Valve responds to the monopoly lawsuit and defends the distribution of 30% of Steam
They accused him of using his dominant position to impose “abusive fees” on developers.
The 30% rate that Valve requires of developers who want to sell their video games on Steam has been controversial for many years and, just a few months ago, also a reason for the creators of the Humble Bundle to file an antitrust lawsuit against Valve .
30% has become ‘the industry standard’ValveIn it they assured that “to afford to pay this 30% commission to Valve, publishers raise the price to consumers and have fewer resources to invest in innovation and creation.” They also charged against the measure that requires games on Steam to have the same price as in other stores, which prevents offering cheaper games on other platforms where the commission is less than 30%.
Valve notes that “under antitrust law they are not required to allow developers to use free Steam keys to lower the prices of games they sell on Steam, or to provide Steam keys at all.” The company also defends its 30% commission . “Plaintiffs can only adduce a generalization that economics predicts Valve’s 30% rate should decline over time. In fact, 30% has become ‘the industry standard’, as Valve has grappled with to some of the biggest companies in the video game industry, including Microsoft, Epic Games and Amazon. “
They attack a popular service that consumers valueValveCertainly the 30% rate has been a standard in the video game industry, but in recent times more and more companies have reduced that commission. Apple lowered it to 15% at the end of 2020 and Microsoft went even further, lowering the Microsoft Store commission to 12% . But there is more, because a recent survey highlighted the general impression of the developers, and they think that the 30% rate is unfair .
Another interesting point in Valve’s response has to do with its position in the market. Wolfire points out that by occupying a dominant position with 75% market share, Valve exercises monopolistic policies, but the company behind Steam claims that this claim “is devoid of evidence.” He does not deny that it is true, but states that the claim does not have enough data to support it. “The plaintiffs are not alleging unlawful conduct, monopoly damage or market power … rather they attack a popular service that consumers value in a competitive market.”
