Gabe Newell says Steam doesn't pressure developers on pricing, emails suggest otherwise

[Daniel Sims]

What we know so far: Valve has spent years fighting lawsuits in the US and UK alleging that it abuses its dominant market position to impose high fees on developers, which are then passed on to consumers. Newly uncovered emails suggest that Valve employees threatened developers, including major publishers such as Ubisoft, while CEO Gabe Newell publicly denied the existence of a price-parity clause.

According to transcripts recently obtained by Bloomberg, Valve CEO Gabe Newell told lawyers in 2023 that the company does not pressure developers to synchronize prices on Steam and other storefronts. However, emails revealed as part of a lawsuit suggest that Valve previously exerted exactly that kind of pressure on Warner Bros. and Ubisoft.

Plaintiff Wolfire Games has accused Valve of forcing most developers to accept a 30% commission on game sales, even when other storefronts – such as the Epic Games Store – charge lower fees. In 2024, Wolfire was allowed to combine its lawsuit with another case filed by VR game developer Dark Catt into a class-action suit.

Additionally, earlier this year, a UK court ruled that Valve must defend itself against another class-action lawsuit alleging that its commission structure indirectly inflates prices for consumers. If Valve loses the case, it could face damages of nearly $1 billion.

Steam has become synonymous with PC gaming. Major companies such as Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Epic Games, Amazon, and Microsoft have so far struggled to meaningfully shift users to alternative storefronts or to withhold their biggest titles from Steam. Even Call of Duty eventually returned to Steam after a brief period of exclusivity on Battle.net.

Although frequent discounts helped Steam grow its user base, the platform has also steadily expanded its feature set, while competing launchers often lack basic functionality. For example, the Epic Games Store took three years to introduce a simple shopping cart feature.

In a recent survey, 72% of developers described Steam as a monopoly. For the most part, only the most popular PC titles that launch outside the platform – such as League of Legends, Roblox, Minecraft, and Genshin Impact – can sustain large audiences without relying on Steam.

David Rosen, founder of Wolfire Games and Humble Bundle, has claimed that Valve threatened to delist one of its games, Overgrowth, if it was sold elsewhere at a lower price, though Valve disputes the allegation.

Separately, emails presented in litigation suggest the company threatened to remove Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege after Ubisoft offered a $15 starter pack exclusively on its own store. Valve employee Kassidy Gerber also reportedly told Warner Bros. in 2017 that Steam removed pre-orders for Middle-earth: Shadow of War because prices on other storefronts were significantly lower.

When lawyers presented this evidence to Gerber and Newell, they reiterated that Valve has no formal policy of dictating prices to developers. However, Gerber acknowledged that Steam enforces content parity requirements.

"Customers have enormous choice," Newell testified in defense of Steam. "[they can choose] whether they buy the game on an Xbox, whether they buy it on Steam, whether they buy it on Epic Games Store, or whether they buy it directly from software developers."

Permalink to story:

Gabe Newell says Steam doesn't pressure developers on pricing, emails suggest otherwise

 

[Notmare]

It's their store. If they de-list a game, then they themselves receive zero revenue from it. It's in their best interest to leave the game on Steam, but they remove it because their best interest is their own consumer.

The argument here is that these companies are offering it cheaper on their own platform, likely to increase their own sales when consumers see that it's more expensive on Steam. The same outcome would occur if the game isn't on Steam...

This argument is bogus.

 

[m4a4]

Is this Valve forcing big publishers to not take advantage of and abuse Steam's generosity? Or is it actually Valve being a Mafia?



And wasn't the whole thing with Wolfire Games that they tried selling Steam Keys outside of Steam and redirecting to the lower price (which is absolutely abusing the system)? And in retaliation Valve told them they'd delist their game if there wasn't parity everywhere.

 

[Kirby1]

These articles always fail to mention that Valve doesn't charge a flat 30% anymore. As sales go up, the fee goes down. Big devs can expect to hit numbers where the fee will go down.

 

[brucek]

I feel like all these anti-Valve complaints come from developers who don't want to compensate Valve for the tremendous value Steam brings to gamers. I've never heard it from someone I know to be just a consumer.

If there are regulators feeling the need to help gamers out, I'd much rather they start with Sony's play station store, or even XBox's. When I look at the average cost I've paid per game on each platform, it's pretty clear which platforms cost more, and it's not Steam.

 

[Gravitytr1]

I feel like all these anti-Valve complaints come from developers who don't want to compensate Valve for the tremendous value Steam brings to gamers. I've never heard it from someone I know to be just a consumer.

If there are regulators feeling the need to help gamers out, I'd much rather they start with Sony's play station store, or even XBox's. When I look at the average cost I've paid per game on each platform, it's pretty clear which platforms cost more, and it's not Steam.

This.

