and policies. This shift fundamentally erodes consumer rights, and Valve has played a significant role in accelerating this trend.

As for Valve’s 30% cut, dismissing it as “industry standard” doesn’t erase the problems it creates. Valve’s dominance allows them to pressure developers and publishers not to offer lower prices on competing platforms, effectively locking them into Steam’s ecosystem. This kind of behavior suppresses competition and forces developers to comply with Valve’s terms, often at the expense of affordability and innovation. The existence of alternatives like Epic, which takes a smaller 12% cut, shows there are better models available—Valve simply chooses not to adopt them.

Your defense of Steam’s lack of curation doesn’t hold up. Curation isn’t about restricting choice—it’s about ensuring quality and trust in the marketplace. Steam’s “anything-goes” approach floods the platform with low-effort, abandoned, and scam-like projects that actively hurt consumers. While it’s true Valve reacts to scams, this reactive stance doesn’t prevent harm—it simply tries to clean up after damage has been done. The tools Steam provides for filtering don’t address the systemic issue of prioritizing profit over quality.

[Lithurge]

The one thing Valve has done is taken away the ability to give CD's to friends/family to play a game without buying it. Something that is happening across all media and at least with Steam when rights (e.g. rights to licensed characters) expire you don't get your game taken away from you. Unlike movies where Apple removes the ability to Stream films people have bought when they lose the license to sell them.

You are aware that Steams cut takes the place of other costs publishers had when the delivery media was physical? So it didn't artificially inflate costs. And as others have pointed out, despite Tim Sweeney's claims for the benefits of his reduced cut, it has done absolutely nothing to drive the costs of games down on his platform, why? Because the publisher sets the prices and have chosen to keep the extra as profit rather than pass on the saving to the consumer. I've seen one game with a discount on EGS due to the lower cut and that was a small indie.

Curation, fine you want curation, plenty of us don't, and the funny thing is EGS boasted about that in the early days, now they'll allow pretty much anything to be listed, why do you think that is? I'm not going to say no curation doesn't have it's problems, but curation means I wouldn't have been able to play a lot of games I really enjoyed.

And no disagreeing with you isn't downplaying concerns, it's about having a different perspective on things. By making an accusation that it's bad faith you're the one creating an us vs them situation.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Originally posted by datCookie:

I'm not going to respond to everything, only what I feel I can.




Valve had nothing to do with users purchasing licenses to access a product in order to play it. This has been a thing since before Valve even existed as a company. I recently had this conversation on another thread, which prompted me to grab my Age of Empires 1 original disc, released in 1997, which comes with the "Mattel License Agreement", where one of the headings states "Grant of License." and then proceeds to list the conditions upon which the license has been granted to you, the purchaser and how you must adhere to it.

The digital landscape has merely changed how developers/publishers can enforce or prevent breach of the license you agree to upon purchase of a game, including the tying of said license to your account, regardless of the platform.



Valve's 30% is industry standard and the following link, from 2019, will show what cuts other stores take:

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard

To quote the article: Valve, GoG, XBOX games store (as well as the Microsoft Store), Playstation Store and the Nintendo shop all take a 30% cut of sales. The Microsoft store takes a 5-15% cut from apps sold on it. EGS takes a 12% cut (but does force a lot of exclusivity to developers) and the humble store takes 25%.

Valve's dominance comes from offering more for both consumers and developers than any other platform ever has and likely ever will.



Steam do actually curate games that come onto their platform, as they have a list of games, or content within games that is not allowed. Scams can't be known until they reveal themselves, whereby Valve will remove the game from sale, blacklist the people responsible from ever selling a game on Steam and provide refunds out of their own pocket to anyone who got done by it.

"Low quality content" comes down to personal preference. Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean others don't or can't enjoy it. Steam also offer the ability to customise your store experience, by filtering out games you don't like, allowing you to see more games you might like and offering a discovery queue filled with games similar to what you have been playing.

For Valve to curate to your standards, it would go against the core value of why they even made Steam in the first place; to connect players with entertainment and more recently, give developers more opportunity to showcase their work.



I have answered this in the other thread, I will not type it out again here.

