Table of Contents
- Intro
- The Monopoly Label is a Trap
- Valve's Strategy: Competing by Building
- The Rivals' Strategy: Competing by Buying
- The Principled Competitor: GOG
- Other Competitors: Fragmenting the Market
- Conclusion
Building vs. Buying: Why Steam’s "Monopoly" Isn't the Problem
Intro
People are calling Valve a monopoly again in 2025. There's a big lawsuit in the UK worth £656 million accusing them of rigging the market. Plus, a study showed 72% of UK and US devs think Steam is basically a monopoly.
Those headlines grab attention, and they're right about Steam being dominant. But the word "monopoly" gets confusing. Folks mix up market dominance with actual anti-consumer stuff.
Steam's success isn't about crushing rivals. It's about different ways of competing. When you compare how Valve plays versus others, not all big players are the same.
The Monopoly Label is a Trap
Let's be clear: Steam owns a huge chunk of the PC games market. But how? Did they buy everyone out? Lock devs into contracts?
Nope. They built something so good, for so long, that users stuck around. Loyalty and features made it the go-to.
The monopoly talk is misleading. It doesn't separate companies that dominate by building better stuff from those that hurt the market to block competition. The real deal isn't Steam's share—it's the strategy difference.
Valve's Strategy: Competing by Building
Valve's philosophy shines in their Linux work. Instead of locking things down, they funded Proton. It's a layer that lets Windows games run on Linux perfectly.
Think about it. A "monopoly" spends millions to open their library on a rival OS they don't control.
Then they made the Steam Deck, which relies on that open-source stuff. Valve expands the market—handhelds, Linux and adds value for everyone, even non-Steam users.
They're growing the pie for all.
The Rivals' Strategy: Competing by Buying
Now, the "competition."
Epic Games Store started as anti-Steam, better for devs. But how do they compete? Not with a better launcher. It's still missing basics Steam had years ago.
Epic competes by buying.
- Buying Exclusives: They pay devs millions to keep games off Steam for months or a year. Opposite of Valve. Valve adds choice (Linux), Epic takes it away (force their store).
- Funding Lawsuits: It's not David vs. Goliath; it's competition via courts.
Not real competition. It's forcing a walled garden. Gaining share by removing your choices, not winning with a better product.
The Principled Competitor: GOG
Then there's GOG. They stand out with DRM-free everything.
Great idea, valuable alternative. Loyal fans for a reason. But as a Steam rival, they struggle. Why? Their launcher sucks, honestly.
GOG shows a truth: Good principles help, but not enough against a solid, feature-rich platform like Steam.
Other Competitors: Fragmenting the Market
Let's not forget the rest: EA Play, Ubisoft Connect, Battle.net, and more.
These aren't standalone stores. They're publisher-owned launchers. EA Play for EA games, Ubisoft for Ubisoft titles. You need them for specific games, but they don't offer much else.
The problem? They fragment everything. To play diverse games, you juggle multiple launchers. Each has its own interface, bugs, and updates.
Not competition. More like walled gardens for their ecosystems. They don't build broad platforms; they gatekeep their stuff.
Steam stands out by uniting everything under one roof.
Conclusion
Yeah, Steam is a "monopoly" by share. But it's a harmless one. They keep earning with the best platform.
The UK suit and dev gripes focus on fees and power, missing the big picture. What's best for gamers? The company building hardware and opening OSes? Or the one buying exclusives and locking games away?
Easy to see who's better for us.