Epic Games CEO renews criticism of Steam’s market power
Tim Sweeney says Valve’s Steam ecosystem has held PC gaming back, renewing Epic Games’ long-running criticism of the platform.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has renewed his criticism of Valve, arguing that Steam’s dominance and the technology surrounding it have held PC gaming back. His comments followed a separate criticism of Valve’s 30% revenue share from former Epic principal animation programmer Kiaran Ritchie. 1
Ritchie described the cut as a “30% tax on gross revenue” and argued that developers could build an alternative to Steam quickly, although he also acknowledged that Steam’s remaining advantage is its network. Sweeney then broadened the argument beyond the store’s commission, claiming that Valve locks PC games into Steamworks’ social walled garden. 1
Sweeney specifically pointed to the difficulty of players communicating across Steam, mobile, console and competing PC storefront ecosystems. That claim is more complicated than the broadside suggests: the Steamworks documentation cited alongside the comments says Steam Datagram Relay can be used by games that launch on other platforms, not only within a purely Steam-only audience. 1
Why this matters
The dispute reflects a long-running argument about who should control PC distribution. Steam remains the dominant storefront for many PC players, while Epic Games Store has spent years trying to prise open that position through lower revenue shares, exclusives and developer incentives. Sweeney’s latest comments therefore land as both an industry argument and a familiar competitive jab from one of Valve’s most visible rivals. 1
The practical question is not simply whether Steam’s 30% share is too high. Developers also weigh the store’s audience, discovery tools, social features, achievements, cloud saves and established infrastructure. An alternative can offer a cheaper commission and still struggle to reproduce the network effects that make Steam valuable in the first place.
Our opinion
Sweeney is right that distribution fees deserve scrutiny, but “held gaming back” is too sweeping to carry the whole argument. Steam’s market power can make experimentation harder, yet Proton and the Steam Deck have also helped push PC gaming beyond Windows. The strongest case for competition is not that Steam has contributed nothing; it is that developers and players should have credible alternatives without losing the features that made the platform useful.
The latest comments are best read as pressure on Valve rather than proof that a replacement is ready. Until another storefront can match Steam’s reach and ecosystem, the market will keep rewarding convenience even when developers dislike the price of entry.