Steam Owner Valve Faces $900 Million Lawsuit Over PC Monopoly Claims, Following UK Tribunal Ruling - IGN
-
Omg that's a valid concern. This is exactly what xero are doing right now. Finding every little place they can charge and adding fees for developers left, right and centre. A megalomaniac leader has led xero to complete enshitification, and, with the wrong leader, steam could end up on the same place.
Xero is publicly traded. Generally it's shareholders wanting endless return that pushes every company to enshittify. The specifics of the company matter less if they have public shareholders.
Valve is extremely unique in that it is absolutely giant by value but not publicly traded. For now.
-
You can start shopping on another store, like GOG. But also, the add-ons thing feels like these folks have never shopped for video games anywhere else, because everyone does that.
This is exactly why this shit constantly annoys me. Steam is not unique in how they handle their store. If you don't want to pay Valve a fee as a dev, then don't put your game on Steam. No one is forced to do that.
Now, you will lose many sales. But a service being popular does not make it a monopoly. Other stores exist, and are even discussed in the article. All of them have some similar method of getting add-ons. Steam's happens to be very easy -- again, that doesn't make it anti-competitive.
Also: the fact that this is about "PC monopoly" and "Microsoft" is not mentioned is just... wild. And sad.
-
There's nothing that says game developers can't allow add-ons to be installed from third party stores. Already works that way with games like Gratuitous Space Battles. I've bought the expansions on third party stores and simply put the zips or whatever in the relevant game folder.
I don't know if something has changed since that game, but I don't see addons sold by 3rd parties as a popular avenue for consumers simply because you have to then manually manage it.
Will say it would be nice to own games on one platform and be able to buy and manage the game via steam. Select the platform you bought it from / the install folder and let steam automagically update the DLCs in there for you.
We don't really know what the add-on argument is because the article doesn't really say much about it. I didn't mean Steam prohibits modifying game files, which is pretty much what you did to add the expansions. I meant it more like you describe in the last paragraph where your purchases are platform agnostic, you buy where you want to and you play where you want to.
-
An extremely similar API exists in GOG, for better and for worse, because it functionally is the only DRM in GOG. And of course Epic offers the same thing, too.
-
While I don't buy a lot of PC games, I did pick up Stellaris on GOG.
The weird second-class status I get when it comes to betas and mods is enough for anyone to scream. Especially since if I wanted to move to steam, I'd have to re-buy every add-on I want to play.
Add-on lock-in really is a thing. Even if it may be as much a lazy publisher as it is a greedy storefront.
It's strange, because if I buy an expansion for a board game, I don't have to shop at the same store that I bought the base game from.
-
so thats how eu is generating revenue, just sue everyone?
The UK is not part of the EU. The lawsuit is not by the UK (or the EU), it's just in the UK court.
-
I don't mind someone going after Valve but I think the arguments presented are bullshit.
The price parity argument is an argument on paper but in reality we're not going to see different pricing, except maybe on the super rare occasion a company has their own storefront they want to build up with their first party games while also keeping the game on Steam for extra sales. Realistically that first party game is going to be exclusive to the store (see Alan Wake 2). And 3rd party publishers have no incentive to sell for cheaper on a different storefront because a lower cut by the platform holder would just mean they get to make more money per unit sold. I guess maybe if the storefront pays the 3rd party publisher extra so the storefront itself could set a lower price on the games, but I fear that might end up having the opposite effect where money-rich competitors (like Epic) can end up taking away market from smaller storefronts like GOG or Itch because despite selling games for less it's still not competing with Steam in terms of features so the market has to grow from somewhere. But I'll happily be wrong here.
The same way the 30% cut being too much is an argument on paper, but in reality if the cut does go lower the customer, the people actually buying the game, won't see it. One could argue that it has already gone down for AAA because Steam brings it's down to 25% after certain threshold and I think once more to 20% after the next threshold. Meanwhile AAA pricing has only gone up in the form heavier focus on MTX alongside an actual price increase from $60 to $70. The cut going down is just going to put that money in the publishers pocket. It would be a win for the publisher but not really a win for the customer.
