this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2025
631 points (95.0% liked)
Games
22039 readers
132 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Because EGS offers roughly 5% of the services Steam does, and Epic is still spending a shitload of money keeping EGS going at loss.
I think you are missing the point of my question. Why would valve get in legal trouble if they charged less? Both EGS and steam is stored, no? They should be bound by the same laws. Afaik there are no special laws just because you are the market leader.
I think you maybe need to take a second look at this post- you seem to be substituting random words at places and it makes it difficult to tell what you're trying to say.
Yes, sorry auto correct got me this time and english is not my native language while writing in a hurry. I should spend more time to try and be throughout in my writing. I don't know the laws but from what I read from the previous message is that valve can't do what epic does because that would be unfair and create a monopoly. To me this sounds very strange as depending on your position in the market you would abide by different laws? If epic would gain a lot more people and players, would they also need to charge more per game then?
I figured it was something like that, no big.
To answer your question, the idea there is that the average market take is 30%- valve takes 30%, apple, google, microsoft, sony, nintendo, etc etc all take 30%. Physical publishers take more, but for eshops, 30% is 'standard.'
EGS does 12%, but they:
The concern for Steam is that, as market leader, they have a lot of advantages that other companies cannot or would not have- Perhaps Valve, because of their immense size and economies of scale, could get away with 12% and still making a profit, but they don't for two reasons:
2 seems a bit paradoxial, but the idea here is that Valve doesn't want to use it's market position in a way that prevents other, smaller companies from being able to compete, because that is a monopoly. Valve wants to be market leader, NOT a monopoly, because that is obviously illegal.
So it's safer for them to stay at the 'market average' that other companies CAN compete with, and obviously they benefit anyway, because there's really no gain for them to lower their own percentage. THey could get accused of monopoly abuse, they lower their take, and doing so wouldn't gain them any market share.