This just in, the Chinese steal corporate secrets and trade marks....lol. Companies around the world have been screaming about it for 30 years....it would be hilarious if Trump and Blizzard were finally the ones to seek redress :)

@Jinzo_111887: When Sony prevents God of War from coming to any other platform than PS4 are they "acting like a monopoly"? How about when Xbox prevents Gears of War 5 from going to PS4? Or what about timed exclusives? What about when Burger King prevents McDonalds from selling Whoppers? Exclusivity, timed or otherwise, exists in every industry in existence; it's a large part of how businesses compete. Monopolies exist in 1 of 3 ways...either the inputs are scarce and controlled by 1 entity (rare earth type scenario), gov'ts force it on an industry (old-timey telephone, power, etc.) or 1 company, for any number of reasons, gains enough market share that they can effectively shut out competitors through pricing or simple reach (Google, Facebook, etc.). Steam's existing business model is the 3rd form of monopoly currently; they can charge monopolistic prices as they are the Google of PC gaming sales. Does Google have competitors? Absolutely, but they are not relevant to advertisers because of Google's dominance. Epic is trying to dent Steam's dominance, not act like a monopoly. In other industries where the distributor was also the manufacturer (most industries) the company could simply lower their prices to the public, which would lure buyers; but Epic cannot force the pubs to lower their prices even by taking less of the sale price. Their only alternative, in the short-run, is seek limited exclusivity as a distributor. That's NOT acting like a monopoly, that's acting like a competitive business in a competitive marketplace.

@gargungulunk: Fair enough and it is entirely plausible that Epic is using some of their Fortnite fortune to subsidize their efforts to gain some market share from the behemoth that is Steam. Given that most of these companies are small and private it is hard to know the exact profitability, but it is a very safe assumption that Steam's 30% is excessive in a competitive marketplace. That said, given the anger seen by the Steam fanboys over having to use a separate (and many argue inferior) launcher, it is no wonder Steam feels entitled to monopolistic pricing. In any event, what is guaranteed here is that Steam will lower their pricing or be out of business inside 2 years.

@gargungulunk: Kind of a non-sequitor. I think few would argue that publishing costs have not decreased with the ability to sell there products digitally vs. physically, but that would not be relevant with respect to this story. Whether the pubs costs are lower or not due to digital distribution would not change that Steam charges the pubs 30% of the revenue and Epic charges 12%. Of note would be that even when selling physically with the additional costs, undoubtedly the sellers charged somewhere around Epics price of 12% given that pubs could sell through so many different mediums.....Gamestop, Walmart, Amazon, etc.....far too competitive for anyone to charge monopolistic pricing.

@Richardthe3rd: I've read the whole story a few times now to try to ascertain what biased information you are referencing; they are reporting what other publishers have publicly stated; that is called news (I understand it is shocking to see GS doing that) and I am uncertain how it is biased? The facts are pretty clear, Steam is the market leader for PC video game sales; they charge pubs 30% of the sale price to sell through them; that appears to be monopolistic pricing that Xbox and PS can and do charge; pubs are stating that is unrealistic as they can sell their games through other mediums such as Epic who charge much less. Thems the facts.....how is that biased?

@pankypops: lol....your post makes literally, zero sense. The OP is attempting to say that Steam is pricing themselves as if they were a monopoly, which they are not. Xbox and Sony can afford to price themselves that way as they are monopolies if you play in their ecosystems. If you game on PC you have a bunch of options for buying and launching your games. Epic is charging far, far less than Steam and yet you think they are acting like a "monopoly".....monopolies don't charge less for their services....but maybe I'm mistaken as you claim to know what monopoly means....tell the truth, you think it's a board game don't ya?

@southsouthsac: I would assume it is very close to what Steam charges; however, Xbox and PS are closed ecosystems, with no possible way to compete with them currently (Steam is pricing themselves as if they are the only distribution channel into PC, which clearly ain't true). Add in the fact that the console software market is the largest profit center for AA/AAA game devs, w/o the ability to pirate their games and paying 30% to them is reasonable.