Regarding ownership, while it’s true that licensing agreements have existed for decades, the way they were enforced with physical copies gave players more control. With digital licensing tied to platforms like Steam, that control is gone—players are entirely dependent on Steam’s terms of service and policies. This shift fundamentally erodes consumer rights, and Valve has played a significant role in accelerating this trend.

As for Valve’s 30% cut, dismissing it as “industry standard” doesn’t erase the problems it creates. Valve’s dominance allows them to pressure developers and publishers not to offer lower prices on competing platforms, effectively locking them into Steam’s ecosystem. This kind of behavior suppresses competition and forces developers to comply with Valve’s terms, often at the expense of affordability and innovation. The existence of alternatives like Epic, which takes a smaller 12% cut, shows there are better models available—Valve simply chooses not to adopt them.

Your defense of Steam’s lack of curation doesn’t hold up. Curation isn’t about restricting choice—it’s about ensuring quality and trust in the marketplace. Steam’s “anything-goes” approach floods the platform with low-effort, abandoned, and scam-like projects that actively hurt consumers. While it’s true Valve reacts to scams, this reactive stance doesn’t prevent harm—it simply tries to clean up after damage has been done. The tools Steam provides for filtering don’t address the systemic issue of prioritizing profit over quality.

Is that why EGS has yet to turn any profit and still doesn't have half the features Steam has? Because it's a "better model"?

[Zarineth]

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

You’re doubling down on dismissing these concerns without really engaging with them. It feels like bad faith because you’re brushing aside real issues without actually addressing the evidence or considering the impact. Saying these are “made-up problems” shuts down the conversation instead of contributing to it.

For instance, “ownership was never a thing” ignores the major shift from physical copies, where people had actual control over their games, to digital licenses that can be revoked or restricted. This isn’t a minor change—it fundamentally impacts how players interact with games.

The thing with "ownership" is, we owned a disk, that according to license in the manual we were supposed to NOT redistribute. The only real change is, that devs can now actually enforce this.
And you have to really try hard to get your locense revoked/restricted on Steam. It's not something that just happens.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Claiming Valve’s cut doesn’t affect prices oversimplifies things. Developers, especially smaller studios, often have to account for that 30% fee when pricing their games. It’s not Valve directly setting prices—it’s their policies shaping the decisions developers have to make.

As I said, Epic already has shown how lowering the cut doesn't lower the prices.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

The curation argument misses the point. It’s not about restricting what players can access—it’s about having better tools to sort through the flood of low-quality games on Steam. Valve’s current approach prioritizes quantity over quality, and that actively hurts consumers.

Who exactly and on what basis will tell me what is good quality or not? Some people like mediocre/bad games.
I somehow don't have problems in finding games I would enjoy in the sea of ones I won't (not only due to quality), so it is a user problem imho.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Early Access isn’t just a matter of reading or managing expectations. The system shifts risk onto players while offering no guarantees that developers will follow through. Many games get abandoned, leaving players with nothing for their investment. That’s a systemic issue, not just a misunderstanding.

Users get EXACTLY what they pay for. Even more, they can add an early access game to their wishlist and be notified, when it's finished. This IS the problem with understanding, especially, that users are 1 click away from never seeing EA games again.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Dismissing accusations without digging into them also feels lazy. Many critiques of Valve’s practices, like predatory monetization or antitrust concerns, are backed by actual industry trends and lawsuits. Ignoring them doesn’t make them go away—it just avoids grappling with them.

As far as I know, Valve didn't lose any lawsuits regarding monopolistic practices. Until they do, this is as I said, random accusations.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

And while Valve doesn’t directly set prices, their 30% cut forces developers to adapt their pricing strategies. The impact is indirect but undeniable, especially for developers working with tight margins.

As I said, look at Epic and their close to identical prices despite lower cut.

[Boblin the Goblin]

[quote=Rob⛧Pentakill;530969587393527271

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

This reads like it was generated through AI and then just copied over piece by piece.

I'm not sure whether to see that as a compliment or call you out for dodging the actual discussion altogether. [/quote]
You would also need to call yourself out as well then.

[datCookie]

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Regarding ownership, while it’s true that licensing agreements have existed for decades, the way they were enforced with physical copies gave players more control. With digital licensing tied to platforms like Steam, that control is gone—players are entirely dependent on Steam’s terms of service and policies. This shift fundamentally erodes consumer rights, and Valve has played a significant role in accelerating this trend.

