Legal action over 'unfair' Steam game store prices given go ahead
-
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.
-
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?
unessisaryunecessaryJust a little correction.
-
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.
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".
-
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.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
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?
-
Mindustry is straight up open source, it is available on github under the GNU GPL v3
It's worth giving the dev his $5 though. Great game and open source
-
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?
-
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?
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.
-
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 worth giving the dev his $5 though. Great game and open source
More like 3.33$ (or 3.33€ in my case) plus fees, but agreed
-
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?
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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?
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.
-
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?
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.
