The publishers/developers are the ones who set the prices though.
You can delete your steam account, so that’s not locking players into using Steam.
Valve hosts numerous sales, that said developers/publishers have the option of participating in.
This lawsuit is fucking stupid. It’s so stupid, I actually went out of my way to dig up ways to contact this bitch and educate her some of how dumb this lawsuit is. I advise everyone to do the same.
What the fuck are you even talking about?
The lawsuit - filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London - alleges Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.
This has been known about steam for quite some time now. This is textbook anti-trust lawsuit.
deleted by creator
Yeah it is. But Epic is sounding like they never take a pay cut. Only, they still do. The way it works is, is that for the first 6 months, Epic allows a developer 100% of their revenue. Afterwards, they take 12%. But they also offer 0% revenue share on the first million earned on a game by a developer.
The issue really is that Epic makes it sound like they never take a pay cut, when they do, it just works differently.
This is about steam. Post another thing for epic if you want. Whataboutism is not a good look. Two things can be bad at the same time. One thing can be “better” than something else while still being bad.
What isn’t a good look is you dictating how a conversation should go. Maybe go back to your basement, nobody asked you to talk.
alleges Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.
Epic gives away games for free that cost money on Steam. The fuck is this person talking about?
Before they’re released on steam? I’m fairly sure all the free games have been released to steam first, or did you fail the reading comprehension?
Valve gives you free steam keys for your game on request, which you can sell off steam, without paying Valve a cut. This has a specific rule that disallows selling those keys for a lower price. However, not sure if it’s this case, there was an email from a Valve employee submitted as evidence telling a game developer that selling their game for less in general would be undercutting steam, and something they wouldn’t want. If the email is real and not a misinterpretation, Valve indeed was/is pressuring developers to not sell games cheaper elsewhere.
Also, sales and giveaways are exempt from the steam key price parity rule, which I would assume epic’s free games would fall under, if you applied the rule to that despite not involving steam keys.
That doesn’t conclude anything.
Are these the same games that are part of this lawsuit? If they are not, then what does Epic giving away different games conclude that this is a false premise for the lawsuit?
Critically think about that statement, it’s not logical.
Valve forces price parity with all platforms. So if they have lower charges, that saving cannot be passed on to the customer and so stops price competition.
I thought that only applied to steam keys?
You can sell your game for whatever you want elsewhere, but if you want them to be able to install via steam, you can’t undercut steam itself.
I did too but when I had a quick search around that’s what I found. I think it’d be reasonable to apply steam keys, valve is providing the full service there.
I did too but when I had a quick search around that’s what I found.
Source.
It’s the crux of the law suit? They are claiming that valve are applying it to non-steam key games. I think this is their website https://steamyouoweus.co.uk/faqs/
These price parity clauses apply to all games listed on Steam, not only those distributed via Steam Keys. As a result, other platforms cannot offer better deals, limiting consumer choice and keeping prices higher across the board. This harms competition in the market and stops other platforms from improving their services.
Though I do think the last part is nonsense.
It also says it in the article, though I suppose it is less clear:
The lawsuit - filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London - alleges Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.
The suggestion is that they are enforcing this on somewhere like gog, where they don’t give you a steam key?
It’s the crux of the law suit
The plaintiffs making the claim doesn’t make it fact like you’re suggesting. The entire lawsuit is hinging on a single email from years ago. That’s not steady ground.
This is doubly true when you actually look at prices on other storefronts. How was EGS able to have lower prices or even give games away for free when said games were/are available on Steam at the same time?
It is the crux of the lawsuit, I don’t think I suggested anything. The original post is asking what they are on about. I replied with what they are on about.
Am I the only one who finds this story laughable? As a mostly console gamer, if feels like Nintendo releases games for $70, and they NEVER drop in price.
If you can find a walmart that somehow still has PS2 and gamecube games, the PS2 game will probably be some sports game, and it’s been reduced to $0.10.
