Steam controls the PC gaming storefront space in a way few platforms in any industry can match. Around 42 million players are active on it at any given moment, and its user base has grown 60% over the last five years. So when antitrust lawyers start asking pointed questions, Gabe Newell has some explaining to do.
Deposition transcripts from an ongoing antitrust lawsuit against Valve surfaced this week, revealing Newell's direct response to monopoly accusations. His position is straightforward: players aren't trapped anywhere.
"Customers have enormous choice," Newell said in the deposition, pointing to Xbox, the Epic Games Store, and direct developer sales as alternatives that PC and console players can freely use. "Where they purchase their products, whether they buy the game on an Xbox, whether they buy it on Steam, whether they buy it on Epic Games Store or whether they buy it directly from software developers."
Get up to 80% off games only on GAMES.GG
Exclusive Discounts on Games
What the antitrust case actually alleges
The lawsuit doesn't just argue that Steam is big. The core accusation is that Valve actively discourages publishers from offering cheaper prices on competing storefronts, effectively using its dominance to suppress competition rather than just outpace it.
Publishers like Ubisoft and Warner Bros. Interactive have reportedly been on the receiving end of this pressure, with allegations that Valve threatened to delist titles from Steam when cheaper alternatives appeared elsewhere. That's a meaningfully different claim than simply being the most popular store.
Newell pushed back on this directly. His deposition states that Valve "does not have a policy or practice of dictating prices to third-party software developers on other platforms," and that partners and customers are "quite happy with the service" being provided.
The antitrust lawsuit is ongoing. No findings have been made against Valve, and the company has denied all allegations of wrongdoing.
The Epic comparison that never quite landed
Here's the thing: the argument that players have choice is technically accurate, but it glosses over why alternatives have struggled to gain real traction.
Epic launched its store in 2018 with an 88% revenue share for developers, a direct shot at Steam's 70/30 split. It spent over $11 million offering free games to pull players away from Valve's platform. Years later, Steam's position hasn't meaningfully shifted. The Epic Games Store has a library and a user base, but it hasn't converted the majority of PC gamers away from their default habits.
Choice existing and choice being exercised at scale are two different things. That gap is exactly what the plaintiffs in the antitrust case are pointing at.
A year of legal pressure for Valve
The antitrust deposition is just one front. Valve has been navigating a stacked legal calendar through 2026. A UK tribunal approved a collective action lawsuit worth approximately $901 million in January, targeting the same monopoly concerns. In February, New York Attorney General Letitia James filed a separate lawsuit over loot box mechanics in Counter-Strike 2, alleging illegal gambling promotion. April brought an Australian government transparency notice demanding Valve detail its child safety systems on the Steam platform.
That's four significant legal actions across three countries inside six months. The sheer volume signals that regulators globally are paying close attention to how Valve operates, not just one jurisdiction taking a swing.
For players who rely on Steam daily, none of this directly changes the experience right now. But if any of these cases produce rulings that force structural changes to how Steam prices, lists, or restricts games, the downstream effects on what you pay and where you can buy could be real.
Keep an eye on the antitrust case in particular. It's the one with the most direct implications for how the PC gaming storefront space functions. For broader context on the games and platforms caught up in these disputes, check out our game reviews and gaming guides for the latest coverage as the situation develops.
