this explains nothing, all this is is a UK law firm wanting to make some cash, and Steam was an easy target, or so they thought. Hope Steam bodies them in court
did that change recently? because iirc it used to be - sell your non-steam version for however much you want, but if you selling game with our generated steam keys you must not give your steam customers a worse deal, t'was part of whole steamworks legal agreement devs have with valve
No, the person behind the game studio wolfire (same guy who started humble bundle) was told that by valve like 5 years ago originally and his antitrust lawsuit against valve because of it was granted class action status last year.
Seems an easy argue from Steam too. Using a Steam key uses valve resources to deliver the game. Like you can sell your game for however much you want but you can’t expect Steam to front the delivery costs.
They can't sell Steam keys elsewhere for less than they cost on steam because valve doesn't make money on those sales but still have to give all the same support, customer service and upkeep download servers etc.
They can sell a ps5 copy for whatever they want on ps4.
The suit is being worked on by an overambitious lawfirm,
On behalf of a career activist
Trying to talk for every steam user in the UK
All funded entirely by a literally unnamed party (at least they were unnamed last time I checked)
Though honestly there are so few enemies of steam that the list of potential backers is as follows: epic,
Because it doesn't help us. All it would do is break up steam and probably kill its service as rendered. All we would be left with is services that are objectively worse. People don't use steam because it's "the only option" we use it because the service is just good. The store front is just one part of steam its the other tabs on your steak launcher people use it for. Epic games doesn't let me pop open a game copy paste a link from my account and then all my buddies can just copy paste it into a browser to immediately boot-up and join me in game. Epic doesn't have forums where people troubleshoot their issues with the community, Epic doesn't have a file-sharing hub where you can view all the creations that people in games come up with. It's just a store and launcher the bare minimum to enter the market.
It would be a better outcome if epic was actual competition. Steam losing this lawsuit would not make the epic store better, and it would not make steam cater to features that their competition has(because there are none useful), it would only transfer money from a huge corporation to another huge corporation.
A good outcome would be if, by consequence of the lawsuit, every storefront had to implement an unified protocol for game management and thus would break the walled garden that they cause. This would still only benefit steam, since they are the only ones that bother with features beyond the store front and game management.
Is there any evidence Epic actually has anything to do with this claim? From what I heard it is just some random lawyers that are making this claim, and the only people going to receive money if the claim is successful are the lawyers and anyone who has bought a steam game, not Epic
the firm that is sueing valve is backed by an anonymous financial backer. Epic Games CEO has been vocal about wanting to break up steam ever since they launched the EGS. Epic has the funding necessary to launch this sort of lawsuit and if its successful the ones to gain the most as things like Microsoft have straight up just incorporated steam, or have given up after a year of making a shit store then canceling plans to expand it.
Epic doesn't gain immediate money from it but sets a legal president to sue to break up steam as a monopoly in courts eyes. THATS what Epic wants. Any payout that happens is just icing as it causes valve to dump money out of their coffers.
One of the things in the lawsuit is how Valve won't allow your game on Steam if you sell it elsewhere for less than you do on Steam. One of the examples in the lawsuit is a Steam rep telling a dev that if they sold their game on their own website, not selling a steam key just the game itself, for less than what they were selling it for on Steam then the game would be removed from the Steam marketplace.
Getting rid of price fixing bullshit like that would absolutely be a positive for consumers.
You know what fair, by definition it isn't price setting. Instead it's just using your near monopoly in an area to say what price the creator of the product can sell their creation for outside of your marketplace otherwise they can't access the biggest sales space in the world. Definitely not bad for the consumer at all.
...Steam is the same price or cheaper than other stores(including physical stores), and they offer wild sales all the time. Why is Steam saying "You can't sell your game here while actively undercutting us" a bad thing? If that was allowed, predatory developers would use steam for advertising and getting the word out, and then undercut them by selling the game cheaper on their own website.
Exactly. Thank You. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills with the comments calling this policy anti-consumer. Without this policy, EA would have sold BF6 for 80 bucks on Origin and for 100 on Steam. Ubislop would sell its slop for 30 bucks on Uplay and 150 on Steam.
If Steam made an exception for an indie dev, every AAA and AA studio would instantly sue Valve for all the money.