The Gamecube game will be some kirby game, and still 2002 MSRP of $60.
Meanwhile over on steam, they’re like:
"Ok, this is a AAA game, came out in 2025, MSRP is $60, but we’re running a sale to pick it up for $5.
Also, here’s a shitton of free games. Go nuts."
I don’t think the example at the end of your comment is relevant, since to my knowledge it’s the publisher deciding on pricing and doing sales, and steam is still taking the same cut.
I also think it’s generally not a great thing, since it basically puts the value of the game at $5, making it not worth getting off-sale, while also creating urgency to do so during a sale. I respect Factorio developers’ choice to just not do sales at all, and state so, so that buyers know exactly what the price is.
Yeah but don’t publishers/developers also have the options to not partake in sales? I think they do, otherwise we’d see every game on the market all going for a sale.
Yes, the publishers have control over that, which is why I’m saying it doesn’t make sense to praise Steam over games on it going on sale.
I think Valve does get some say in the amount and timing of sales. It’s something they need to control to arrange the big seasonal sales, and something publishers must agree to, or set an acceptable range, when first signing up.
My guess is that valve sends invites to devs and publishers and if they are interested to join they get to set their own prices. Why would valve even try to control any of that? If I don’t remember wrong I have even seen games not even released or getting a cheaper price in the festivals. Sales is probably the same but you need to lower the price a bit.
sounds like you should have sued nintendo a long time ago then
“You’re company is too user friendly and everyone likes you. Its uncompetetive because we are trying to rip them off”
When you can’t compete, sue.
Somewhat unrelated, but I have over 600 games on Epic Games. All free. Haven’t played a single one on that platform.
I have over a thousand on Steam, most of them I paid for (usually heavily discounted) and I play those on that. There’s a reason why I prefer Steam.
I don’t know why people feel the need to weirdly flex about how they do this. What you’re saying is, you’ve wasted time making an account at all, going through the process of checking what game will be free next, then processing the order to get free game.
So, good for you on wasting time and effort? While most of us just simply don’t bother with Epic’s launcher, market and them in general.
I don’t feel like I’m flexing, just stating numbers, but whatever. I’ve already had an Epic account from way back, and it takes like 20 seconds of my time each week to claim the free game(s). I have such a large backlog of games on other platforms that I just don’t go to Epic first to select something to play.
I keep them in case there’s something I want to play on a particular day that I don’t already own on another platform. And there have been a few recently that I’m becoming more interested in.
My original point is that I go with Steam because I enjoy their interface a lot more than Epic’s. Epic needs to do more work. GOG as well. And Valve seems to be a better company overall, so my money goes to them.
Think of it this way, claiming the free game costs them bandwidth. Downloading the game costs them even more bandwidth. Yeah my bandwidth isn’t much but collectively with everyone claiming the games that adds up. I have played and enjoyed a few like Dead Island 2, but I would never give Tim Sweeney and Epic game store money. I will just cost them money.
That…still doesn’t make sense.
They waste money anyways. They have to be spending a lot to developers who are willing to have their games be given away for free.
Let them spend and waste on that, as well as just the sheer volume of bothering to stay in business. They must also be spending a lot to get so many licenses on Fortnite too. That’s far more wasting than just bandwidth.
alleges Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.
As always, these moves are being perpetuated by scumbags who just want to make more money without putting in any additional effort.
If Steam is worth releasing a game on in the eyes of the developers, then they have to pay the price to do it. If it’s not worth the price, then they are under no obligation at all to release their game on Steam.
Most games on Steam fail to gain any traction. If your game fails, it’s not because it isn’t on Steam; it’s because it’s a pile of shit and you’re not special because you made something.
Plenty of great games are not immune to failing even when they’re on Steam. The market is tough. But at the same time, it makes perfect sense that Steam has a rule preventing you from taking advantage of their infrastructure for marketing and communicating with customers while you make it available on Epic first for less money.
