Legal action over 'unfair' Steam game store prices given go ahead
-
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.
-
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.
-
There are games on Steam that don't have DRM (since it's not a requirement from Valve). The most prominent examples I can think of are games from Toby Fox and Klei Entertainment.
Steam is a DRM system.
I am not being flippant or facetious. Steam is literally a DRM system with a shop grafted on top. That is what it has always been. If a game is on Steam, it be definition has DRM.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
But for the games without DRM you can just download them and run the executable. Bypassing Steam
Sure, if you stop using steam you can't re-download or update the game, but if the game didn't have DRM, you can just keep copying the existing executable
-
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
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 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.
-
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 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.
-
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
