Support NeoGAF

[geary]

Humble Bundle creator brings antitrust lawsuit against Valve over Steam

“At bottom, Valve’s scheme imposes a massive tax on the PC Desktop Gaming industry.”…

arstechnica.com

Indie developer (and Humble Indie Bundle originator) Wolfire Games has filed a proposed class-action lawsuit against Steam creator Valve, saying that the company is wielding Steam's monopoly power over the PC gaming market to extract "an extraordinarily high cut from nearly every sale that passes through its store—30%."

The lawsuit, filed in a Washington state federal court, centers on what it considers an illegal tying of the Steam gaming platform (which provides game library management, social networking, achievement tracking, Steam Workshop mods, etc.) and the Steam game store (which processes online payments and delivers a copy of the game). After years of growth, the vast majority of PC gamers are locked into the Steam platform thanks to "immense network effects" and the high switching costs to move to a new PC platform, the suit argues.

The new lawsuit comes as Microsoft has announced plans to lower its revenue cut for games on the Microsoft Store from 30 percent to 12 percent starting in August. It also comes months after a group of five Steam users brought a similar lawsuit alleging that Valve's monopoly position was keeping game prices artificially high.

 

[JSoup]

I remember this story from a few days ago. The general consensus at the time was this is something that needs to be seriously talked about, but that single dev has no teeth by itself. The goal seems more to get other devs to see this as a time to file with them.

 

[DGrayson]

I haven't heard about any humble bundles for a long time. Are those still a thing?

 

[GHG]

Already posted:

Overgrowth developer Wolfire Games files antitrust lawsuit against Valve

The suit says Steam suppresses competition and takes 'an extraordinarily high cut' from developers. Wolfire Games, the developer of Overgrowth and Receiver, has filed an antitrust lawsuit against Valve, alleging that it uses its dominance over the PC gaming market through Steam to suppress...

www.neogaf.com

I haven't heard about any humble bundles for a long time. Are those still a thing?

They are but since IGN took over they haven't been anywhere near as good as they were in the past. You can find better bundles at places like fanatical these days.

 

[johntown]

I blame EGS for all this crap.

 

[Fbh]

I don't really see it.
How are they a monopoly when there are alternatives like Epic, Windows Store and GOG? Not to mention PC is an open platform so you can also set up your own website and sell your game there.

Sounds like "I want the exposure, user base and features of steam but I'm mad that they come at a higher cost"

I haven't heard about any humble bundles for a long time. Are those still a thing?

Yeah. But they are owned by IGN now, the bundles aren't as good anymore and they are cutting the percentage of money that goes to charities

 

[Mokus]

Remember when for each sold game at a retailer you ended up with only 30% from the full price? But Steam came along and all of the sudden you got 70% and everyone was so happy.

 

[Soodanim]

I haven't heard about any humble bundles for a long time. Are those still a thing?

They're much more varied now, with bundles for things like programming, books/comics, and themed software as well as the game bundles. Haven't bought one in years though. They're nowhere near the days when you could get a whole franchise from a big name developer/publisher.

 

[Pejo]

I hope they also sue Sony and MS whose platform fees are the same. Oh they won't? Weird.

Valve offers a shit ton of value (unlimited key generation, hosting downloads, etc) and exposure to a massive active userbase for their %. That said, sure, I don't begrudge them for trying to have to pay less. Frankly I find this a better angle than Tim's angle of trying to get gamers on his side for the argument. You can't say you care about how much money the devs make in one breath and then devalue their games by putting them on deep discount without even letting them know first.

 

[Decontamination Silo]

LOL. I remember when Humble Bundle seemed like an honest charity. Now they're just maxing out typical merchant behavior. No more money from me.

 

[Neo_Geo]

I used to back Valve in this situation, stating that they didn't take a cut from sales of Steam keys that were on competing platforms, but after learning about the restrictions in place, I hope this becomes a pain in the ass for Valve and forces them to offer a more competitive take from store sales.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Steam only has a monopoly because people like using Steam. You can buy many of the same games elsewhere (GOG, Epic, MS) if you want, the difference is the consumer chooses to use Steam.

I used to back Valve in this situation, stating that they didn't take a cut from sales of Steam keys that were on competing platforms, but after learning about the restrictions in place, I hope this becomes a pain in the ass for Valve and forces them to offer a more competitive take from store sales.

What restrictions?

If console mfgs can have a 30% split, then a PC storefront that has no monopoly over the system at all isn't a problem.

 

[Skifi28]

Steam is not a monopoly.