It actually doesn't erode consumer rights at all, because Valve and developers/publishers are still beholden to consumer law in the countries with which they do business. I believe someone (possibly you?) mentioned in another thread that Australia actually took action against Valve for something relating to our consumer laws here. I cannot recall what, but it does show they aren't untouchable when it comes to consumer rights.

Valve may also be a major influence as far as modern day licensing goes, but this was only because the digital landscape was changing and evolving, requiring new or updated licensing laws to cover the digital market. Users had the ability to do a lot more with the products they purchased (as far as being in breach of a game license), so developers and publishers needed to ensure their IPs were being protected.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

As for Valve’s 30% cut, dismissing it as “industry standard” doesn’t erase the problems it creates. Valve’s dominance allows them to pressure developers and publishers not to offer lower prices on competing platforms, effectively locking them into Steam’s ecosystem. This kind of behavior suppresses competition and forces developers to comply with Valve’s terms, often at the expense of affordability and innovation. The existence of alternatives like Epic, which takes a smaller 12% cut, shows there are better models available—Valve simply chooses not to adopt them.

The industry standard doesn't have anything to do with developers being forced onto Steam because of their cut, especially when other platforms offer the same cut of sales that Steam does. Valve's domination as a digital distributor comes from the sheer amount of features they offer both consumers and developers alike, compared to other platforms (most of which are exclusive, like the XBOX and Playstation stores).

EPIC takes a smaller cut, but often forces exclusivity, at least for a period of time, to developers, limiting their ability to market and sell their game across multiple platforms, to the audiences that want to play it. EPIC is not a business model Valve should adopt. Just because they take a smaller cut, doesn't mean they offer a better service.

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Your defense of Steam’s lack of curation doesn’t hold up. Curation isn’t about restricting choice—it’s about ensuring quality and trust in the marketplace. Steam’s “anything-goes” approach floods the platform with low-effort, abandoned, and scam-like projects that actively hurt consumers. While it’s true Valve reacts to scams, this reactive stance doesn’t prevent harm—it simply tries to clean up after damage has been done. The tools Steam provides for filtering don’t address the systemic issue of prioritizing profit over quality.

Steam cannot be the arbiter of what is and is not "quality". Their goal is to ensure players have access to a wide variety of products they might enjoy and can purchase if they so desire. It's up to the players to do their due diligence and research the state of a game (even outside of Early Access) and make a reasonable determination on whether or not it's of a decent quality, by their own standards.

Valve can only react to scams, they cannot know a developer/publisher intends to scam players into spending money and then running off with it. They can only clean up after someone has done this, prevent them from doing it again and compensate customers for their loss.

The tools Steam provides allows YOU as a customer to [mostly] determine what games you see and what people have said about them (through reviews and discussion on the game hub). It's not up to Steam to determine quality, that's for customers to decide, with their wallets.

[BJWyler]

Originally posted by Rob⛧Pentakill:

Originally posted by Zarineth:

The only thing I agree with here is the lootbox argument. All the rest seem to be made up problems to me.
And evem then partially, as it seems like it's still greatly overblown out of proportion.

This raises another important concern:

Downplaying legitimate concerns is an act of bad faith because it dismisses real issues without addressing the facts or considering their broader impact.

And making mountains out of molehills or inventing problems for what only amounts to "things I don't like" is even more bad faith.

Gamers are not a homogeneous group, nor should they be. There are going to be different things and different business models that appeal to different people, and as an industry, it makes perfect business sense to appeal to more than just one narrow mindset - especially when that narrow mindset believes and demands that all gamers should think and feel as they do, otherwise they are sheep, shills, or whatever other ad hominum is the flavor of the day.

Things change, buckaroo. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, and most of the time, a little of both. But one thing is certain from my point of view as someone who was there before there was an industry, and have been involved in every aspect of it as a consumer, journalist, influencer, and developer, is that the state of gaming greatly improved over the last 5 decades more than it has stumbled. We are in a better place now than we have ever been.

Simple as. Those that disagree, perhaps should rethink their choice of hobby. There are now more options for people to enjoy what this industry has to offer, and finally rightly so.