And to add to this, allowing a lower price on a different storefront isn’t going to make the game cheaper to purchase. Either it’s not going to have any impact on pricing, unless a competing store has money to burn and will pay the publisher extra to sell the game for cheaper (which will actually hurt only the smaller storefronts), or it will lead to games being overpriced on Steam which is a near guaranteed controversy to any publisher pulling this stunt, at which point it would be cheaper to not change pricing or just go full exclusivity.
It’s an argument on paper but in practicality it’s bullshit. If Steam removed this clause or wouldn’t be a net positive for the consumer and worst case would be a net negative.
It’s crazy to me that when they sell a steam key on another store front, steam takes none of the profits from that at all, the key is free to generate for the dev, and the only stipulation is that they have to sell if for the same price it is on the steam store front.
It’s more nuanced than that.
Choosing not to release on Steam isn’t easy because it’s not a balanced market, at all. It’s trying to release a Disney-style animated movie, but only in adult theatres.
Steam is the 900-pound gorilla. Yes, they have a good interface, but they take a ludicrous portion of game revenue. Epic has a shit interface, but they take well-under half of the fees Steammdoes for the same game.
Gabe is not your friend. He’s a billionaire yacht-collector. Half-Life 2 wasn’t designed to be a great game. It was designed to launch a digital storefront that allowed Valve to rake in 30% of all revenue for games sold on the platform - which is often a larger percentage than is paid to the actual people making the games.
Why are we defending a system where the fucking checkout system is valued as much as the people making the games?
Choosing not to release on Steam isn’t easy because it’s not a balanced market, at all.
It’s not Steam’s fault that the majority of the competition sucks ass.
but they take a ludicrous portion of game revenue.
It’s a standard cut for online storefronts, even today. And they even reduce their once game sales hit certain mile stones. It gets down to around 20%. The only reason anyone talks about it is because Tim Swiney harps on it nonstop because he wants to be the one with the monopoly
Yes, they have a good interface, but they take a ludicrous portion of game revenue.
They take the same cut as Microsft, Nintendo, Google, Apple, Sony, and more. You wanna argue 30% is excessive? I agree, but Steam isn’t an outlier here. At least Steam has enough extra shit they do for devs to make that 30% almost feel worth it.
They take the same cut as companies that monopolize the app stores on their hardware.
They take more than other PC platforms.
IIRC Gog takes 30% but not sure we can count them owing to what they distribute.
The only actual competitor store (i.e. not reselling steam keys) at present is Epic with its 88/12 split after a million in sales, and as far as I know it hasn’t been profitable since it opened in 2018, despite straight up giving away product and buying exclusives to try and build a base, so not really the best argument.
Obligatory LOL if we’re going to seriously note either the EA or Ubisoft stores in this discussion. MS probably falls into that pile too but tbh haven’t looked into them much.
Half-Life 2 wasn’t designed to be a great game. It was designed to launch a digital storefront that allowed Valve to rake in 30% of all revenue for games sold on the platform - which is often a larger percentage than is paid to the actual people making the games.
Those things aren’t mutually exclusive. It was used to launch Steam, but it was also an objectively great game because Valve cares about their craft.
It’s more nuanced than that.
It’s not, though. If people actually want to play your game, then Steam isn’t going to get in the way.
Look at MMOs. Look at fortnite. Minecraft. Roblox. Those games can succeed without Steam because people want to play them.
If a game can’t succeed without being on Steam, then Steam isn’t the problem.
Why are we defending a system where the fucking checkout system is valued as much as the people making the games?
You’re asking the wrong question here. You should be asking why you’re defending the developers who just want to make more money and don’t care about how it may impact the experience for their customers.
Gabe isn’t your friend and neither are the whiny/greedy developers.
Valve got to where they are by simply being the option that offered the most convenience to end users.