The only argument that actually could be beneficial to the customer is the add-on argument. I'm not entirely sure what they mean by add-ons. If they mean Steams own made up marketplace of trading cards and stickers and all that shit what is the solution here? Have Steam close it down because there's no way in world other storefronts would ever make something like that and if they did it would never be made in a way where it could be interchangeable with Steams implementation. I hope by add-ons they mean DLC-s and I would 100% love it if I could buy a game on one platform and DLC-s from a different platform and just have them work together. That would actually be beneficial to the customer. But I don't see anyone codifying that as a regulation and if it were to happen it would be pretty big strain either on the storefronts or the publishers, because it would be a huge mess to track purchase across platforms to make sure what combination of games + DLCs any particular account has. I would love to see it happen, I just don't see it actually happening.
The arguments are there on paper but even if Steam did anything about them it probably would have little to no effect on the customers so the lawsuit doesn't really feel like someone is fighting for the consumer, it just feel like someone trying to take Steam down a peg. It's fine but it's unlikely to have an impact on the market, Steam will still stay the biggest seller because Steam offers features to the consumer that no other storefront offers.
I'm pretty sure the dlc thing is already possible. Guild wars 2 at least works this way, you can buy the game/dlcs either via steam or via their own store and then you can install and run the game either via steam or via their own launcher (although IIRC the steam way still has the launcher).
It's probably more of a case of steam providing a convenient way for developers to not need their own account system, so rather than them creating their own solution that integrates with steam and other sources, they just straight up use Steam's way.
To be honest I'd love it if they forced a way for steam and other shops to allow migrating your games between them, so I could take all the free games from epic but never use it. Currently my compromise is to just never use it and skip the free games.
-
It's really getting to the point Gabe needs to cash out and turn Steam into a non-profit...
I trust him while he's alive, but some day he'll die, and who knows what will happen to Steam.
We could wake up one morning and find out there's a $10 monthly fee to access Steam's "services" including every game you ever purchased.
We can't just cost on the hopes nothing changes forever.
I've been working on my Steam exit strategy for years. It's nice feeling like I could bail at any time without too much pain.
-
If that happened, that would mean you'd be able to buy DLC for all of your free EGS games on Steam as well. Selling DLC for those games is probably just about the only money that store brings in outside of Fortnite.
Hah, not from me! It won't be the first time that I buy a game on Steam that I previously played for free on EGS, just so I can buy the DLC. I will never spend a cent on EGS.
-
The UK is not part of the EU. The lawsuit is not by the UK (or the EU), it's just in the UK court.
im so fucking american.
thanks for the correction
-
Having a "Monopoly" that occurred naturally isn't illegal. Misusing the position and eliminating any competition is illegal. Besides that, the monopoly situation is open and there is competition. They just suck. Imagine filing Nintendo a lawsuit for having a monopoly in handheld consoles...
To add to what you have said:
Valve is an effective monopoly.
A lot of people seem to think 'monopoly' means 'literally 0 alternatives for the consumer', but this is not the case in either actual economic jargon/theory nor in basically any legal definition of it I am aware of.
To be a monopoly you basically just need to be the clear dominant actor in some market. Not the only one, just the main one, such that you can make pricing decisions in a way that other actors in the same market can't, basically.
Its... very rare for a 'true' or 'perfect' monopoly to ever exist for basically anything other than a public utility/service. It almost never happens.
This is the kind of pedantry that is annoying but unfortunately important, similar to how 'Impeachment' by the House on its own is actually pointless beyond a mark of shame unless it is also followed by a 'conviction' by the Senate.
You are correct that in US law, a major factor that is considered is whether or not the company did abusive, deceptive, underhanded stuff to achieve its monopopy status.
But UK law appears to be different:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5b1e681-5fb5-4161-bebf-823034fab751
You could be doing 'abuse of dominance' whether or not you achieved that dominance by underhanded means.
So... while I am not a lawyer, I would be genuinely surprised if Valve was found in serious violation of existing US monopoly laws, but I would be less surprised if they were found to be in violation of existing UK monopoly laws.