 

[CuNi]

Steam only has a monopoly because people like using Steam. You can buy many of the same games elsewhere (GOG, Epic, MS) if you want, the difference is the consumer chooses to use Steam.

What restrictions?

If console mfgs can have a 30% split, then a PC storefront that has no monopoly over the system at all isn't a problem.

The restrictions he talks about are the ones that prohibit you from selling your game lower on any other platform.
I'm not 100% sure what this exactly entails, like time or shop restrictions but I can see how this is a bad practice in some peoples eyes. It's essentially killing the free market by enforcing Steam having always the or one of the best prices.

But I still think this won't hold up as you're not forced to sell on steam and could just say No to this deal and self-publish or sell on any other storefront.
So it's not something that is nice, but you also have alternatives and if you agree then you know what you agreed to.


On another note, I love how salty they sound when saying that steam has such good user-features like Workshop etc. that you don't want to leave once you're in that ecosystem.
I'm sorry, I don't see how it's Valves fault that all other storefronts are literally S-Tier Garbage when it comes to Usability and User-Features lol. They invested in those features, so can those other storefronts.

 

[Dream-Knife]

The restrictions he talks about are the ones that prohibit you from selling your game lower on any other platform.
I'm not 100% sure what this exactly entails, like time or shop restrictions but I can see how this is a bad practice in some peoples eyes. It's essentially killing the free market by enforcing Steam having always the or one of the best prices.

But I still think this won't hold up as you're not forced to sell on steam and could just say No to this deal and self-publish or sell on any other storefront.
So it's not something that is nice, but you also have alternatives and if you agree then you know what you agreed to.


On another note, I love how salty they sound when saying that steam has such good user-features like Workshop etc. that you don't want to leave once you're in that ecosystem.
I'm sorry, I don't see how it's Valves fault that all other storefronts are literally S-Tier Garbage when it comes to Usability and User-Features lol. They invested in those features, so can those other storefronts.

It's really no different from MAP. If you violate MAP, you no longer get to sell whatever product. Except the roles are reversed.

 

[Alexios]

Lol, pulled the trigger a bit too soon maybe, kinda hard to prove it's all that when it's still a very common fee % on all kinds of platforms that only differ by arbitrary excuses bent on singling Steam out.

The restrictions he talks about are the ones that prohibit you from selling your game lower on any other platform.
I'm not 100% sure what this exactly entails, like time or shop restrictions but I can see how this is a bad practice in some peoples eyes. It's essentially killing the free market by enforcing Steam having always the or one of the best prices.

But I still think this won't hold up as you're not forced to sell on steam and could just say No to this deal and self-publish or sell on any other storefront.
So it's not something that is nice, but you also have alternatives and if you agree then you know what you agreed to.


On another note, I love how salty they sound when saying that steam has such good user-features like Workshop etc. that you don't want to leave once you're in that ecosystem.
I'm sorry, I don't see how it's Valves fault that all other storefronts are literally S-Tier Garbage when it comes to Usability and User-Features lol. They invested in those features, so can those other storefronts.

That only applies to Steam keys though, what are they to do? Provide all their services they already do for free and allow publishers to undercut them on top?

It's inevitable that in that scenario a platform/storefront built solely on selling Steam keys sourced directly from the devs, for as low as 50, 20, 10% even, all day every day since they have zero services beyond their own transactions to support, would show up and eclipse everything.

Non-Steam versions of course don't have to follow any such guidelines even if the game is also on Steam so, that doesn't ensure they have the lowest price of any given game, just that there's no huge discrepancies between Steam key versions as they can all go on sale at different times but end up roughly similar.

Nobody else even allows anything close to this, but Steam is evil for not giving total free reign to completely screw them over no questions asked, lmao.

 

[Kataploom]

There's clearly an agenda against Valve and I think it's clearly the fact they're a private company thus can't be controlled via shareholders so they're trying to reduce it as much as possible.

Every single mf that talks about 30% cut conveniently "ignores" (lol) the fact that they just came late to the party when it was already a retailer standard cut and that everyone else does the same.

They also won't talk about how Valve leaves devs literally sell or give away Steam keys without paying a single cent, from which this person in the OP took a lot of advantage when filling their pockets with "charity" money.

 

[Dream-Knife]

That only applies to Steam keys though, what are they to do? Provide all their services they already do for free and allow publishers to undercut them on top?

It's inevitable that in that scenario a platform/storefront built solely on selling Steam keys, for as low as 50, 20, 10% even, all day every day since they have zero services beyond their own transactions to support, would show up and eclipse everything.