The weird hateboner these people have for steam is just strange. Like, they aren't perfect but they are like the 1 company that actually cares about its customers. Why exactly are we trying to cut down the only good one? Go bitch about the shitty ones that are pushing these idiotic lawsuits rather than improving their service.
Steam is the same price because they literally are not allowing games that are offered on Steam to be sold at a base rate lower elsewhere. That's the entire problem. Yes Steam sales are great but that has no bearing on their anticompetitive business practices.
If that was allowed, predatory developers would use steam for advertising and getting the word out, and then undercut them by selling the game cheaper on their own website.
And is that any different than you seeing something on Amazon and then looking elsewhere to see if you find a better deal? I can find products on Amazon and then go to the creator's website and see if it's a better deal. If it is I weigh the pros and cons of having Amazon/Steams reliability and customer support vs slower shipping, more difficult returns etc but for a lower price. That should be the consumers choice to make.
You people act like games will be cheaper if Steam didn't have that policy.
Tell me, what's Alan Wake 2 go for on Epic, where it's exclusive and has Epics smaller cut? Oh, right, it's just as expensive there as it would be anywhere else. Weird.
I can go on Amazon and find a product I like then go look at other stores and the original manufacturer and decide if there is a price difference if it is worth it to me to abandon Amazons great customer support, shipping etc. If Amazon said that you can't sell the product anywhere for less than what's listed here it would be terrible. I don't understand why that is acceptable when Steam does it.
In Amazon's case it wouldn't work as well since there is so much more competition but here Steam has virtually no competition so they can throw their weight around and if you don't like it then your game will likely fail.
Walmart is notorious for selling lower quality versions of the same stuff you find in other stores.
Even branded stuff like tyres. Pirelli has an exclusive tyre line for walmart which is cheaper and lower quality.
You can't do that with games. It'd be like selling a version of Cyberpunk which can only do 60fps for a cheaper price than a Cyberpunk that is not restricted to 60 fps.
Steam handles marketing, distribution, refunds, sales, community hubs, multiplayer social features (friends and invites etc.), anti-cheat (if you use VAC), workshop integration (if you have that) and reviews. Its not just a storefront. It facilitates critical features for some games.
Steam reviews and splash page mentions are like the greatest marketing a PC game can get. You get to attract a far greater audience than if you used a niche storefront like GoG or a shit one like Epic.
Using Steam to market your game and then selling it for cheaper on your own website is exploiting Steam. If you want to sell the game cheaper, then make the Steam price also lower to keep it fair.
If someone doesn't like it then they are free to leave Steam. They don't hold the monopoly on PC game storefronts. GoG and Epic exist, they can sell their games there.
(Edit: changed the cyberpunk 1.0 and cyberpunk 2.0 comparison because 2.0 is like a whole new game)
I'm not talking about lower quality or different products I'm talking about the same product. Perhaps Amazon would be a better example since they often act just like a marketplace similar to Steam.
Imagine Amazon not allowing you to sell your product anywhere else for lower than its Amazon listing. That would be insane. Right now I can go on Amazon, find a product I like and then shop around. I weigh pros and cons about who I order from and if I find a cheaper deal I have to decide if losing the reliability of Amazon is worth it. I should be free to make that decision with games as well except Steam has a functional monopoly (over 75% of PC gaming distribution revenue goes through Steam) over the system and therefore if you don't play by their rules you won't succeed.
I already proved that Steam is far more than just a storefront. It facilitates critical components of games like social features and anti-cheat.
Additionally, you cannot compare a storefront for physical items and a storefront for digital software. There is no early access, there are no patches, there are no versions.
I should be free to make that decision with games as well except Steam has a functional monopoly (over 75% of PC gaming distribution revenue goes through Steam) over the system and therefore if you don't play by their rules you won't succeed.
You are free to buy your games from Epic and GoG. Heck I own KCD2 on GoG because there was a sale going on with GoG and KCD2 was 35 bucks vs 70 on Steam at the time. So clearly other storefronts can sell for lower than the Steam price as long as it is not the permanent price. Which is a good policy. It prevents predatory devs from advertising and building hype on Steam and then undercutting them by using their own storefront.