Steam might not be perfect. But let's fix the house with no roof first before looking to fix the house with a missing light bulb.

 

[hwertz]

So, the 'forcing' most developers to accept a 30% commission rate... well, the rate is the rate. I've got 0 problems with that.

The threatening (or actually pulling) listings because they sell items on another storefront (or direct on web site) for less? That should not be allowed, the devs should be free to set their prices.

 

[fadingfool]

Oh no Steam insisted that customers on its platform got as good a deal as customers on other platforms - oh the horror. FFS seems fair to me - or shall I insist on Tesco charges more than Aldi for the same item?

 

[godrilla]

Meanwhile we have Lords of the Fallen 2 devs paying Epic to break contract to sell on steam. The horror!

 

[LordVile95]

It's their store. If they de-list a game, then they themselves receive zero revenue from it. It's in their best interest to leave the game on Steam, but they remove it because their best interest is their own consumer.

The argument here is that these companies are offering it cheaper on their own platform, likely to increase their own sales when consumers see that it's more expensive on Steam. The same outcome would occur if the game isn't on Steam...

This argument is bogus.

The issue is that because steam is an effective monopoly developers HAVE to list the game on steam to make a profit and steam abuse this.

The best thing for the consumer would be to have fair commission rate so games could be priced lower.

 

[LordVile95]

Oh no Steam insisted that customers on its platform got as good a deal as customers on other platforms - oh the horror. FFS seems fair to me - or shall I insist on Tesco charges more than Aldi for the same item?

Not the same thing. It would be like Tesco forcing aldi to raise its prices to match Tesco’s rather than Tesco lower its to match aldi. The consumer loses here as valve forces devs to list games for more when they could drop the price to sell more and still make more profit per unit than they would on steam.

 

[poshflamingos]

The issue is that because steam is an effective monopoly developers HAVE to list the game on steam to make a profit and steam abuse this.

That's nonsense, devs do not HAVE to list their games on Steam. Factorio, Escape from Tarkov and Minecraft are all games that became very successful while they were absent from Steam. These examples show that if your game is good, you don't need Steam to succeed. It's just that most of the time devs/publishers have no incentive or desire to host the sales infrastructure themselves, but it's by no means impossible.

Not the same thing. It would be like Tesco forcing aldi to raise its prices to match Tesco’s rather than Tesco lower its to match aldi. The consumer loses here as valve forces devs to list games for more when they could drop the price to sell more and still make more profit per unit than they would on steam.

That's not an apt comparison. Valve does not have the ability to "drop prices" of the games, game prices are set entirely by the devs/publishers. Valve cannot choose to forcefully drop game prices.
The correct comparison is if Cadbury themselves decided that they were going to sell Dairy Milk for £5 on Aldi and for £10 on Tesco. Then Tesco came in and said "Why are you intentionally making your product more expensive on our stores, and making it look like we have bad deals? We would rather not stock up on Dairy Milk at all than to be put in this situation." And Tesco isn't wrong there.

 

[brucek]

The best thing for the consumer would be to have fair commission rate so games could be priced lower.

The base charge of about $60 for a new AAA title held constant for a long time. It was $60 on store shelves before Steam, $60 on shelves and on Steam when Steam launched, $60 when Epic launched claiming lower commissions, $60 when Epic had an exclusive so there was no price matching on Steam to speak of, $60 when publishers or titles had enough pull to go it alone (like the ones in the article, or say most of Blizzard's catalog for a long time.)

So color me skeptical that any of this is about getting the consumer a lower price. All I know is that I've gotten a lot of great discount deals on Steam over time that I've found much harder to get elsewhere.

 

[LordVile95]

The base charge of about $60 for a new AAA title held constant for a long time. It was $60 on store shelves before Steam, $60 on shelves and on Steam when Steam launched, $60 when Epic launched claiming lower commissions, $60 when Epic had an exclusive so there was no price matching on Steam to speak of, $60 when publishers or titles had enough pull to go it alone (like the ones in the article, or say most of Blizzard's catalog for a long time.)

So color me skeptical that any of this is about getting the consumer a lower price. All I know is that I've gotten a lot of great discount deals on Steam over time that I've found much harder to get elsewhere.

No it was $50 during the PS2 era when steam launched and they typically fell in value everywhere else quite quickly. Commission rates were also 15-20% until steam started with 30%. It went up to match steam in the next generation when digital distribution on console started.

 

[LordVile95]

That's nonsense, devs do not HAVE to list their games on Steam. Factorio, Escape from Tarkov and Minecraft are all games that became very successful while they were absent from Steam. These examples show that if your game is good, you don't need Steam to succeed. It's just that most of the time devs/publishers have no incentive or desire to host the sales infrastructure themselves, but it's by no means impossible.