Non-Steam versions of course don't have to follow any such guidelines even if the game is also on Steam so, that doesn't ensure they have the lowest price of any given game, just that there's no huge discrepancies between Steam key versions as they can all go on sale at different times but end up roughly similar.

Wait, I'm confused now.

There are places such as humblebundle, gamesplanet, fanatical, etc that do sell steam keys for less than Steam does.

 

[Alexios]

Wait, I'm confused now.

There are places such as humblebundle, gamesplanet, fanatical, etc that do sell steam keys for less than Steam does.

Yes, it's not really strongly enforced regardless, I doubt there's been any dispute over it if someone wasn't obviously taking advantage of it (like set the Steam price higher than normal to then divert sales to a different store that sells it at a good price that's enough to make a profit without giving Steam a cut or whatever). But the gist is, technically they can go on sale anywhere at any time for whatever price, but eventually, at some point within some vague time frame, they will also have to go on a similar enough sale on Steam itself. Oh the horror and the monopoly's harsh exploitation!

Nobody else even allows anything close to this, but Steam is evil for not giving total free reign to completely screw them over no questions asked, lmao.

 

[Little Chicken]

Seems we've come full circle with Steam; Valve are the dinosaurs of an industry that's screaming for change.

Good.

 

[ClosBSAS]

I used to back Valve in this situation, stating that they didn't take a cut from sales of Steam keys that were on competing platforms, but after learning about the restrictions in place, I hope this becomes a pain in the ass for Valve and forces them to offer a more competitive take from store sales.

Lmao. Go worship sweeney

 

[daveonezero]

I don’t buy the Twitter and Google monopoly talk I definitely don’t buy it from Valve.

Stream has a better value proposition and tools that both consumers and developers seem to like paying for.

these companies may not be doing everything in the best way but when you are on an open platform like the PC and internet you can always compete.

the thing Valve doesn’t do afaik is take money from government and regulate its competition out of existence. Something I can’t say about Alphabet, Twitter and Facebook.

 

[jshackles]

This is weird to me, because Humble Bundle themselves doesn't pay any of Valve's cut. Valve lets developers generate keys to activate their games on steam with a 0% cut - literally for free, as many as they'd like. The 30% cut that Valve gets is ONLY for purchases made directly on Steam.

I have a hard time understanding what, exactly, they're complaining about? Losing 30% of their revenue for sales made directly on Steam, I guess? While simultaneously reaping the direct benefits of Valve's generosity to personally make millions of dollars? Seems pretty stupid if you ask me.

 

[Zeroing]

All this because unregulated rules on big tech giants. That’s the real issue here. Anyone wondered why Europe does not have a “google” or a “Apple” or a “Facebook” ? Because of the tight rules, meaning they can’t grow without having be watched on what they are doing!

the problem here is those companies grown and got away with things, so other companies follow the example.. to be able to compete. it’s a snow ball.

That is what the American type of “free market” has produced…

 

[Holammer]

I haven't heard about any humble bundles for a long time. Are those still a thing?

Humble was a contributor to Steam's growth and it allowed publishers to dump failed games or ones past their prime, but today Humble Bundles & Choice/monthly offerings are mostly absolute dogshit. I'm not saying it's because Epic bags all the good stuff and gives it for free on EGS while barring them from being featured as Steam keys in bundles for a set period, but that's totally why.

 

[CuNi]

Lol, pulled the trigger a bit too soon maybe, kinda hard to prove it's all that when it's still a very common fee % on all kinds of platforms that only differ by arbitrary excuses bent on singling Steam out.

That only applies to Steam keys though, what are they to do? Provide all their services they already do for free and allow publishers to undercut them on top?

It's inevitable that in that scenario a platform/storefront built solely on selling Steam keys sourced directly from the devs, for as low as 50, 20, 10% even, all day every day since they have zero services beyond their own transactions to support, would show up and eclipse everything.

Non-Steam versions of course don't have to follow any such guidelines even if the game is also on Steam so, that doesn't ensure they have the lowest price of any given game, just that there's no huge discrepancies between Steam key versions as they can all go on sale at different times but end up roughly similar.

Nobody else even allows anything close to this, but Steam is evil for not giving total free reign to completely screw them over no questions asked, lmao.

I was not aware this goes for keys only. If that is true, then there's no way they win this case.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Steam is not a monopoly.

Violations of US Antitrust laws do not require monopolization of a market but anticompetitive practices primarily stemming from abuse of market power., which the complaint properly alleges. There is a lot of interpretation as to what "abuse" is and what it should be and it historically has varied for different industries. Timing also plays a critical role, which is why a shoe manufacturer with 4% of market share was considered to have violated antitrust laws in the early half of the 20th century (in hindsight, most commentators believe it was radical of the courts to reach that conclusion).

