No, it is not. You and the other commentators need to stop repeating that propaganda lie by the true monopolists of PC gaming (Epic, Microsoft,…).
All of Steam combined makes up a fifth of the PC gaming revenue. A fifth! That’s a very good percentage but a fifth of anything is not a monopoly and that’s not even including mobile and consoles where Valve isn’t even competing at the moment.
Fortnite, Rocket League, Valorant, League of Legends, Minecraft, still World of Warcraft, Roblox,… are where all that PC gaming revenue is concentrated but a few mid-tier games sell best on Steam (because the same priced copy on EGS offers worse value) and suddenly everybody keeps repeating the lie of the true monopolists that the company that isn’t classified in the EU as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act is a monopoly (but Microsoft is).
I know you didn’t make this graph, but what was whoever-it-was smoking when they put the line for VR all the way up there? It should be slithering along the bottom right like a snake.
You’re misreading how the graph is laid out. The y axis is the combined total revenue of the entire video game market, with each new piece of the market being added on top of the older ones over time (although arguably arcades are the oldest form and should be below consoles). VR is the newest niche, and so it goes on top of everything else as it adds its revenue to the gross total of the entire market, despite only being a tiny piece of that sum.
In your layout, consoles/arcade would be at the top with everything else underneath them.
Even that don’t make no sense, boss. If that were the case not only should consoles and arcades be swapped, as you say, but also the VR line should be slipped in between handhelds and mobile. Dactyl Nightmare came out in 1991 and certainly wasn’t even the first VR experience, but it was the first commercialized one I can think of — and played myself, believe it or not. I can’t imagine VR as a whole made anything other than chump change until 2018+, but it was indeed there and chugging along quietly.
I can’t imagine VR as a whole made anything other than chump change until 2018+, but it was indeed there and chugging along quietly.
The graph specifically calls out the Oculus Rift as the start of what it considers the VR segment.
I would consider things like the Virtual Boy as VR to some extent as well, but I do see the logic as to why they only started the line with the Oculus. Before that it probably wouldn’t even show up as the money there was a drop in the bucket of a tenth of a percent of anything else, but it’s also widely considered that the Oculus and the Vive were the first really viable commercial VR headsets that started the VR game niche/genre. Before that, VR could probably be considered as niche as eye and head tracking hardware for sim games, and I don’t think that I’ve ever heard somebody mention those when talking about money in the games industry. Or even mentioned them in general outside of conversations like this. I don’t think most people even know that that kind of stuff even exists.
I know you didn’t make this graph, but what was whoever-it-was smoking when they put the line for VR all the way up there?
From what I’ve learned from buddies who are into VR, it’s a really weird subculture of super high end headsets, sometimes even full body suits with force feedback, and other shit. Honestly, wouldn’t be surprised if all that revenue is A) real and B) relying on a few big spenders.
That’s not the issue. The issue is the callout on it says the VR market is only $5 billion at its peak, which is well below mobile, which the gold VR line is drawn above, correlating with the position of being greater than $180 billion on the Y axis on the chart. Which is not how line charts work.
That’s your issue? A minor cosmetic thing? And I thought you meant that the VR graph should be way thinner and that its numbers are an overestimation.
Well, I think it’s a well readable graphic which is why I like citing it. It doesn’t require zooming in to get it but you can zoom in to read who’s responsible for the graphic (“Art direction + design: Clayton Wadsworth”).
Wait, a fifth? My bad, that’s insane. I don’t know a single PC gamer who doesn’t have most of their games in Steam, me included. Can you hook me up with a source for that?
Turns out you are the one lying. Everything I find says Steam has 75% ish market share.
Where the hell are you getting your numbers? Everything I see says that Steam made a record 16 billion in 2025 while PC gaming as a whole made 43 billion. That would put Steam somewhere around 27% of the PC market.
You are obviously completely unaware about the concept of citing sources. I did not make that graphic and you did not care to follow the cited sources at the bottom of the graphic.
At the very worst you could accuse me of citing a source that’s 2.5 years old by now because its newest numbers are from late 2023 but then you made up random numbers without even backing up any of it, so my standpoint is still more valid than yours even if the numbers cited by me are not as recent as the numbers cited by @[email protected]
Only because they don’t count the Switch as handheld. Nintendo was pretty much the entire handheld market.
I don’t know what would be left by how they lay out the numbers. Switch (2) is console, Steam Deck is PC. The Chinese “boutique” handhelds by Ayaneo, Ayn,… use existing game ecosystems (either PC or Android).
I guess Playdate and whatever Atari sells these days. Can’t think of any other dedicated handheld with its own ecosystem.
Microtransaction-laden cell phone games very infamously oozed in and ate that entire market’s lunch. It turns out for short duration video game adjacent distraction on the go, people would much rather use the device they already have with a “free” (only up front) option rather than pay for a Gameboy/DS/PSP and games to go with it.
Square discovered this the hard way when they tried to release their various Final Fantasy remakes on smartphones in the early days as if they were regular games, i.e. pay $4.99 or whatever and have access to it in theoretical perpetuity and to the nearest decimal point, no one bought any of them. It turns out consumers respond much more positively to downloading a game for “free” and then coughing up several times more in microtransactions over time than buying any given title outright would cost, and/or being incessantly bombarded with ads as they play. Obviously the industry has figured this out and now everything you can play on your cell phone is feemium pay-to-win microtransaction hell built around slot machine mechanics, but it doesn’t matter because it apparently prints money.
You are on lemmy, a decentralized and open source platform, nobody here think microsoft is good. If a bunch of evil corporations control the entire videogames market that still count as a monopoly, all of these are shit including Valve.
