Valve allegedly used its dominance of PC gaming to punish publishers who dared undercut prices on their own platforms, according to newly surfaced evidence from an ongoing antitrust lawsuit. The company threatened to remove Rainbow Six Siege from Steam unless Ubisoft killed a cheaper starter pack on its UPlay store.
The threat came in response to Ubisoft offering the tactical shooter for $15 on UPlay while the Steam version commanded a higher price. Internal emails presented in court show Valve employees warning the publisher that Rainbow Six Siege would vanish from Steam "by end of day tomorrow" if the pricing discrepancy wasn't fixed. No documentation exists suggesting the delisting actually occurred, but the ultimatum itself paints a stark picture of Valve's leverage over the industry.
The incident represents one of multiple cases where Valve allegedly flexed its marketplace muscle against publishers. Warner Bros. Interactive discovered this the hard way in 2017 when Steam business team member Kassidy Gerber stripped pre-orders for Middle-earth: Shadow of War from the platform. Her stated reason: the game cost substantially more on Steam than elsewhere. The company's president called Valve within hours to negotiate a resolution.
Gerber's deposition testimony during the lawsuit reveals how Valve maintains these enforcement mechanisms while avoiding formal language. When asked about pricing parity policies, she downplayed the existence of any official rules. "I don't really know what you mean by 'policy'," she testified. "In general, I don't feel like we have a lot of policies." When confronted with her own prior statements contradicting this position, Gerber claimed not to remember.
The pattern documented in the litigation suggests Valve operates an informal but effective system for controlling how games are priced across the digital landscape. By threatening delisting, the company can effectively force publishers into pricing alignment without committing the pressure to official policy. Steam's 75 percent market share in PC digital distribution gives Valve extraordinary power in these negotiations. Few publishers can afford to lose access to the platform regardless of the circumstances.
These revelations add fuel to multiple legal challenges facing Valve in 2024 and 2025. The company faced a $900 million monopoly lawsuit, while New York Attorney General Letitia James pursued separate action over the company's loot box practices. Valve filed responses to those cases throughout the first half of 2025, but the pricing control allegations suggest the company's conduct extends far beyond the specific complaints in those suits.
The evidence raises fundamental questions about how digital storefronts should operate in competitive markets. When a single platform controls three-quarters of the market, does it have the right to enforce pricing across competitors? The lawsuit documents suggest Valve believed it did, and acted accordingly.
Author Emily Chen: "These emails show Valve didn't just benefit from being dominant, it aggressively protected that dominance whenever it felt threatened."
Comments