Piracy is a service problem, not a pricing problem. Gabe Newell, head of Valve, articulated this several years ago, positing that the fastest way to stop piracy was not to erect stronger barriers, but to provide users with a superior service compared to what they could get from piracy. Steam certainly delivers on this front for consumers, but the question arises: what about the video game companies?
This issue has led to criticism that Steam constitutes a monopoly, sparking heated debate, which has thrust Gabe Newell into legal challenges and resulted in two ongoing lawsuits.
Newell has responded by asserting that users have multiple options for purchasing games. However, the reality is less straightforward; while there are alternatives, the quality of service provided by Steam makes it the undeniable choice for many. This situation creates a complex dynamic.
Steam and the “Monopoly” Debate: Perspectives from Users and Developers
One significant voice in this dialogue is David Rosen, founder of Wolfire Games, known for its association with Humble Bundle—initially a site allowing buyers to purchase game keys redeemable on Steam for a set price, with the option to allocate funds to developers, charities, or the platform itself.
Over time, Humble Bundle expanded into a full-fledged store and subscription service. Yet, in 2018, Rosen’s attention turned to Valve’s policies, which he claimed adversely affected smaller creators. These smaller developers often face higher percentages in sales when using Steam compared to other platforms. They had to remain on Steam due to its massive user base.
In 2021, Rosen approached Valve to request publishing his game ‘Overgrowth’ on both Humble Bundle and Steam, offering a discount exclusively on Humble Bundle. Valve’s response echoed indifference, suggesting that it wouldn’t promote the game—an action critical for visibility. Consequently, Rosen and Wolfire Games initiated a lawsuit, citing anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices by Valve.
Throughout these events, Bloomberg reported Valve’s defense, characterizing its internal policies as beneficial for consumers. This claim merits consideration—Steam indeed provides exceptional refund policies and operates more efficiently than competitors like Ubisoft or Epic Games Store, both of which struggle to disrupt Valve’s stronghold.
The Price Parity Dilemma
Despite its strengths, Rosen challenges Valve’s price parity policies, highlighting potential harm to consumers. For example, if a game is priced at 15 euros on both GoG (a platform that grants real ownership) and Steam, players may default to Steam for its community features and convenience. However, if a game costs 10 euros on GoG and 15 on Steam, many would naturally choose the cheaper option. Such pricing strategies are pivotal points in Rosen’s legal challenges against Valve.
Revelations during the trials have illustrated how Valve allegedly threatened developers for pricing discrepancies. For instance, Ubisoft faced threats for pricing ‘Rainbow Six Siege’ lower on its platform than on Steam. Kassidy Gerber, a former Valve employee familiar with these “requests,” contended that these were not policies but coercive tactics.
The Ongoing Legal Battle
The lawsuit continues to unfold, and concurrently, a separate case in the UK may impose a fine of up to $900 million on Valve for similar questionable practices.
In commenting on the situation, Newell stated, “Customers have a lot of choice. They can decide where they buy their products,” whether it’s Steam, the Epic Games Store, or even directly from developers. This perspective aims to affirm that Steam is not a bottleneck like the Google and Apple stores.
However, despite various outlets for purchasing games, Steam remains inseparable from PC gaming, having built a robust ecosystem over the past 20 years that many consider ubiquitous. Only time will tell how the outcomes of these lawsuits will shape the landscape of PC gaming.
Notably, Steam hosted more than 19,000 video games in 2025, generating an income of roughly $11.7 billion. Their revenues from sales commissions have significantly increased, tripling in less than a decade. This raises further questions about the implications of their market strategies and the legal challenges they face moving forward.