That's not an apt comparison. Valve does not have the ability to "drop prices" of the games, game prices are set entirely by the devs/publishers. Valve cannot choose to forcefully drop game prices.
The correct comparison is if Cadbury themselves decided that they were going to sell Dairy Milk for £5 on Aldi and for £10 on Tesco. Then Tesco came in and said "Why are you intentionally making your product more expensive on our stores, and making it look like we have bad deals? We would rather not stock up on Dairy Milk at all than to be put in this situation." And Tesco isn't wrong there.

They can literally offer a promotional commission fee which can drop a $60 game by $20 on its own.

No it’s not, the supplier would be giving both shops the same product at the same price and Tesco’s own up-charge would be raising the price meaning Tesco would be creating the “bad deal”. The issue is steam charges 30% commission whereas Microsoft and EGS charge 12 or 0% for the first million on the EGS. The dev to make $40 per sale must charge $60 on steam. On EGS or Microsoft they would have to charge around $45 to make the same profit, however they’re forced to sell at $60 because otherwise they’re locked out of 90%+ of the market.

 

[NumberNine]

Well I mean, they have to accept the margins to join the platform. I'd consider that to be a lot more than "pressure". More like an ultimatum, yes? Terms and conditions?

 

[Notmare]

The issue is that because steam is an effective monopoly developers HAVE to list the game on steam to make a profit and steam abuse this.

The best thing for the consumer would be to have fair commission rate so games could be priced lower.

By definition alone, Steam is not a monopoly. The majority of users in any given sector preferring one store front over others does not make that one store front a monopoly.

 

[Battlegenome]

So, the 'forcing' most developers to accept a 30% commission rate... well, the rate is the rate. I've got 0 problems with that.

The threatening (or actually pulling) listings because they sell items on another storefront (or direct on web site) for less? That should not be allowed, the devs should be free to set their prices.

I think the issue lies in the fact that developers can force people to use certain platforms by manipulating prices. Valve delisting or refunding pre-orders because the game is cheaper elsewhere is consumer protection more than developer abuse in my mind.

I can appreciate that developers want to set their own prices, and maybe they can sell for cheaper on their own platform because they don't have to worry about a 30% fee, but most of the companies mentioned attempted their own rival game stores that were intentionally competing with Steam, so I find it difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt that their price differences were intended to offer consumers savings instead of stealing customers from a company that truly does appear to care.

 

[Kirby1]

They can literally offer a promotional commission fee which can drop a $60 game by $20 on its own.

No it’s not, the supplier would be giving both shops the same product at the same price and Tesco’s own up-charge would be raising the price meaning Tesco would be creating the “bad deal”. The issue is steam charges 30% commission whereas Microsoft and EGS charge 12 or 0% for the first million on the EGS. The dev to make $40 per sale must charge $60 on steam. On EGS or Microsoft they would have to charge around $45 to make the same profit, however they’re forced to sell at $60 because otherwise they’re locked out of 90%+ of the market.

Epic charges a lower fee for devs who use UE5, and their standard fee is 18%, not 12%

Epic is also losing money on its store.


It really should stop any argument that Steam is a monopoly since; Epic store exists with lower fees - and no one cares.

People just want all their games in one place and Valve got their first.

 

[Axeia]

So, the 'forcing' most developers to accept a 30% commission rate... well, the rate is the rate. I've got 0 problems with that.

The threatening (or actually pulling) listings because they sell items on another storefront (or direct on web site) for less? That should not be allowed, the devs should be free to set their prices.

Fully agree, that's almost the same shi... Apple tried to pull. Although at least Steam unlike Apple doesn't try to take a margin on all purchases made within the games, and Steam offers additional value in the form of screenshot cloud storage / saved games etc.

Still, if say CD Projekt Red wants to offer The Witcher cheaper on GoG because they don't have to give 30% to Valve then that should be well within their right. Anyone defending otherwise should have a good long think.
it's not like Valve is scraping by. There isn't many companies that make as much profit per employee as Valve does, they don't need people sticking up for them just because so far they have made better choices for consumers than most companies.

 

[poshflamingos]

They can literally offer a promotional commission fee which can drop a $60 game by $20 on its own.

So by "offering a promotional comission fee" you mean "charge 0% and offer their services for free to the devs, making no money in the process".

No it’s not, the supplier would be giving both shops the same product at the same price and Tesco’s own up-charge would be raising the price meaning Tesco would be creating the “bad deal”.

Except this is not what happens with Steam. Steam does not determine game prices, devs do. The situation this article describes is exactly what I'm talking about, devs want the ability to set the Steam price at $60 and the non-Steam price at $40 (for example), exactly the same as my Cadbury/Tesco example. It is entirely within Steam's/Tesco's rights to simply refuse to carry that product under those conditions.