-
I don't mind someone going after Valve but I think the arguments presented are bullshit.
The price parity argument is an argument on paper but in reality we're not going to see different pricing, except maybe on the super rare occasion a company has their own storefront they want to build up with their first party games while also keeping the game on Steam for extra sales. Realistically that first party game is going to be exclusive to the store (see Alan Wake 2). And 3rd party publishers have no incentive to sell for cheaper on a different storefront because a lower cut by the platform holder would just mean they get to make more money per unit sold. I guess maybe if the storefront pays the 3rd party publisher extra so the storefront itself could set a lower price on the games, but I fear that might end up having the opposite effect where money-rich competitors (like Epic) can end up taking away market from smaller storefronts like GOG or Itch because despite selling games for less it's still not competing with Steam in terms of features so the market has to grow from somewhere. But I'll happily be wrong here.
The same way the 30% cut being too much is an argument on paper, but in reality if the cut does go lower the customer, the people actually buying the game, won't see it. One could argue that it has already gone down for AAA because Steam brings it's down to 25% after certain threshold and I think once more to 20% after the next threshold. Meanwhile AAA pricing has only gone up in the form heavier focus on MTX alongside an actual price increase from $60 to $70. The cut going down is just going to put that money in the publishers pocket. It would be a win for the publisher but not really a win for the customer.
The only argument that actually could be beneficial to the customer is the add-on argument. I'm not entirely sure what they mean by add-ons. If they mean Steams own made up marketplace of trading cards and stickers and all that shit what is the solution here? Have Steam close it down because there's no way in world other storefronts would ever make something like that and if they did it would never be made in a way where it could be interchangeable with Steams implementation. I hope by add-ons they mean DLC-s and I would 100% love it if I could buy a game on one platform and DLC-s from a different platform and just have them work together. That would actually be beneficial to the customer. But I don't see anyone codifying that as a regulation and if it were to happen it would be pretty big strain either on the storefronts or the publishers, because it would be a huge mess to track purchase across platforms to make sure what combination of games + DLCs any particular account has. I would love to see it happen, I just don't see it actually happening.
The arguments are there on paper but even if Steam did anything about them it probably would have little to no effect on the customers so the lawsuit doesn't really feel like someone is fighting for the consumer, it just feel like someone trying to take Steam down a peg. It's fine but it's unlikely to have an impact on the market, Steam will still stay the biggest seller because Steam offers features to the consumer that no other storefront offers.
This is a great write up to which I can only add that I know that in the ongoing US case, Valve has been arguing that not only is the 30% cut not particularly onerous, and is actually pretty close to the industry norm...
... they also make the argument that Steam provides much, much more to both the consumer and the prospective game seller that....well they just do actually offer many more features and services than existing comparable platforms.
The DLC thing is an interesting idea, but... oh god, basically, is my database manager brain's response to that.
You'd have to construct like a shared standard of game key liscenses across all digital platforms, you know, the not unlike the kind of thing every single idiot a few years back claimed would be possible with their NFT games.
This is... an interesting idea, but I don't see how you could actually implement this in practice without basically creating a government agency to manage it.
... Which would then also probably mean that said government would now directly know every game you own.
And then you'd have to think about how that would play with things like game key selling sites...
Yeah. This would be a nightmare to try to actually implement.
Now the government would be directly involved in DRM. Like uh, potentially, verify your actual identity with face scan to log in to your game library of any kinds of games... that kind of involved.
There are many other complexities and problems than that.
-
To add to what you have said:
Valve is an effective monopoly.
A lot of people seem to think 'monopoly' means 'literally 0 alternatives for the consumer', but this is not the case in either actual economic jargon/theory nor in basically any legal definition of it I am aware of.
To be a monopoly you basically just need to be the clear dominant actor in some market. Not the only one, just the main one, such that you can make pricing decisions in a way that other actors in the same market can't, basically.
Its... very rare for a 'true' or 'perfect' monopoly to ever exist for basically anything other than a public utility/service. It almost never happens.
This is the kind of pedantry that is annoying but unfortunately important, similar to how 'Impeachment' by the House on its own is actually pointless beyond a mark of shame unless it is also followed by a 'conviction' by the Senate.
