Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    28 minutes ago

    I dunno, killing the idea of ownership of games was pretty bad.

    I don’t think any amount of Proton patches submitted is going to bring that back.

    • Dariusmiles2123@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      19 minutes ago

      Apparently a lot of games don’t have DRMs on Steam. The only thing missing is a badge indicating this.

      So at least you own these…

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    Marketshare, and you have to remember the difference between platform and store. If Epic made them exclusive to the Epic Machine™ then there would be a problem but moving from Steam to Epic doesn’t remove Windows support.

    Imagine Target bought Great Value (Walmart brand) and moved it from Walmart to target. Would anyone care?

    • themusicman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 hour ago

      It does remove easy Linux compatibility. Also you can run any storefront on steam deck, so not sure what your point is about hardware

  • fartsparkles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    179
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    If Epic spent half as much money as they are suing organisations and instead funded developing their shop into a gaming community platform like Steam, they’d probably have caught up by now.

    • evol@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      29 minutes ago

      I don’t understand this I use it for rocket league occasionally and it all just works ™ ? I prefer Valve 100% to slopnite developers but the launcher seems fine to me. (On Linux Heroic is unironically better than steam which has a bunch of random bugs every few weeks)

    • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      Sweeney is legit delulu tbh.

      He literally said Epic’s launcher/store is ready as is, doesn’t need more development. It also runs in Unreal Engine, so you get Chromium (CEF) + Unreal Engine running just for one launcher/store.

      At least on Linux you can run Unreal Editor without EGS (because it doesn’t exist on Linux) and if you’ve claimed any free games on Epic, you can use Heroic launcher to manage them easily.

      • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        35 minutes ago

        if you’ve claimed any free games on Epic, you can use Heroic launcher to manage them easily.

        Oooh. This is interesting. I wonder how much of the epic library is Linux compatible.

    • reksas@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      its not about making better product for epic. its about removing competition so they dont have to.

      • warm@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        You dont like games that look like you have grease smeared over your monitor?

    • warm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Epic Games Launcher would always end up a pile of shit anyway. Tim Sweeney is a fuckhead and he has lots of investors to please.

    • Korkki@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      6 hours ago

      it’s often more risky and expensive to hire, train and develop systems and communities like that, especially when doing it against the tide, than to just try to trip up the competition. It’s not just that it’s dificult and it costs money, but it’s not preferred because investors abhor risks.

      Isn’t this seen in global politics all the time. When US says China is too dominant in X and we need to fight it. They are not saying that US will invest in shit that will help them compete. All or 90% of the actions is to try to trip up, sabotage and sanction the competition.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 hours ago

      To be honest, Epic is doing a good job of tearing down walled gardens in places like mobile, and we’ll probably be better off for it. But yeah, they’ve done a terrible job of competing with Steam.

      • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        5 hours ago

        They only did that because they wanted their walled garden to be there too. Tim Sweeney is just butthurt his walled garden isn’t the biggest

        • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 hours ago

          Of course, but…broken clock, you know? A large percentage of personal computers will be freed from Windows in large part because of Valve, even though they profit off of legalized child gambling addiction. And walled gardens in mobile will be broken down in large part because of Epic, which uses dark patterns to trick people out of their money in pursuit of a cultural hodge podge of nonsense that won’t even exist in a few decades.

  • popcar2@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Because Steam is the world’s biggest games store on PC while Epic is statistically insignificant. What’s the question?

    • fyrilsol@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Epic is irrelevant because Epic has not given anyone a single solitary reason to use their launcher and platform. Tim Sweeny loves the smell of his own shit in the morning after he takes a big wet dump in the toilet. So much so, he doesn’t even flush for a while.

      That launcher of theirs has a knack of sucking out all of your system resources, namely bandwidth and CPU, just to download games. Meanwhile, Valve gives you so many options to work around that.

        • Sonicdemon86@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 hour ago

          I personal want a store that is native Linux. I have yet to find a store that does it better, no matter your OS. Epic, GOG, Amazon, ubisoft, and Xbox gamepass do not support or have a native Linux programs and require using Wine/proton to access their stores. Having an extra layer on top makes it hard to install games as all of them are expecting a C:/ that is just how any Linux OSes work.

    • atrielienz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Why is Epic insignificant?

      They launched with a 12% service fee, dropped that service fee to 10%, and then dropped the service fee entirely for the first $1Mn in sales per year.

      In June 2025, they released a new feature enabling developers to launch their own webshops hosted by the Epic Games Store. These webshops could offer players out-of-app purchases, as a more “cost-effective” alternative to in-app purchases.

      They provide developers with free to generate license keys, and keyless integration with other e-shop stores including GOG, Humble Bundle, and Prime gaming.