The issue is steam charges 30% commission whereas Microsoft and EGS charge 12 or 0% for the first million on the EGS. The dev to make $40 per sale must charge $60 on steam. On EGS or Microsoft they would have to charge around $45 to make the same profit, however they’re forced to sell at $60 because otherwise they’re locked out of 90%+ of the market.

If the dev is unsatisfied with the 30% fee Steam charges, they are free to simply not use Steam. They can sell on any of the myriad of other stores, or even to sell the game themselves, like Factorio/Tarkov/Minecraft successfully did.
What you're describing is devs wanting to benefit from the infrastructure and marketing/discovery that Steam provides, without having to pay Steam for it. It's a ridiculous expectation. There is nothing wrong with Valve charging the price it wants for the services it provides. If they want the benefits of the Steam platform, 30% is what it costs. If they do not want to pay 30%, they can simply not use Steam.
Making the government force Steam (a private company in a non-essential entertainment market) to lower their fees or force them to carry games they do not want to carry is an absurd overreach. And this is coming from a left-wing person who is very much not a "small government" supporter.

 

[Liljonny11]

It's hilarious that developers will call steam a monopoly but then offer zero alternative even remotely same to the same benefits. Steam isn't just a store, it's a platform. How much do we pay for other platforms? Xbox and playstation literally charge subscriptions to use their games. Are we supposed to believe that other developers will have their own platform that works the same way if steam didn't advocate for it? The moment steam loses it's power is when ads in games are added. The gaming industry has been foaming at the mouth for adding ads to pc gaming but it's only steam pushing back.

 

[James Ryan]

It's their store. If they de-list a game, then they themselves receive zero revenue from it. It's in their best interest to leave the game on Steam, but they remove it because their best interest is their own consumer.

The argument here is that these companies are offering it cheaper on their own platform, likely to increase their own sales when consumers see that it's more expensive on Steam. The same outcome would occur if the game isn't on Steam...

This argument is bogus.

It's such a dumb argument considering they are primarily complaining about a captured market and no competition because Steam is a monopoly. Lowering prices like this on different platforms is 100% pro consumer...

 

[Donaldo]

Gabe is just another greedy, fat billionaire that isn't paying taxes and needs some "help".

 

[Axeia]

Except this is not what happens with Steam. Steam does not determine game prices, devs do. The situation this article describes is exactly what I'm talking about, devs want the ability to set the Steam price at $60 and the non-Steam price at $40 (for example), exactly the same as my Cadbury/Tesco example. It is entirely within Steam's/Tesco's rights to simply refuse to carry that product under those conditions.

Why do you want to pay more?

If Valve charges 30% and Epic charges 12%.
According to this post if you say made your game and and want to make $10 per sale, you'd want to sell it for $14.29 on Steam and $11.36% on the Epic games store no?

Now Steam swoops in and removes your game from the store or just prevents you from listing in the first place because they don't want you selling it for less elsewhere. You think that's a good/fair system?

If the dev is unsatisfied with the 30% fee Steam charges, they are free to simply not use Steam. They can sell on any of the myriad of other stores, or even to sell the game themselves, like Factorio/Tarkov/Minecraft successfully did.

Let's see, Factorio, Tarkov, Minecraft. I can find the first two on Steam - so bad examples?
Minecraft, the most sold game in the world. So old that its initial success is from a completely different era when Steam wasn't as dominant - another bad example imo.

The article lists a better example in Genshin Impact (came out of nowhere in more recent times) but because there's some rare exceptions to the rule does not mean it's not a bad take imo.

What you're describing is devs wanting to benefit from the infrastructure and marketing/discovery that Steam provides, without having to pay Steam for it. It's a ridiculous expectation. There is nothing wrong with Valve charging the price it wants for the services it provides. If they want the benefits of the Steam platform, 30% is what it costs. If they do not want to pay 30%

When listing on steam and using their infrastructure you pay the steam fee, fine. A-okay, no one expects Steam to run a charity?

, they can simply not use Steam.

Steam controls about 75% of digital games sales, that effectively makes it a monopoly according to the relevant laws in most countries. That means subjecting them to greater scrutiny is a perfectly valid/normal thing to do, they're in a position where they can abuse that power and if steam does what I stated in my first bit of this reply / as this article claims then they are abusing that power.

Making the government force Steam (a private company in a non-essential entertainment market) to lower their fees or force them to carry games they do not want to carry is an absurd overreach. And this is coming from a left-wing person who is very much not a "small government" supporter.

In this/Steams case I agree with you.
After all on a PC it's trivial to install another launcher or the game itself directly.
They can have their 30%, heck I'd even be fine with them setting a minimal price that people are allowed to list a game for. However, forbidding developers from listing their game elsewhere for less - that's an overreach on Steams part. If the developer actually has lower costs elsewhere (like on the Epic games store) then it's really none of Steams business to have anything to say about that. It doesn't come at costs to them (other than missing out on sales because they don't charge a competitive rate).