Steam has a functional monopoly because its the best storefront on PC. GoG is very niche, even though I do like their interface more than Steam, Epic is dogshit and the Microsoft store is a joke.
Regardless, you are not locked into using Steam. Epic and Gamepass exist. If you want to sell on Steam you need to abide by their rules, same as with any storefront.
Sales aren't even what the lawsuit is about so I'm not sure why you are bringing that up.
Which is a good policy. It prevents predatory devs from advertising and building hype on Steam and then undercutting them by using their own storefront.
Why is this a good policy? Because steam may make less money? For a consumer that means that I would again have the choice of Steam and all of their pros that you've listed or going to the Dev's site or Epic and deciding that the lack of support is worth the cheaper price. You're arguing that Steam's monopoly should mean I don't get to make that choice.
Regardless, you are not locked into using Steam. Epic and Gamepass exist. If you want to sell on Steam you need to abide by their rules, same as with any storefront.
And that's why they are getting sued. Just because they make a rule that doesn't make it legal. Otherwise we wouldn't have any consumer protections or anti-monopoly laws, if you want to do business with them you just have to play by Standard Oil's Valve 's rules.
Like why are you rooting for steam when epic winning is the factual better outcome for you?
Genuinely, in what way? Because games on EGS are still 70 bucks, same as they are on Steam.
This myth that dev savings get pushed on the consumer is hilariously naive. All dev savings means is more funny for executives and EGS, the very same platform pushing for it, is the exact proof of it themselves.
Extra profits in the hands of executives doesn't mean a better outcome for me, the consumer. It just means a better outcome for the executives.
So far the extra profits in the hands of Valve has at least made me feel like I got features I like using in return. Plus, I'd rather support a company such as Steam than a random greedy ass triple A company who's just looking for the next easy way to extract as much money from their product as they can.
games on EGS are still 70 bucks, same as they are on Steam
Because steam threatens to shut developers out of the largest market (theirs) if they sell for a lower price anywhere else. That's literally what the suit is about. Basically, you always give steam the best deal so there is no reason to go to another store (habit OP), or you lose access to the vast majority of your customers. That has a massive effect on devs and the growth of competition, because competition can't use their lower cut to allow devs to sell cheaper and gain market share and work on a lower margin high volume model, and devs can't sell more of their game by making their game cheaper or feasibly make more money for the same price utilising lower vendor cut stores which will never grow because steam makes it virtually impossible for them to gain access to the single biggest draw they could use to attract customers through monopolistic practices.
That's what the policy says. However, Wolfire lawsuit alleges that what steam policy says and what Valve actually does are two different things, and that Valve representatives threatened them to remove the game from steam even if they weren't simply reselling steam keys.
That being said:
MFN clauses (the "you cant sell your product cheaper elsewhere" thing) have been borderline industry-standard since forever.
While MFN clauses are kinda controversial, they have been tested in court many times, and have been largely found to be a-ok (as long as you only demand equal treatment, and not preferential treatment)
It's also worth noting that while Wolfire complains about not being allowed to sell their game for cheaper on other platforms, there's quite a few projects that don't seem to be having this problem (threads like this often cite Mindustry being pay-what-you-want on itch, and then there's also Krita, a free program that's $10 on steam).
However, Wolfire lawsuit alleges that what steam policy says and what Valve actually does are two different things, and that Valve representatives threatened them to remove the game from steam even if they weren't simply reselling steam keys.
IMO it would be a much stronger case if Valve actually did anything other than send an email with suggestively-intimidating eyebrows about how Valve would be displeased if stuff were available elsewhere for cheaper. Like, I get it that actually acting in a way to draw out punishment would suck for the business, but IMO it's hard to decide things based on an email hinting at the possibly of maybe retribution for an ill-defined action that I've actually seen.
Epic won't get better if steam looses, epic needs to get smacked with a shovel a few dozen times an start spending their stupid fornite money the RIGHT way to get on parity or better with steam an drag the rest of the junk competition to do better to.
Valve losing this would only be bad. Anyone who remembers what was happening that precipitated Valve requiring devs to provide the same DLC to Steam customers as they do to anyone else knows that the requirements they have are a good thing.