      They offer a user review system.

      They also added cloud saves in July of 2025.

      The thing is, they offer none of the other features Steam offers:

      • In-Home Streaming
      • Remote Play with Friends
      • Family Accounts
      • Achievements
      • Price Adjusted Bundles
      • Gifting Games
      • Shopping Cart
      • TV/Big Screen Mode

      Epic launched their service in 2018. It’s been 7 years. The only reason not to offer feature parity (for a company that makes $4.6Bn - 5.7Bn in revenue, and a shop that makes $1.09Bn, you’d think they would be enticing users with the services they want.

      What they have done instead is exclusivity deals that plenty of consumers complain about but devs don’t seem to care about so long as they’re getting paid.

      So, the excuse that Steam got there first (as if it’s just about that and the reason their market share is what it is is because they have refined, adapted, and improved their service offering over time doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when steam has a significant percent of the market share (79.5% to epic’s 42.3%) but is only making twice the revenue of their rival store.

      It makes sense for GOG or Itch.io who’s market cap is smaller by quite a lot to not offer the same feature parity. Each of those platforms has figured out they can offer other things to devs and consumers to make themselves competitive over time.

      Sweeny’s attack is basically just a pitry party he’s throwing for himself because he doesn’t want to compete.

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        Steam isn’t being sued by Sweeny, they are being sued on behalf of 14 million UK gamers.

        Also, epic has an estimated 3% to 7% of the market share (not 42 which makes no sense with steam having the other 80%), yet they should be regulated as well. If you stopped bootlicking for half a second, you would realise that this isn’t about who’s the worst but the fact that they are all bad (except itch, bless them).

        Your enjoyment of their product doesn’t mean it isn’t having a serious and negative impact on the industry. Amazon is really convenient too, can you defend them next please?

        • atrielienz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          18 minutes ago

          I never claimed steam was being sued by Sweeney. Sweeney made a statement about the steam lawsuit saying he agreed with it. https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/epic-games-boss-tim-sweeney-voices-support-for-usd900-million-steam-lawsuit-valve-is-the-only-major-store-still-holding-onto-the-payments-tie-and-30-percent-junk-fee/

          I was quickly googling market share stuff on break so I misread the Epic e-shop market share vs Epic’s full market share outside that.

          The fact that Steam only makes double what epic e-shop makes with literally 11 times the market influence?

          What regulations are you expecting out of this? How will that have a positive effect on consumers?

          I never said this was about good or bad. I pointed out pros and cons of using each service which extrapolated quite literally to why consumers choose Steam over Epic.

          A monopolistic corp who uses anit-consumer/anti-competitve tactics to remain a market leader/? monopoly is illegal. And it’s regulated.

          The only reason steam is being investigated at all is because 2 or 3 out of literal thousands of game developers have made a claim that steam is threatening to remove their game if they try to sell it on other game stores for cheaper than steam (not steam keys, but using another stores licensing keys).

          That hasn’t been proven and if it is, a further investigation into how wide spread that behavior is would still be needed to prove that Valve or Steam came by their market share illegally.

          Also the fact that you brought up Amazon as the foil to your argument at the end is laughable. For multiple reasons.

    • fyrilsol@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Exactly.

      And she’s one of those who is doing it “for the children”. So, one of those disgusting beings who hides behind children to get anything she wants done.

    • Grimy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Everyone does the moment steam gets sued by consumers. It’s like the bar is set by epic or something and we can’t expect better things from any of them because of it.

    • NannerBanner@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yeah, it’s no longer for sale. If you bought it before it was delisted, you can still download/play it through steam. What is fucking atrocious is that I had to go and make an account with epic to play. Well, they can spam and sell my ‘nannerbanner’sfakeemailforepiccunts@proton.me’ all they want. Fucking cunts. .

      • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Yeah, I bought my own domain specifically so I could set up a catch-all email service. Everything sent to my domain hits the same inbox, but I can easily see who has sold my info. If I start getting spam addressed to “walmart@example.com” then I know Walmart sold my info. And I can easily set a rule to automatically mark anything addressed to that burned account as spam.

        Lots of websites quickly caught onto the “just add a + after your regular email” trick, and set up an internal rule to remove any of the + tags. So that old trick is largely useless.

  • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    What are they being sued for? I guess I missed this?

    Also I guess it could be argued they only removed it from new sales whereas people who already owned those titles on Steam still have them on Steam.

    • eli@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      They are being accused of price fixing with the whole “can’t sell games for cheaper on other store fronts compared to the steam listing” thing

      warm@kbin.earth explains it better below:

      It only applies to Steam product keys though, so developers cannot sell cheap Steam keys on other platforms while still taking advantage of Steam’s services.

