Valve’s Steam has completely dominated PC game distribution for nearly two decades. Now a new study puts hard numbers on what most people already suspected. According to a whitepaper published by PC distribution platform Rokky, 72% of game developers and industry executives believe Steam operates as a monopoly on the PC market. The survey of 306 senior-level managers from studios across the UK and US conducted in May 2025 reveals not just developer sentiment, but the financial reality that makes Steam feel unavoidable.
The Numbers That Tell Steam’s Story
The most damning statistic isn’t the 72% monopoly belief. It’s that 88% of surveyed developers say Steam accounts for over 75% of their PC revenue. Even more telling, 37% of respondents reported that Steam makes up over 90% of their revenue. That means for more than a third of game studios, losing Steam access would essentially destroy their business. No other PC storefront comes close to that level of importance.
When you control three-quarters of revenue for nearly everyone developing for your platform, you have leverage that most monopolies would envy. Developers aren’t forced to use Steam technically, but economically, they often feel like they have no choice. The survey also noted that 53% of developers expressed concern about their reliance on Steam, suggesting even those who use the platform acknowledge the risk of depending so heavily on a single distributor.
The Alternative Storefronts Nobody Really Uses
Steam’s competition exists on paper. The Epic Games Store has been around for years and backs developers with millions in funding and exclusive deals. The Xbox PC Games store offers incentives. GOG serves a niche audience. Itch.io hosts thousands of indie games. But in reality, most developers treat these as secondary options at best.
According to the survey, only 48% of developers have ever distributed a game through the Epic Games Store or Xbox PC store. GOG appeared in just 10% of responses, while Itch.io barely registered at 8%. Even more revealing, developers view the combined revenue from all alternative platforms as negligible. For most studios, even when they release on multiple storefronts, Steam provides the vast majority of sales. Throwing a game on Epic or GOG is more about risk mitigation than genuine opportunity. It’s backup insurance, not a real alternative.
Is It Actually a Monopoly Though
Here’s where the debate gets thorny. Analysts like Mat Piscatella from Circana have publicly argued that calling Steam a monopoly is technically incorrect. His point is valid from an economic standpoint. A true monopoly requires three things: a single seller with no substitutes, barriers to entry preventing competition, and the ability to charge excessively high prices because customers have no alternatives.
Steam doesn’t technically meet all those criteria. Substitutes exist. Epic Games Store, GOG, and others are available. Anyone can theoretically launch a storefront. Valve’s 30% revenue cut is standard across the industry, not exorbitant. You could make an argument that Steam’s dominance reflects its superior user experience and features rather than malicious monopolistic behavior.
But that’s also missing the point. While Steam might not be a textbook monopoly by strict economic definition, Piscatella himself suggests the conversation should focus on Valve’s “oligopolistic power” given the enormous barriers to entry in storefront distribution. That’s a more accurate framing. Steam doesn’t have a monopoly on PC gaming. It has overwhelming market dominance that makes it functionally monopolistic from a developer’s perspective.
Why Nobody’s Successfully Challenged Steam
Epic spent billions trying to compete with Steam. Former Amazon executive Ethan Evans revealed that Amazon tried and quietly failed to build a Steam competitor, concluding that “gamers already had the solution.” The issue isn’t legal barriers. It’s practical ones. Steam built its dominance through years of investment in features, community tools, workshop integration, controller support, cloud saves, Proton compatibility, and countless other conveniences that developers and players depend on.
You can’t just launch a better storefront and expect it to work. You need to convince millions of players to move their libraries, friends lists, and shopping habits. You need to convince developers that diversifying to your platform is worth the development time. Steam achieved something that competitors struggle with: network effects. The more people on Steam, the more valuable it becomes for both players and developers, which makes everyone else’s job harder.
What Developers Actually Want
Interestingly, the survey suggests developers aren’t necessarily calling for Steam’s breakup or government intervention. What they want is options. When asked about the future, 80% of developers said they expect to use alternative distribution channels as a regular part of their strategy within five years. That’s optimism about future competition, not resignation to Steam’s dominance.
Developers recognize value in Steam but want alternatives to actually be viable. The problem isn’t that Steam is too good. The problem is that everyone else is too far behind. If Epic, GOG, or a new storefront could capture 25% of PC game sales, that would genuinely give developers strategic choice. But we’re nowhere close to that reality.
The Controversy Around the Study
It’s worth noting that the survey was commissioned by Rokky, a new PC distribution platform trying to connect publishers with various storefronts. Asking developers whether Steam has a monopoly when you’re trying to establish yourself as an alternative distribution solution is like asking people whether their phones are too locked down while pitching your new sideload app store. The bias is obvious, even if the data is accurate.
That said, the numbers themselves are verifiable and tell a consistent story. Whether you call it a monopoly or market dominance, the fundamental issue remains. Developers rely too heavily on one platform, they’re aware of that risk, and they’d prefer alternatives that actually work.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Steam actually have a monopoly?
Technically no. A true monopoly requires a single seller with no substitutes and barriers preventing competition. Steam has competitors like Epic Games Store, GOG, and others. However, Steam’s 75%+ revenue share for most developers gives it overwhelming market dominance that functions like a monopoly in practice.
Who conducted this survey?
Atomik Research conducted the independent survey of 306 industry executives in the UK and US during May 2025. The results were published by Rokky, a PC distribution platform company seeking to connect developers with multiple storefronts.
Is Rokky’s survey biased?
Potentially, since Rokky commissioned the survey as a competing distribution platform. However, the financial data about Steam’s revenue share appears accurate and verified by other industry observers.
What percentage of developers use alternatives to Steam?
48% have distributed through the Epic Games Store or Xbox PC store, 10% use GOG, and 8% use Itch.io. Most treat these as secondary channels contributing minimal revenue.
Why can’t Epic Games Store compete with Steam?
Epic spent billions and still failed to significantly dent Steam’s dominance. The barriers are network effects: players have existing libraries, friends, and habits on Steam, making the switching cost too high. Developers face the same problem.
Do developers want Steam broken up?
The survey doesn’t indicate that. Developers want viable alternatives, not Steam’s destruction. 80% expect alternative platforms to form regular distribution channels within five years, suggesting they want competition, not monopoly termination.
What’s Valve’s response to these findings?
Valve has not publicly commented on this specific survey. The company generally argues that Steam’s dominance reflects superior features and user experience rather than monopolistic behavior.
Could Microsoft’s Xbox PC store replace Steam?
Unlikely, despite Microsoft’s resources. The Xbox app still hasn’t achieved significant traction despite years of development and integration with Game Pass. The same network effect problems plague any competitor.
Conclusion
Whether Steam is technically a monopoly might be an academic debate, but the practical reality is undeniable. Valve controls PC game distribution to a degree that leaves developers uncomfortable and dependent. The 72% figure isn’t shocking because most industry observers already knew this situation existed. What’s notable is developers are publicly acknowledging it now through a formal survey. The bigger question isn’t whether Steam should be regulated as a monopoly. It’s whether the industry can successfully build alternatives that give developers genuine strategic choice rather than Steam as the only viable option. The survey suggests developers believe that’s possible within five years. Whether that optimism proves justified will define the next chapter of PC gaming distribution.