Valve "played capitalism so well they broke it" and now Steam can't be replaced

Former Epic Games principal animation engineer Kiaran Ritchie argues that Steam’s 30% sales commission persists because developers need access to its enormous audience, not simply its distribution tools. In his view, PC studios have little practical choice: selling elsewhere risks missing most potential customers, while the fee diverts substantial revenue from game development. He says Valve could reduce its cut and still remain profitable. His comments followed a debate over whether a Steam alternative could be built quickly, and Epic CEO Tim Sweeney’s claim that Valve has held PC gaming back.

Ritchie’s broader point is that Steam’s dominance is sustained by users as well as its market reach. He argues that even a platform that was objectively better would not interest many committed Steam users, who often disparage rival stores rather than support competition. That loyalty, he says, helps maintain a stalemate that ultimately harms developers and the wider games industry by limiting the resources available for making games. He calls Valve’s success an instance of capitalism pushed to an extreme and doubts the situation can be fixed. The piece also notes that Steam’s overall quality and user base make it difficult to dislodge; a Newzoo market-intelligence director says its independence from public shareholders further complicates any challenge to its position.