Steam competition faces a bigger obstacle than launcher quality, according to former Epic Games engineer Kiaran Ritchie: convincing players to leave a platform they already want to use. Steam, Valve’s PC game store and launcher, lets users buy, download, and manage games in one place. In comments covered by gaming publications on November 2–3, 2026, Ritchie argued that developers accept Valve’s standard 30% share mainly to reach its audience. His remarks raise questions about competing stores, developer costs, and what would actually persuade players to switch.
Former Epic Games principal animation engineer Kiaran Ritchie argues that Steam’s audience is harder to compete with than its software.
His comments describe a personal view, not an official Epic Games announcement or a proven prediction.
Steam’s standard revenue share is 30%, with lower rates on earnings above specific thresholds.
The central issue is whether another store can give players a strong enough reason to change their buying habits.
Ritchie’s argument is not simply that rival launchers need better features. He believes Steam has become so deeply established that improving the software would still leave a competing store facing the same problem: attracting its users.
What Kiaran Ritchie Said About Steam Competition
Ritchie, a former principal animation engineer at Epic Games, questioned the idea that developers primarily pay Valve for the technical services Steam provides.
He argued that the more important benefit is access to customers. As quoted in the coverage, developers are paying “to get access to the massive Steam userbase.”
That distinction sits at the center of his criticism. A company could build a capable store, reduce its fees, and offer useful developer tools. However, those improvements would not automatically bring buyers with them.
Ritchie also argued that developers risk losing a large portion of potential sales by avoiding Steam. That is his assessment of the platform’s importance, rather than evidence that every game would experience the same result.
His most widely shared line summed up his view of Valve’s position:
“Kudos to Valve. They played Capitalism so well they broke it.”
The remark is a criticism of how difficult he believes meaningful competition has become. It is not a legal finding about Valve or proof that another PC store can never succeed.
These Are Personal Comments, Not an Epic Announcement
Ritchie’s previous job provides context, but it does not make his comments an official statement from Epic Games.
The story concerns a former employee’s assessment of the PC gaming market. It does not announce a change to the Epic Games Store, a new Valve policy, or a confirmed response from either company.
As of November 2026, the reporting discussed here centers on his argument about Steam’s position not a newly announced store feature or pricing change.
Why a Better Launcher Might Not Be Enough
A launcher can compete on speed, design, downloads, and convenience. Ritchie’s argument is that Steam’s advantage extends beyond those individual features.
For established users, the service is also where their purchased games and familiar gaming routines already sit. A rival application may offer improvements without making the overall move feel worthwhile.
Ritchie put that point strongly:
“Even if an alternative were objectively better, by whatever metric you care about, it would still be of no interest to Steam users.”
That statement is broad and should be understood as his opinion. Different players have different priorities, and the comments do not establish that every Steam user would reject every alternative.
Still, the distinction helps explain his reasoning. Being better at one task is not necessarily the same as becoming the place someone prefers to buy and play games.
Developers and Players Want Different Things From a Store
A lower store fee can make a platform attractive to developers because it lets them keep more revenue from each qualifying purchase.
Players face a different decision. Their immediate concern is usually what the store offers them: access to games, useful features, convenience, and an experience they want to return to.
That creates the challenge Ritchie describes. A store can improve its business terms for developers without giving existing Steam users an equally strong reason to change their habits.
In his view, competing stores must solve both sides of that problem. Attracting developers alone does not guarantee an audience, while offering a polished launcher alone does not guarantee purchases.
Steam’s 30% Cut Has Important Exceptions
The widely shared summary of Ritchie’s comments refers to Valve’s 30% cut. That is the standard rate, but it does not describe every revenue tier.
Valve’s published Steamworks revenue-share structure includes reductions for games that pass specific earnings thresholds.
Revenue tier
Valve’s share
Initial revenue up to $10 million
30%
Earnings above $10 million and up to $50 million
25%
Earnings above $50 million
20%
These are tiered reductions. Reaching a threshold lowers Valve’s share on earnings beyond that point; it does not retroactively apply the lower percentage to all previous revenue.
Valve’s announcement includes game packages, downloadable content, in-game sales, and Community Marketplace game fees when describing revenue counted toward the thresholds.
For that reason, “Steam’s standard 30% cut” is more precise than saying Valve takes 30% from every developer on every sale.
Epic’s published revenue-share model gives developers 100% of the first $1 million in net revenue per product, per year, for payments processed by the Epic Games Store.
After that threshold, the split becomes 88% for the developer and 12% for Epic. From 2026 onward, the annual threshold resets on January 1.
Those terms illustrate the distinction behind Ritchie’s argument. A competing store can offer developers a larger share of qualifying revenue, but the percentage alone does not determine how many customers will buy a game there.
A higher share per purchase and a larger potential audience are separate advantages. His criticism focuses on how difficult it is for a rival to match the second one.
For developers, Ritchie’s remarks highlight a difficult business question: how much does access to an established audience justify a store’s fee?
For players, the same discussion looks different. The qualities that make Steam difficult to challenge may also be the reasons they prefer using it. A familiar library and dependable experience can feel like benefits rather than problems.
Neither perspective, on its own, proves that Steam’s position is permanent. Ritchie’s statement that the situation is not fixable is a prediction, not a confirmed outcome.
The useful distinction is between competing with Steam’s application and competing with everything players have built around it. His argument is that a rival needs more than a better launcher it needs a compelling reason for customers to buy and play somewhere else.