Having skimmed the complaint, Wolfire is in essence making the same argument as Epic in its case with Apple but with a different approach to standing and remedy. The dynamic they portend is that Steam has two components: (1) the distribution engine (i.e. the platform); and (2) the storefront (i.e. store). The two are - in petitioner's view - illegally tied, which is a term of art from patent law (at least from my personal exposure - See International Salt Co. v. United States (1947)). Basically, Valve may have a legal monopoly over its invention (Steam) conferred by patent, but Valve cannot exercise monopoly over the non-patented software distributed on Steam since they have no legally conferred interest over those items (the effort to do so is considered per se antitrust because it is seen by the courts as trying to extend one's patent rights beyond the scope of the patent).

The complaint alleges Valve's practice of threatening to delist a game or a publisher's library if they undercut prices on other platforms or do business with their competitors is anticompetitive (which I agree with, personally). Even if Valve can argue around it - which is possible, why should they have to be compelled to offer service to someone if they don't want to? - the primary issue is going to be remedy. What, specifically, should Valve stop doing if the underlying allegations are true? That is where my assessment ends since I'm not an active practitioner in this area.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm all for corporations to win and dominate as long as they do it in a normal course of business kind of way (no absurd bullying tactics or contracts).

No doubt Steam is the biggest PC plyer out there. But there's other services too. Epic only requires 12% cuts and GOG sells many of the same latest games as Steam too.

I dont follow Steam, so I'm not sure what kind of under the table BS contracts they got game makers forced to sign up for survival, but if Steam has grown a ton based on gamers and game makers due to people loving the service, I don't see how they can be grilled like anticonsumer oppressors.

If a supplier doesn't like Steam, then move it to other digital storefronts or even better sell it on your own site as a direct download and get 100% of the money. Digital copanies are blessed they can do that. Traditional manufacturers cant really do that well due to logistics reasons. You need retailers helping you promote and store giant stacks of product. With digital it's all on servers, and not even your servers.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

They're much more varied now, with bundles for things like programming, books/comics, and themed software as well as the game bundles. Haven't bought one in years though. They're nowhere near the days when you could get a whole franchise from a big name developer/publisher.

I recall getting a ton of Sega and Star wars like this (in separate bundles).

And I bought them from Time to time... Now as you say, they lost their edge.

 

[Guilty_AI]

The complaint alleges Valve's practice of threatening to delist a game or a publisher's library if they undercut prices on other platforms or do business with their competitors is anticompetitive (which I agree with, personally). Even if Valve can argue around it - which is possible, why should they have to be compelled to offer service to someone if they don't want to? - the primary issue is going to be remedy. What, specifically, should Valve stop doing if the underlying allegations are true? That is where my assessment ends since I'm not an active practitioner in this area.

I used to back Valve in this situation, stating that they didn't take a cut from sales of Steam keys that were on competing platforms, but after learning about the restrictions in place, I hope this becomes a pain in the ass for Valve and forces them to offer a more competitive take from store sales.

The restrictions he talks about are the ones that prohibit you from selling your game lower on any other platform.
I'm not 100% sure what this exactly entails, like time or shop restrictions but I can see how this is a bad practice in some peoples eyes. It's essentially killing the free market by enforcing Steam having always the or one of the best prices.

I've done a bunch of reading around, including steam distribution agreement steamworks partner program and i have to ask: does this "most favored nation" clause even exists?
The closest thing i could find is that when selling steam keys in other stores, the prices and discounts there must be the same as the ones in steam, in which case i find completely fair since games sold through keys still use Steam's enviroment and resources.

I've found nothing that suggests steam forces this price parity in regards to non-steam versions of the game. And considering they make a point of explaining how price parity with steam keys should work, why would they describe that in the first place if - supposedly - they're forcing price parity in all situations? It'd be completely redundant.

EDIT: Seems the lawsuit can't really point out specifically where Valve says this. They never show any quote of it or say the specifc wording used in the agreement.
There's also a bunch of other weird things in the lawsuit like how they try to argue CD Projekt, a store owner, is "complicit" to these "practices" because they agreed to the contract, except of course they would since they sell their games on steam. They even throw Ubisoft into the fray with the same arguments even though Ubisoft loudly left steam just last year.

Honestly, this lawsuit still reeks of opportunism in the end. They'll only have a case if this MFN clause they claim to exists actually exists, which i'm pretty much doubting by now.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

I've done a bunch of reading around, including steam distribution agreement steamworks partner program and i have to ask: does this "most favored nation" clause even exists?
The closest thing i could find is that when selling steam keys in other stores, the prices and discounts there must be the same as the ones in steam, in which case i find completely fair since games sold through keys still use Steam's enviroment and resources.