      • GuerillaGorillas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        Which isn’t accurate and is more nuanced involving Steam keys like another user said. For instance, Prey is on sale for $6 on the PlayStation store but still $30 on Steam.

      • nogooduser@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 hours ago

        I’m pretty sure that Amazon also says that you can’t sell things on Amazon for more than you sell the same item elsewhere.

        I’ve certainly seen a video claiming that.

        • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 hours ago

          It only applies to steam keys though. Like if you want to sell on other storefronts (like Epic) for cheaper, it’s perfectly fine. You simply can’t sell steam keys on other storefronts for cheaper. It’s not really “price fixing” as much as it is “Steam ensuring their servers aren’t used to download the game unless the dev has properly paid them for the key”…

          Like imagine a company wants to sell more copies of their game. So they set up their own site to sell directly to consumers, and it’s cheaper than buying on Steam. This is totally fine. Consumers can still choose to add the standalone version as a non-Steam game to be able to launch it via Steam.

          It’s only a breach of contract if they start offering steam keys for that same (cheaper) price, which allows the game to be downloaded via Steam, includes achievement integrations, includes Steam’s friend list “join game” multiplayer, includes Steam Deck/Steam Machine optimizations, etc… If they want all of those nice Steam integrations, they need an official Steam key. And that Steam key can’t be sold cheaper than on Steam’s official store.

        • warm@kbin.earth
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          34
          ·
          7 hours ago

          It only applies to Steam product keys though, so developers cannot sell cheap Steam keys on other platforms while still taking advantage of Steam’s services.

          • Cavemanfreak@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 hour ago

            I believe the problem is that it isn’t just Steam keys. There’s apparently emails from Valve employees that state that it’s all versions of the game, and that seems to be the real crux here. And if that’s true it’s pretty shitty, and they might actually lose this.

            • warm@kbin.earth
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              24 minutes ago

              Do you have a source for that? All I can find on their Steamworks site is the rules on Steam keys being restricted, not other versions.

          • eli@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Yes this is a more apt description, sorry, this whole thing has been stupid tbh.

      • unknown1234_5@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        ah yes, they are price fixing by saying devs can’t set the price on steam (which the devs control) higher than the price on other platforms (which the devs also control)

        • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 hour ago

          That’s not true, it only applies if you’re selling a steam key. Devs are free to set the price on any platform they want, want proof? Check out the currently free game on epic which has never been free on Steam.

          Steam provides developers with infinite steam keys that they can sell outside of steam for 100% profit, however those keys cannot be sold at a lesser price than what it’s sold on steam. Which honestly sounds like common sense.

    • lath@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      As per my understanding (which isn’t saying much), Steam takes a 30% cut of each sale. In UK, someone with a specific agenda claimed to represent gamers as a class and sued reasoning that the 30% cut inflates the price of games globally even beyond Steam’s store, harming everyone.

      Did i understand it right? No idea. What’s the actual goal here? Also no idea. Is Steam the “good guy” in all this? Of course not.

      • lofuw@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Well that’s stupid. If Steam charged less, the price of games wouldn’t change.

        Developers and publishers would just pocket the difference.

      • Adeptus_Obsoletus@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 hours ago

        Is Steam the “good guy” in all this? Of course not.

        Too bad a lot of people, even here or in other threads, don’t get it, so they willingly cheer for Valve simply because Tim Sweeney sucks.

        • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          I think devs actually get quite a bit for that 30%. Let’s present a hypothetical. What if Valve offered an option where you could list your game on Steam with no restrictions and they’d only take a 10% cut, but the tradeoff is, they won’t promote your game at all? Like, it won’t show up in any Steam storefront advertisements, can’t participate in sales, etc. - it’s still there if it’s linked to from off-Steam or if someone searches for it, but it won’t be promoted, period.

          How do you think that would work out for developers? I’d argue not well, especially for small studios.

          The promotion those games get applies to the game as a whole, not only through Steam - someone can see the promotion on Steam, then go shop around and buy it elsewhere. Why should Valve promote a game if they aren’t getting a cut of the sales?

  • Matt@lemdro.id
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Valve is being sued because they are forcing others to follow policies that further entrenches Steam as the largest store.

    Since Epic bought the game developer, it only applies to themselves. It is much harder to sue someone over a decision that only applies to something they own. How can a company be sued for not selling their product at a store? Should Valve be sued for not selling their own games on Epic or GOG?

    Is Epic’s decision to only sell their games on their store annoying for users? Yes. But unfortunately, there is nothing illegal about. There would be a better chance of a lawsuit of Epic paying other game developers for exclusivity, but that would still not be easy as game exclusivity is still a significant factor on game consoles as well. Albeit much less than in the past.

    • mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Isn’t valve being sued for

      1. Not allowing devs to sell steam download codes on other stores, But the ban only applies if they are selling the download code for cheaper than Steam

      2. Not allowing devs to sell steam DLC download codes on other stores

      I don’t think 1 or 2 puts other stores at any disadvantage. If a store wants to sell steam download codes then Valve has to get their normal cut. If they don’t want to pay the valve tax, then they don’t need to offer a Steam download code.

        • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 hours ago

          It’s a restriction on where you can get a DLC you paid for. The fact that you paid for it at Walmart shouldn’t matter.

    • lofuw@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Valve isn’t forcing anyone to use their platform.

      If Steam’s terms aren’t satisfactory for developers, then they don’t have to use Steam.

      • kinsnik@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        5 hours ago

        There are laws that say that abusing a monopoly is illegal. Steam is objectively a monopoly in pc games. Sure, you don’t have to use it, but it is basically impossible for indie developers to make a living without it.

        Now, the question is if valve’s actions are actually abusing the monopoly, or normal business practices.

        • fyrilsol@kbin.melroy.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          I would say they aren’t.

          Because, they aren’t like Epic, who has been going around and locking games behind exclusivity deals. Name me one game by one developer, who Valve went to and was like “hey, I’m going to give you a $5 Million exclusivity deal. I’d like for your game to be available on our Steam platform for 2 years before you’re allowed to sell anywhere else!”

          I’m sure nobody can find that game. Meanwhile, Epic has done this to Metro: Exodus, Tony Hawk Pro Skater 1+2 for the PC and outright buying studios going “hey, delist your game on Steam and only be available to our platform.”

          How the fuck can that broad be so stupid to not notice that? But it’s all Valve’s fault, somehow.

          • kinsnik@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            I don’t know if valve are or aren’t abusing their monopolistic position. I am not a lawyer and i don’t have a horse in the race.

            I was just answering to someone who said “if you don’t like valve policies, dont publish your games there”, which would be true for a normal business, but specifically not true of a monopoly, which steam is, unquestionably

            Epic can do things much more freely, because they dont hold a monopoly on pc games

            • fyrilsol@kbin.melroy.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              It’s hard to really call Valve a monopoly when, there is competition. If there’s no competition, then Valve would clearly be a monopoly.

              It’s not like back in the 90s when Microsoft bundled their Windows OS with Internet Explorer that edged out Netscape back then. Because there really wasn’t a lot of browser alternatives available to have made it where competition was there. Microsoft was considered a monopoly back then because competition was very little during their peak then.

              In the digital PC gaming landscape, it’s entirely different. There are numerous marketplaces for digital games. And they’re big enough to where Valve is just simply an alternative and can go without if someone chooses.

              Valve doesn’t force anyone to use Steam or strong-arms people to buy games from them. They just exist, the people have spoken both by their own loyalty and their wallets. And that made companies like Epic mad and jealous. They just came late into the game when Valve was developing itself.

          • ripcord@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            4 hours ago

            hey, I’m going to give you a $5 Million exclusivity deal

            This isn’t something they need to.do, as they have a monopoly.

          • dukemirage@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Hytale has incredible publicity for an indie release and caters to a target group that’s used to a separate launcher. Not comparable to the usual release.

          • Nelots@piefed.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            Got any other modern examples than just the one game that had a massive following for the last 7 years of development?

              • Nelots@piefed.zip
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 hours ago

                Notably, almost none of those are indie games, and almost any indie game that you did list came out in the 2000s like Roblox, before Steam was the behemoth it is today. Half of them are games by the same sets of AAA studios like Epic Games, Blizzard, and MiHoYo, and most Blizzard games have an entire franchise of games older than Steam itself to piggyback off of. Speaking of, anything by Blizzard isn’t even true… their most recent games like Diablo IV and Overwatch 2 are both on Steam. Tarkov is also on Steam now, but I’ll admit I’m splitting hairs here since it spent nearly a decade off of it. Though the fact that it released on Steam with its 1.0 update does say something.

                So I really don’t think any of those games aside from debatably Tarkov shows that the average modern indie dev can be successful outside of Steam.

            • ripcord@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              4 hours ago

              Star Citizen I guess. If by “well” it is meant “making lots of money”

              But yeah it’s not realistic at all for 99+% of devs/games

    • False@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      They essentially removed games that I owned and made it so I could no longer play them by drippy Linux support.

    • yeahiknow3@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 hours ago

      The only answer with an actual articulate explanation has 30% downvotes because the average gamer IQ is double digits.

  • Zahille7@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    This would be like if someone sued Walmart for letting their local store go out of business.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      More like the local store suing Walmart for putting them out of business, but only after they pushed away all of their customers with bad ideas and flashy gimmicks