All the things this lawsuit is challenging are true. Valve does have a defacto monopoly on PC games distribution, they do not let you buy DLC on other platforms for games you own on steam, and they do take a 30% cut of sales.
Having these be limited by government regulation is a good thing. It would increase interoperability and increase competition in the space.
If those things get changed, people will still continue to use Steam because they continue to offer a service that “just works”. Every other storefront that has attempted to compete seems to either trip over itself by trying some anti-consumer behavior to increase short term profit(EGS, Uplay), lack discoverability features(itch), or not offer enough benefit to endure cost of change(GoG)
I’m seriously failing to understand why is Lemmy suddenly defending a corporation and a billionaire from such things. The lawsuit isn’t even about the 30% cut, but that’s also greediness. The “tax” hasn’t changed since the times 100GB HDD costed around thousand of dollars, internet was metered in megabytes and the infrastructure was just not there yet. Still taking 30% from all devs is clearly corporate behaviour. Valve is literally called “Valve Corporation”. Sure, they’re less evil than EA, but is that everything gamers need to settle down?
EDIT: All hail Gabe and his fleet of super yachts, gimme upvotes. Redditors.
I’ll be that guy and say that I do prefer buying from GOG, going as far as paying more money in doing so, so the issue isn’t really ‘friction’ but ‘mfs don’t bother offering on GOG’.
My hate for drm has only grown over the last two decades, and so I’ll get stuff wherever I can that isn’t plastered with it. But it’s not even a rounding error in comparing the number of games available of steam vs GOG. You’d have to go so far out with zeros that you fall off the page before encountering a positive value (0.00000[…]00001%). Which is upsetting and frustrating, since the other option is steam or piracy. And I do like rewarding developers for their work, so that leaves one option basically all the time.
Indeed, and now what GoG is pursuing stronger Linux offerings I may shop there more, but Valve had contributed more than just a shop and launcher. The Linux work with Steam Deck and Proton has been invaluable.
In terms of straight numbers, isn’t Steam’s large “advantage” there it’s offering of independent, mostly unregulated games from small time devs? Are those really using drm? Even if there are, I don’t really think most users are choosing Steam over GOG for access to “Asset Flip #57354”.
I thought the small indie devs were mostly on itch?
Itch is exclusively indie devs, afaik, but since Steam started their Greenlight initiative, the number of games released per year has rocketed up. 2012, the year Greenlight started, only 441 games were released on steam. Two years later in 2014, almost 1500 games were released. 2017 released 5600. 2021 released 10,200. And last year had over 21k. How much of that do we think is really DRM’d, AAA published software?
Every other storefront that has attempted to compete seems to either trip over itself by trying some anti-consumer behavior to increase short term profit(EGS, Uplay), lack discoverability features(itch), or not offer enough benefit to endure cost of change(GoG)
I’d argue that GoG also falls into the lack of discovery catagory.
That said, I’d argue that the lack of discovery isn’t just a player issue, but ties back into the other side: publishers and devs. These storefronts/launchers are unessisary middle men. A software company can run its own store, and make its own launcher. Just look at so many of the big titles over the last two decades: Minecraft, League, Tarkov, War Thunder, Roblox, and more recently Hytale. Looking at players is only half the puzzle, the other half is how these storefronts compete against each other, and even against direct-to-customer sales for publishers.
So, for publishers/devs, what does Steam offer?
- Payment processing
- Distribution
- A very robust support system
- Discoverability
- Tools for online play and social features
- Lightweight DRM for those who want it
- Modding tools
- A community forum
- Tools to add compatibility to your games
- A plethora of extra features that improve your product for the players
And at what cost?
- 30% cut
- Tied to a forum, whether you want to be or not
Now to compare to, lets say, GOG:
Offers:
- Payment processing
- Distribution
- Some user support
Costs:
- 30% cut
- DRM is banned
Because of this, its no wonder that they can’t get more of the market. Why would someone choose to sell there over Steam, or even over direct-to-consumer?
