Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is taking aim at Steam’s business practices just as Valve faces growing scrutiny in the UK. The company is currently dealing with a £656 million class-action lawsuit focused on Steam’s pricing structure and commission model, putting renewed attention on how the world’s biggest PC game storefront makes its money.
The latest debate flared up after Epic Games senior programmer Ryan Fleury weighed in on Valve’s widely discussed 30% transaction fee. Fleury argued that Steam’s cut is tied to the years Valve has spent building a feature-rich platform that benefits developers and players alike. From community tools and distribution infrastructure to updates and discoverability features, he believes Steam has earned its position by offering services many developers rely on, often without extra charges. In his view, if studios feel the fee is too steep, the solution is competition: build a better or cheaper storefront, rather than asking governments to step in.
Sweeney disagreed, saying the controversy isn’t only about the headline commission rate. His bigger complaint is what he describes as Steam’s restrictive payment rules. According to Sweeney, Steam prevents games from directing players to alternative purchase options for in-game content, which effectively locks developers into using Steam’s payment system. That means Valve can take a cut not just when a game is sold, but every time a player spends money inside that game.
To explain why he sees this as a serious issue, Sweeney compared Steam’s approach to the old rules on major mobile platforms. For years, Apple and Google required developers to route in-app purchases through their payment systems and pay a percentage on each transaction. After court rulings challenged that model, developers gained the ability to direct users to other payment methods on iOS and Android, allowing purchases where Apple and Google take no cut.
Sweeney argues that, in today’s market, Steam stands out as the only major PC game storefront still enforcing a rule that keeps developers from steering customers to other payment systems. While he accepts that a store can take a fee for selling a game, he says it’s unreasonable to demand a percentage of all future in-game spending as well.
He summed up the point with a simple analogy: buying a car should not mean you owe the dealership 30% of every fuel purchase for the rest of the car’s life. In his view, charging a commission for distribution is one thing; taking a continuing cut from ongoing in-game transactions because alternative payment options are blocked is another.
With Valve already under legal pressure over pricing and commissions, Sweeney’s comments add fresh fuel to a debate that matters to PC gamers and developers alike: what’s a fair platform fee, what counts as anti-competitive behavior, and how much control a digital storefront should have over a game’s future revenue.