![Steam competitors be like. [Extended?]](https://thelemmy.club/pictrs/image/8d2d46eb-234c-41bd-b7c1-fb9c4c9f2508.webp){kind=link}
No, it is not. You and the other commentators need to stop repeating that propaganda lie by the true monopolists of PC gaming (Epic, Microsoft,…).
All of Steam combined makes up a fifth of the PC gaming revenue. A fifth! That’s a very good percentage but a fifth of anything is not a monopoly and that’s not even including mobile and consoles where Valve isn’t even competing at the moment.
Fortnite, Rocket League, Valorant, League of Legends, Minecraft, still World of Warcraft, Roblox,… are where all that PC gaming revenue is concentrated but a few mid-tier games sell best on Steam (because the same priced copy on EGS offers worse value) and suddenly everybody keeps repeating the lie of the true monopolists that the company that isn’t classified in the EU as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act is a monopoly (but Microsoft is).
I know you didn’t make this graph, but what was whoever-it-was smoking when they put the line for VR all the way up there? It should be slithering along the bottom right like a snake.
You’re misreading how the graph is laid out. The y axis is the combined total revenue of the entire video game market, with each new piece of the market being added on top of the older ones over time (although arguably arcades are the oldest form and should be below consoles). VR is the newest niche, and so it goes on top of everything else as it adds its revenue to the gross total of the entire market, despite only being a tiny piece of that sum.
In your layout, consoles/arcade would be at the top with everything else underneath them.
Even that don’t make no sense, boss. If that were the case not only should consoles and arcades be swapped, as you say, but also the VR line should be slipped in between handhelds and mobile. Dactyl Nightmare came out in 1991 and certainly wasn’t even the first VR experience, but it was the first commercialized one I can think of — and played myself, believe it or not. I can’t imagine VR as a whole made anything other than chump change until 2018+, but it was indeed there and chugging along quietly.
The graph specifically calls out the Oculus Rift as the start of what it considers the VR segment.
I would consider things like the Virtual Boy as VR to some extent as well, but I do see the logic as to why they only started the line with the Oculus. Before that it probably wouldn’t even show up as the money there was a drop in the bucket of a tenth of a percent of anything else, but it’s also widely considered that the Oculus and the Vive were the first really viable commercial VR headsets that started the VR game niche/genre. Before that, VR could probably be considered as niche as eye and head tracking hardware for sim games, and I don’t think that I’ve ever heard somebody mention those when talking about money in the games industry. Or even mentioned them in general outside of conversations like this. I don’t think most people even know that that kind of stuff even exists.
From what I’ve learned from buddies who are into VR, it’s a really weird subculture of super high end headsets, sometimes even full body suits with force feedback, and other shit. Honestly, wouldn’t be surprised if all that revenue is A) real and B) relying on a few big spenders.
That’s not the issue. The issue is the callout on it says the VR market is only $5 billion at its peak, which is well below mobile, which the gold VR line is drawn above, correlating with the position of being greater than $180 billion on the Y axis on the chart. Which is not how line charts work.
That’s your issue? A minor cosmetic thing? And I thought you meant that the VR graph should be way thinner and that its numbers are an overestimation.
Well, I think it’s a well readable graphic which is why I like citing it. It doesn’t require zooming in to get it but you can zoom in to read who’s responsible for the graphic (“Art direction + design: Clayton Wadsworth”).
Wait, a fifth? My bad, that’s insane. I don’t know a single PC gamer who doesn’t have most of their games in Steam, me included. Can you hook me up with a source for that?Turns out you are the one lying. Everything I find says Steam has 75% ish market share.
Where the hell are you getting your numbers? Everything I see says that Steam made a record 16 billion in 2025 while PC gaming as a whole made 43 billion. That would put Steam somewhere around 27% of the PC market.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/gamesindustrybiz-presents-the-year-in-numbers-2025-year-in-review
https://www.eteknix.com/steams-revenue-surpasses-16-billion-in-2025-new-estimate-shows/
You are obviously completely unaware about the concept of citing sources. I did not make that graphic and you did not care to follow the cited sources at the bottom of the graphic.
At the very worst you could accuse me of citing a source that’s 2.5 years old by now because its newest numbers are from late 2023 but then you made up random numbers without even backing up any of it, so my standpoint is still more valid than yours even if the numbers cited by me are not as recent as the numbers cited by @[email protected]
Damn, handheld virtually nonexistent since 2020
Only because they don’t count the Switch as handheld. Nintendo was pretty much the entire handheld market.
I don’t know what would be left by how they lay out the numbers. Switch (2) is console, Steam Deck is PC. The Chinese “boutique” handhelds by Ayaneo, Ayn,… use existing game ecosystems (either PC or Android).
I guess Playdate and whatever Atari sells these days. Can’t think of any other dedicated handheld with its own ecosystem.
Microtransaction-laden cell phone games very infamously oozed in and ate that entire market’s lunch. It turns out for short duration video game adjacent distraction on the go, people would much rather use the device they already have with a “free” (only up front) option rather than pay for a Gameboy/DS/PSP and games to go with it.
Square discovered this the hard way when they tried to release their various Final Fantasy remakes on smartphones in the early days as if they were regular games, i.e. pay $4.99 or whatever and have access to it in theoretical perpetuity and to the nearest decimal point, no one bought any of them. It turns out consumers respond much more positively to downloading a game for “free” and then coughing up several times more in microtransactions over time than buying any given title outright would cost, and/or being incessantly bombarded with ads as they play. Obviously the industry has figured this out and now everything you can play on your cell phone is feemium pay-to-win microtransaction hell built around slot machine mechanics, but it doesn’t matter because it apparently prints money.
You are on lemmy, a decentralized and open source platform, nobody here think microsoft is good. If a bunch of evil corporations control the entire videogames market that still count as a monopoly, all of these are shit including Valve.
They also lied, it’s not a fifth, it’s 3/4