Legal action over 'unfair' Steam game store prices given go ahead
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
sounds like you should have sued nintendo a long time ago then
-
Steam is a distribution platform, with DRM provided as an optional feature for the developer. If I wanted to play Deltarune without using the steam launcher, I can go to the downloaded directory and simply launch the executable. For convenience's sake, most users will use the steam client to launch their games, and some games force you to due to developer choice. In order to play the game I wanted to play though (Deltarune), steam only served as a storefront and a download repository.
-
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.
-
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.
Aren't those keys for valve hosted games, meaning that they are taking full advantage of valve CDN... and so even though they're being sold on a different site, they're still being procured from valve? Way it reads to me, they're not saying they can't sell it cheaper on another market place, they're simply saying if you're using our infrastructure to distribute the game, don't undercut what we are selling your game for.
Which doesn't sound unreasonable to me... but I'm just a dude sitting in his office... so fuck if I know.
-
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.
-
I haven't read the article yet, but isn't it about Steam's unfair cut?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
If consumers' regular buying habits at the time were not to buy on Steam by default (which they weren't), then it's unimpressive, and not a feasible poster child, for one's game's ability to survive in the modern market without Steam. That's the point I was making. Brick and mortar was the de facto storefront for PC games at the time that most of those games came out, so it was not strange for an always-online game to sell itself online-only on their own web sites. These days, skipping Steam is not a path most will take, and for good reason.
-
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?
-
If consumers' regular buying habits at the time were not to buy on Steam by default (which they weren't), then it's unimpressive, and not a feasible poster child, for one's game's ability to survive in the modern market without Steam. That's the point I was making. Brick and mortar was the de facto storefront for PC games at the time that most of those games came out, so it was not strange for an always-online game to sell itself online-only on their own web sites. These days, skipping Steam is not a path most will take, and for good reason.
You're moving the goalpost, have a nice day.
-
You're moving the goalpost, have a nice day.
I think you just internalized this to be only about online shopping, but that was never what I meant.
-
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.
