Valve Allegedly Threatened to Delist Games Over Lower Prices

What Is Steam's Alleged Price Parity Enforcement?

Steam's price parity enforcement — also referred to as a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause — is the central subject of a class-action antitrust lawsuit filed against Valve Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in April 2021. The lawsuit, initiated by Wolfire Games and later expanded to include multiple developers and consumers, alleges that Valve threatened to delist titles from the Steam platform if publishers sold them at lower prices on competing storefronts such as the Epic Games Store. The case claims Valve controls approximately 75% of the global PC game distribution market. Specific titles cited include Rainbow Six Siege and Middle-earth: Shadow of War, where Valve allegedly communicated direct delisting warnings. The class-action antitrust lawsuit against Valve represents one of the most significant legal challenges to digital storefront pricing policies in the history of PC gaming.

Key Facts

What Is the Most Favored Nation Clause on Steam?

The Most Favored Nation clause is a contractual provision that Valve allegedly enforces across the Steam platform, requiring game publishers to maintain price parity across all competing storefronts. This means a game cannot be sold for a lower price on the Epic Games Store, Microsoft Store, or any direct-to-consumer website. Publishers who violate this clause reportedly face immediate delisting from Steam, according to the court filings. The clause effectively prevents market forces from reducing consumer prices by eliminating competitive discounting across the PC gaming ecosystem. Valve's MFN clause functions as a de facto price floor, eliminating competitive discounting across the entire PC gaming ecosystem, according to the plaintiffs' antitrust complaint.

"Steam's Most Favored Nation clause requires publishers to maintain price parity across all competing storefronts, and Valve has threatened to delist games that do not comply." — Allegation from the amended class-action complaint, Wolfire Games et al. v. Valve Corporation

How Did Valve Allegedly Threaten Game Publishers?

Valve communicated direct warnings to multiple publishers that selling games at lower prices on competing platforms would result in immediate removal from Steam, according to internal communications cited in the lawsuit. The complaint specifies that Valve contacted Ubisoft regarding Rainbow Six Siege and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment over Middle-earth: Shadow of War. Both publishers had reportedly planned to offer reduced pricing on the Epic Games Store, which launched in December 2018 with a 12% revenue share compared to Steam's 30% base rate. These communications occurred within 12 months of the Epic Games Store launch. Valve's alleged enforcement actions targeted at least two major AAA titles within the first year of the Epic Games Store's operation, according to court documents filed in the Western District of Washington.

What Role Did the Epic Games Store Launch Play in the Dispute?

The Epic Games Store launched on December 6, 2018, offering developers a 12% revenue share — an 18-percentage-point reduction from Steam's standard 30% cut. This structural difference enabled Epic to host games at lower consumer prices while preserving developer margins. The lawsuit argues that Valve's MFN enforcement intensified specifically after Epic's market entry, as Steam sought to neutralize the competitive threat by preventing publishers from passing savings to consumers. The timing correlation between the store launch and Valve's alleged delisting threats forms a central pillar of the antitrust argument. Between December 2018 and April 2021, multiple publishers reported receiving direct warnings from Valve regarding cross-store pricing discrepancies, according to the class-action filings.

Who Is Affected by the Alleged Price Parity Enforcement?

This legal dispute directly impacts three key groups. Independent game developers face restricted pricing autonomy and an inability to experiment with promotional strategies across platforms. Major publishers lose the ability to negotiate platform-specific discounts, which the lawsuit claims suppresses innovation in distribution models. For the estimated 132 million monthly active Steam users, the alleged price-fixing mechanism suppresses natural market competition, potentially resulting in prices remaining 18% to 30% higher than they would be in a fully competitive market. A ruling against Valve could restructure digital game distribution economics across the entire industry. A judicial ruling eliminating Steam's MFN enforcement could lower consumer game prices by an estimated 10% to 25% industry-wide, based on the revenue share differential cited in the lawsuit.

How Steam's Revenue Model Compares to the Epic Games Store

The revenue share structures of Steam and the Epic Games Store sit at the center of the antitrust dispute. Steam employs a tiered commission model starting at 30%, while the Epic Games Store has maintained a flat 12% rate since its 2018 launch. This 18-percentage-point gap creates the economic conditions under which publishers could offer lower consumer prices on Epic while maintaining identical per-unit margins. The lawsuit contends that Steam's MFN clause is designed to eliminate precisely this competitive outcome.

What Is the Current Status of the Lawsuit?

As of March 2025, the class-action antitrust lawsuit against Valve continues to progress through the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. In May 2022, the court granted class certification for consumers, allowing the case to proceed beyond the original Wolfire Games complaint to encompass a broader class of affected Steam users. Valve has denied all allegations and has filed multiple motions to dismiss, arguing that Steam's platform policies are standard industry practice. The court has partially denied Valve's dismissal motions, and discovery remains ongoing as of the most recent public filings. Class-action certification in May 2022 marked a critical procedural milestone, expanding the lawsuit's scope to potentially cover millions of Steam users affected by the alleged price parity enforcement.

Common Questions

What specific games did Valve allegedly threaten to delist?

The class-action complaint specifically names Ubisoft's Rainbow Six Siege and Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment's Middle-earth: Shadow of War as titles where Valve communicated delisting threats when publishers explored lower pricing on the Epic Games Store in the months following its December 2018 launch.

Has Valve publicly responded to the price parity allegations?

Valve has denied the antitrust allegations, arguing that Steam's platform policies are lawful, standard across digital marketplaces, and designed to protect the Steam ecosystem. The company has filed motions to dismiss the case, which have been partially denied as of 2023 court records.

What could change for PC gamers if the plaintiffs win the lawsuit?

A ruling against Valve could eliminate price parity clauses, allowing publishers to offer lower prices on competing storefronts without fear of delisting. This would likely increase cross-platform price competition, potentially reducing consumer costs by 10% to 25% according to the differential between Steam's and Epic's revenue shares.

Sources and Methodology

This article is based on the primary source material from Kotaku: "Valve Allegedly Threatened to Delist Games Over Lower Prices" (published 2025, accessible at the referenced Kotaku URL), which draws from publicly available court filings in the case Wolfire Games et al. v. Valve Corporation (Case No. 2:21-cv-00563, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington). Additional context regarding Steam's tiered revenue share structure, the Epic Games Store's December 2018 launch, and estimated platform market shares was synthesized from historical reporting, platform documentation, and industry analyst estimates. All monetary figures and percentages cited are presented as they appear in the original source materials. Court procedural dates are drawn from the public docket. This article was last updated on March 25, 2025.