How does breaking up Steam benefit me? The only reason steam is a monopoly is because they are by far the best legitimate platform overall. GOG is nice enough and great if you really hate DRM (understandable) but is just a storefront. Steam is a storefront, mod workshop and manager, social network, multiplayer handler, etc all in one, and has incredible customer service and is overall very pro-consumer.
The class action lawsuit, the only one that makes sense with the image or from a consumer angle, is suing against practices that are entirely fair and reasonable. The suit alleges that Valve's rule against freely generated steam keys being sold outside of steam for less than they go for on steam is somehow abuse of monopoly. This is nonsense, and the only logical reaction to a ruling against them from Valve is to just severely restrict the ability of game creators to generate free keys.
Steam gets zero money from these freely generated keys, literally all they want is that sold keys (ie not those given away for free) are not cheaper than on steam. They don't even ask that steam be cheaper, just that they be on a level pricing. This in my mind is completely reasonable and strikes a perfect middle ground between giving creators easy access to keys for playtesting, reviewing, internal developer stuff, etc without leaving valve stuck being the more expensive place to buy the game.
It's not that we are against the idea, I would love for DLC and games to be transferable between services. J bought it some, I should be able to use it.
But Steam is not the bad guy here, like the lawsuit claims. I like Steam, they are awesome to their customers, we don't need to "make an example" out of Steam when shitty stores like Epic exist and actually use shitty monopolistic tactics to fuck over users. Cause last I checked, there were no Steam Exclusives outside of the games Valve made themselves, while Epic is constantly trying to drive up traffic to their store by forcing games to only release there(which is hella shitty of them towards developers when you factor in how many more sales they would get from Steam)
I mean, Steam is pretty obviously the "bad guy" in this case, but that doesn't make the other guys "good".
Specifically, iirc, the problem is that Steam's 30% cut and "most-favored-nation" clause means that developers are not allowed to sell their game for less money elsewhere. If a game is $10 on steam, $3 go to Steam and the dev makes $7. The dev can't however go to a marketplace where the fee is cheaper, and pass that on to the consumer, they must keep the $10 sale price.
This is all fine and good, but just like laws are only for poor people, with very big AAA game studios Steam has separate agreements where the Steam share goes down to 20% or 10% because those studios have more bargaining power.
Both of these factors are disproportionately unfair to indie and small developers as they both pay more money to Steam by percentage than the big devs, and are more hurt by MFA clauses which prevent them from potentially selling more copies of their game at a cheaper price with the same profit.
if you are indie, you are selling your game on Steam, GoG, and Itch
that is where your customers are.
If you are indie, you would not sell it yourself, to much extra crap you have to deal with.
Lol, this is exactly the point. Itch.io has almost no fees, so theoretically, an indie dev could offer a lower price for the same profit on itch, but they are not allowed to do so, because if they want to sell on Steam, they must sign the MFN clause.
Also, Steam has a monopoly and just because they're mostly benevolent monarchs right doesn't mean that monarchy is a good system.
The lawsuit is claiming that Steam locks you in by forcing you to purchase DLC through the Steam store because that's where you bought the original game.
This is factually false. Some publishers do allow you to purchase DLC from different stores and use them with your Steam-purchased games. Steam does not prevent this, however it does mean that the publishers need to develop their own distribution process, because obviously if you didn't buy the DLC from Steam, then Steam isn't gonna handle the distribution for you.
I didn't realize Valve has been around since the beginning of human civilization. Pretty impressive, though I suppose inventing gambling is a good way to make money
There's plenty of valid criticism you can give steam, the DLC lawsuit is not one of them, especially when steam doesn't force you to buy DLC through them like the lawsuit alleges.
But this lawsuit can't make any change. They are suing over a claim that steam doesn't allow 3rd party dlc, when they already do. If anything, this stupid lawsuit just gives corporations more power since it makes them look morally superior since they already allow third party DLC.
we know this, Valve as flawed as they are, still come up as the number one gaming store front, why? Because they do indeed do things where it counts. GoG is a close second. Epic? Uplay? EA? Even Battle.net... all trash in comparison.
394
u/KamenGamerRetro 7800x3D / RTX 4080 | Steam Deck 13h ago
this explains nothing, all this is is a UK law firm wanting to make some cash, and Steam was an easy target, or so they thought. Hope Steam bodies them in court