You are correct that in US law, a major factor that is considered is whether or not the company did abusive, deceptive, underhanded stuff to achieve its monopopy status.
But UK law appears to be different:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c5b1e681-5fb5-4161-bebf-823034fab751
You could be doing 'abuse of dominance' whether or not you achieved that dominance by underhanded means.
So... while I am not a lawyer, I would be genuinely surprised if Valve was found in serious violation of existing US monopoly laws, but I would be less surprised if they were found to be in violation of existing UK monopoly laws.
Just the first lines of the linked article says what I said, having a monopoly isn't illegal on itself. Only abusing the dominance is.
Which paragraph or lines do you specifically speaking of? Its a long text, so quoting or pointing the part you refer to would be good.
-
An extremely similar API exists in GOG, for better and for worse, because it functionally is the only DRM in GOG. And of course Epic offers the same thing, too.
How many devs actually take advantage of it though?
-
It happens all the time. Sometimes it's a disclaimer on the store page, or sometimes they just list "multiplayer", and I have to find out via forums if the game is actually DRM-free or if they're using the equivalent GOG multiplayer service. And the reason it's there is to entice those developers who rely on the equivalent Steam services, but I wish those API calls could somehow be co-opted into actual DRM-free multiplayer.
-
We could wake up one morning and find out there’s a $10 monthly fee to access Steam’s “services” including every game you ever purchased.
When did this ever happen on any game console, or service ever? Isn't this some kind of "fear mongering"? Also wouldn't this be illegal? Because we purchased the game and Valve would effectively take all access away for all games. I don't think your argument what could happen is warranted.
I don't think this has happened yet with video games, however it is in no way illegal for Valve to do this. There's been plenty of examples of other media being ripped away from consumers, like "purchased" movies and music.
On Steam, you are purchasing a license to play a game, not the game itself. At any point and for any reason, Valve can legally revoke this license or restrict access to it.
-
Just the first lines of the linked article says what I said, having a monopoly isn't illegal on itself. Only abusing the dominance is.
Which paragraph or lines do you specifically speaking of? Its a long text, so quoting or pointing the part you refer to would be good.
I'm not really trying to critique you, I just know that a ton of people only read the headline or don't read things thoroughly, or don't even click into the actual article at all.
I am just adding my 2 cents as someone with a degree in economics, so I'm not citing the article, I'm citing my years of education in economics and years of work that made use of it.
The article does not really go into the difference between US and UK law around monopolies, so I wanted to explore that a bit myself.
Also, when you say 'the first lines of the linked article says what I said'... do you mean the OP linked article, or the lexology link that I provided?
Because the IGN article says nothing about whether simply being a monopoly is illegal, that's why I provided the lexology link, to clarify that.
Sorry if I am not quite understanding what you are saying.
-
I'm not really trying to critique you, I just know that a ton of people only read the headline or don't read things thoroughly, or don't even click into the actual article at all.
I am just adding my 2 cents as someone with a degree in economics, so I'm not citing the article, I'm citing my years of education in economics and years of work that made use of it.
The article does not really go into the difference between US and UK law around monopolies, so I wanted to explore that a bit myself.
Also, when you say 'the first lines of the linked article says what I said'... do you mean the OP linked article, or the lexology link that I provided?
Because the IGN article says nothing about whether simply being a monopoly is illegal, that's why I provided the lexology link, to clarify that.
Sorry if I am not quite understanding what you are saying.
I am not talking about the IGN article, but about the link you gave me.
-
Having a "Monopoly" that occurred naturally isn't illegal. Misusing the position and eliminating any competition is illegal. Besides that, the monopoly situation is open and there is competition. They just suck. Imagine filing Nintendo a lawsuit for having a monopoly in handheld consoles...
Yeah this is so stupid, just sounds like a baseless money grab.
-
Oh yeah totally. But it deals with proprietary drivers...so im not 100% sure what the restrictions are there. The mapping could be done open source if there was a need/want.
Believe you can download the this project https://github.com/Alia5/SISR and get what you want