You left off the newer steam deck which opens your games up to a mobile audience.
Just to be clear, distributing on Steam adds nothing functional to a game’s playability on the Steam Deck (afaik). A game from GOG can be played in a Deck just as well as one from Steam, albeit with slightly more effort.
That said, I know customers will flow toward the path of least resistance, so even a little more effort will push them towards a different source.
albeit with slightly more effort.
customers will flow toward the path of least resistance
I think that’s the crux of it. It can be done, but I would bet the vast majority are just playing steam games on SteamOS
So if you launch on Steam, you can reach PC users and Mobile users, and someone might decide to buy the game on steam knowing it will work easily on both.
A software company can run its own store, and make its own launcher. Just look at so many of the big titles over the last two decades: Minecraft, League, Tarkov, War Thunder, Roblox, and more recently Hytale.
This is also survivorship and selection bias though. Not only would you not have heard of the ones that failed, but these are the games confident enough to not launch on Steam in the first place. Several of them are so old that Steam was in its infancy and not the de facto storefront when they came out.
Steam was the defacto storefront when all those games came out.
In 2005 when Roblox came out? No. League of Legends came out in 2009, and I had barely started shopping on Steam for non-Valve games back then. Most of us were still buying games on disc at Walmart. Minecraft was doing early access before Steam had the feature.
Jesus Christ, I had no idea know Roblox was that old. (2006 btw, not 2005) I thought LoL and Minecraft were the oldest, which both came out in 2009, and Steam had already cemented itself by then. It was definitely past its infancy, and what other digital game store was it competing with back then? I was already using it, and there was nowhere else I downloaded games from other than individual game’s websites. It WAS the defacto storefront. Walmart is a store, not a storefront.
Steam was a launcher for games most people still bought on discs back then. I remember 2007 was the first time I bought a game on Steam, and it wasn’t a regular habit for years after that. It wasn’t about which other digital store you used; it was that, as a digital store, it held no power in the market compared to brick and mortar. Plus, back then, PC gaming was definitively second fiddle to consoles.
Except your original comment said nothing about the power it had against brick and morter, you said several of the games listed were old enough that steam was in its infancy and not the defacto storefront when they came out. The only one that came out when Steam was in its infancy was Roblox, and as for the rest, if there’s no other storefronts around to speak of, then its the defacto storefront.
My point is that it is an option, and still a competitive one, when so many still use this option. If it wasn’t, these games wouldn’t have succeeded and/or would have died off. Its an option middlemen have to out-compete, and I’d argue many don’t.
unessisaryunecessaryJust a little correction.
Steam is the reason I am buying so many games. They’re way cheaper there than on other marketplaces. This lawsuit sounds like a shareholder from another company whining about not making as much as they wanted.
Sounds good. Valve are doing a lot of things right but I often find that they go under the radar when compared to similar stories around Google and Apple.
Because Apple and Google are trying to lock down their platform to make sure there is no competition. The only thing Valve does is exist. Valve isn’t trying to make it impossible for GOG or Itch or Epic store to exist, in fact Valve can’t even do that (unless their SteamOS becomes a locked down platform which guarantees a consumer backlash) because PC is an open platform. Partly thanks to Valve you’re no longer tied to Microslop either, you can swap to any Linux distro and have the vast majority of games still work. Valve isn’t even using it’s market position to keep competition down (even if the lawsuit tries to argue the opposite). The brought up arguments either have no impact on the consumer market or a things that other storefronts are also doing.
I’m not against having more competition on the storefront side, but this lawsuit is just about trying to squeeze money out of Valve.
In many ways I agree but the point of not being able to use expansion packs across platforms is a kind of lock in. I wish more tech companies were like Valve for sure, but they too need to be kept on check.
Is there a store that allows using expansion packs across platforms? There may be some individual games that may allow it, but I don’t know a single storefront that let’s you use DLCs or expansions across platforms/storefronts.
