Epic Boss Tim Sweeney Backs £656 Million Steam Lawsuit Against Valve

Tim Sweeney never misses a chance to take a swing at Valve.

The Epic Games chief executive has publicly backed the £656 million lawsuit against Valve that's moving forward in the UK. Digital rights campaigner Vicki Shotbolt filed the case in 2024, representing up to 14 million British gamers who allegedly overpaid for titles on Steam since 2018.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal ruled this week the collective action claim meets the legal threshold to proceed to trial. Valve had fought to block it.

Sweeney jumped on social media to voice his support. His argument centres on one specific complaint about Steam's policies.

"Steam's rules do explicitly prohibit games from steering players to competing purchase methods, forcing everyone to pay 30% to Valve" Sweeney posted. "Apple and Google did the same until the court explicitly found this practice to be unlawful."

The Epic boss wasn't finished there. He doubled down with more pointed criticism.

"Today, in the USA, developers are free to steer users of iOS and Android apps to competing purchase methods. Apple and Google collect 0% on those transactions. On computers and smartphones, Valve is the only major store still holding onto the payments tie and 30% junk fee."

That phrase "junk fee" appears deliberate. Sweeney knows how to generate headlines.

What the lawsuit actually claims

Shotbolt's case makes broad allegations about Valve's market position. The complaint argues Steam prevents publishers from offering games at lower prices on competing platforms. Add-on content purchased on Steam must go through Valve's payment system.

Those requirements allegedly inflate prices for consumers whilst maintaining Valve's dominance.

Valve has countered by pointing to Steam key resellers. Publishers sell keys through other retailers without paying Valve a cut. The company argues this proves alternative purchase methods exist.

The tribunal wasn't convinced that defence held water at this early stage.

Steam's actual policies state publishers should offer Steam customers "a comparable offer within a reasonable amount of time" if they run discounts elsewhere. Whether that constitutes anticompetitive behaviour remains to be tested at trial.

Epic's long war with platform holders

Sweeney's comments shouldn't surprise anyone following the gaming industry.

Epic has spent years fighting Apple and Google over similar issues. The company sued both tech giants in 2020 after Fortnite got booted from their app stores.

Epic had introduced a direct payment option in Fortnite that bypassed Apple's 30% cut and Google's fee structure. Both companies removed the game within hours.

The legal battles produced mixed results. Epic largely lost against Apple in 2021, though the court did rule Apple couldn't prohibit developers from linking to external payment methods. Apple won nine of ten counts.

Google fared worse. A jury found the tech giant had engaged in anticompetitive conduct through deals that maintained Google Play's dominance. The December 2023 verdict sided unanimously with Epic.

Those victories explain why Sweeney feels emboldened to challenge Valve now. He sees the same patterns.

The in-game purchase argument

Sweeney focuses specifically on in-game transactions rather than base game purchases.

His analogy gets repeated across his posts. "What the court found is: after you've bought a game, the store can't force all in-game commerce between you and the developer to go through them with 30% junk fees. It's like a car dealership demanding 30% of petrol purchases."

Some pushed back by citing games like GTA Online and Final Fantasy XIV. Both titles on Steam use external payment systems for in-game purchases.

Sweeney clarified the distinction. Those external shops aren't linked within the game clients themselves. Players must find them outside the game. That's the crucial difference according to Epic's interpretation.

Steam requires developers to use its microtransaction API for all in-game purchases accessible through the game interface. Valve takes its 30% cut on those transactions.

Several developers responded to the discussion claiming Steam had rejected their games for including links to services like Ko-Fi or Patreon.

Epic's track record on this issue

Back in 2019, Sweeney made a bold promise. If Steam dropped its revenue share to 12%, he'd stop pursuing Epic Games Store exclusives and consider putting Fortnite on the platform.

The Epic Games Store launched that same year with its 12% cut. Epic spent over a billion quid securing exclusive releases to compete with Steam's market dominance.

Those exclusivity deals produced mixed results. Major titles like Borderlands 3 performed well. Smaller games struggled without Steam's built-in audience.

Epic's store remains unprofitable according to testimony from Steve Allison who runs the platform. Steam maintains its position as the market leader for PC game distribution.

That commercial reality probably fuels Sweeney's continued attacks on Valve's policies.

What happens next

The UK lawsuit now proceeds to the evidence-gathering phase. The Competition Appeal Tribunal will issue directions for case management and disclosure.

A full trial likely won't happen for several years. These cases move slowly through the legal system.

Valve also faces a separate consumer lawsuit in the United States filed in August 2024. Developers Wolfire Studios and Dark Catt Studios have been suing over Steam's 30% cut since 2021.

The UK case seeks compensation for 14 million Steam users. If Shotbolt wins, affected consumers could receive between £22 and £44 each.

Public opinion appears split on the merits. One poll showed 84% of respondents don't believe Valve's practices qualify as anticompetitive. But tribunals don't decide cases based on popularity contests.

The industry is slowly trending away from the 30% standard. Microsoft offers better terms for certain developers. Even Apple and Google have introduced reduced rates for qualifying apps following legal pressure.

Sweeney will keep pushing this issue regardless of public sentiment. He's built Epic's entire competitive strategy around challenging what he calls excessive platform fees.

Whether courts ultimately side with that argument remains uncertain. But the Epic boss has demonstrated willingness to spend enormous sums pursuing the principle.

Valve has kept quiet beyond standard legal responses. The company rarely comments publicly on pending litigation.

Steam's dominance stems partly from being first to market and partly from the features it offers. The platform provides far more than just game downloads. Cloud saves, workshop integration, friend lists, achievements, community features all contribute to its stickiness.

Epic Games Store still lacks many of those quality-of-life features six years after launch. That gap makes it harder to argue consumers would flock to competitors if only the revenue split changed.

The lawsuit could force meaningful changes to how digital storefronts operate. Or it might fizzle out during discovery when Shotbolt's legal team struggles to prove anticompetitive harm.

Either way, Tim Sweeney just guaranteed he'll have plenty to say about the outcome.