this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2026
107 points (90.8% liked)

PC Gaming

13459 readers
1132 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
EXiLExJD@lemmy.ca
UncleBadTouch@lemmy.ca
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
107
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney supports the $900 million lawsuit against Valve, arguing Steam is "the only major store still holding onto payment ties and 30% junk fee" [refer to in-app purchases] (finance.yahoo.com)
submitted 1 day ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca
75 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world 8 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Name 2 anti-competitive actions steam has done.

Simply having a better product than your competiton does not make you anti-competitive.

[–] FishFace@piefed.social 5 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Using your dominance in one market to gain advantage in another market is anti-competitive. I don't think it's cut-and-dry but I think there's a good argument that they're using their dominance in games distribution to gain an advantage in microtransaction handling.

I think Google (and Apple) using their app-delivery dominance to force app-makers to pay them a fee for in-app purchases is definitely bullshit. Consumers' options are more limited there, but that just means the market dominance is greater: the same argument applies in the case of Steam and the question is just how dominant something has to be for this to be a problem.

[–] doublah@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago

I'd argue selling games and selling content in those games is the same market though.

And the problem with Google/Apple wasn't "dominance", but more "absolute control", Apple blocked third party stores completely on their hardware, and Google had secret deals with phone manufacturers where they had to include all the Google apps and couldn't include alternate app stores, and made using third party stores difficult. As long as Valve aren't blocking third party stores on their OS and not being pre-shipped on the OS of most of Steam's customers, there's probably not much of a case.