I've found nothing that suggests steam forces this price parity in regards to non-steam versions of the game. And considering they make a point of explaining how price parity with steam keys should work, why would they describe that in the first place if - supposedly - they're forcing price parity in all situations? It'd be completely redundant.

EDIT: Seems the lawsuit can't really point out specifically where Valve says this. They never show any quote of it or say the specifc wording used in the agreement.
There's also a bunch of other weird things in the lawsuit like how they try to argue CD Projekt, a store owner, is "complicit" to these "practices" because they agreed to the contract, except of course they would since they sell their games on steam. They even throw Ubisoft into the fray with the same arguments even though Ubisoft loudly left steam just last year.

Honestly, this lawsuit still reeks of opportunism in the end. They'll only have a case if this MFN clause they claim to exists actually exists, which i'm pretty much doubting by now.

You typically won’t see such evidence in a complaint. The allegation that such a tactic is employed is all that is referenced in order to allow the petitioners to begin conducting discovery to gather evidence (I assume the evidence exists because this is a tactic major retailers in other industries employ).

To be clear, the parties suing under this lawsuit does not include HumbleBundle. It’s primarily a development studio who is upset that Steam is the only option in order to reach 70% of the market (which is untrue, you could put up a website, host your game’s files and have the same access but you’d have to do your own work getting people to find and purchase it) and a prototypical consumer who was financially harmed due to Valve’s pricing practices.

 

[CuNi]

I've done a bunch of reading around, including steam distribution agreement steamworks partner program and i have to ask: does this "most favored nation" clause even exists?
The closest thing i could find is that when selling steam keys in other stores, the prices and discounts there must be the same as the ones in steam, in which case i find completely fair since games sold through keys still use Steam's enviroment and resources.

I've found nothing that suggests steam forces this price parity in regards to non-steam versions of the game. And considering they make a point of explaining how price parity with steam keys should work, why would they describe that in the first place if - supposedly - they're forcing price parity in all situations? It'd be completely redundant.

EDIT: Seems the lawsuit can't really point out specifically where Valve says this. They never show any quote of it or say the specifc wording used in the agreement.
There's also a bunch of other weird things in the lawsuit like how they try to argue CD Projekt, a store owner, is "complicit" to these "practices" because they agreed to the contract, except of course they would since they sell their games on steam. They even throw Ubisoft into the fray with the same arguments even though Ubisoft loudly left steam just last year.

Honestly, this lawsuit still reeks of opportunism in the end. They'll only have a case if this MFN clause they claim to exists actually exists, which i'm pretty much doubting by now.

Yeah, I already got corrected that it apparently only goes for Steam-Keys they generate to sell outside Steam, which is fair tbh.
Quote here:

I was not aware this goes for keys only. If that is true, then there's no way they win this case.

And if that is true, they have no case at all, since I can't imagine them winning a case where they protest that they can't sell Keys to a Storefront cheaper than on the storefront itself.
They could just sell the game on steam and a non-steam Version lower than Steam which I think would be no problem at all.

 

[Paasei]

This lower revenue cuts don't really mean much to us who just play games. People stick to Steam because, for those who like it, offers a wide variety of features instead of just an online marketplace.
There's the Workshop for mods, avatar collections, trading cards, trading, chat client, communities and buying keys on other sites for less.
I couldn't care less about nearly any of them, but a lot of people do, and I understand that. The workshop is really nice and a feature I use more than anything else on Steam.

All these other stores and publishers/devs compaining about Steam, because they just can't make a decent one themselves. Nobody wants the bloatware of online marketplaces either. Steam is just lucky to be first.
I'd rather have them all stop with the forced use of their marketplace/launcher and just make it an option for the gamer. Imagine getting a 100% of your revenue when you just release a game boxed, or digitally by only downloading the installer and nothing more.

 

[A.Romero]

This is beyond stupid. Steam doesn't have any monopoly, they just happen to be the biggest dog because they pretty much created modern PC gaming.

Don't put your games on Steam and go with Epic or simply sell it yourself. You will quickly learn what that 30% gets you and many other devs.

I've been getting stuff from other stores recently because they are cheaper than Steam but whenever price is not a factor, Steam is the best, hands down.

 

[MMaRsu]

I bet Timmy have them some money

 

[rofif]

I don't see a case for lawsuit. Maybe a complaint but who cares.
Steam is not flat 30%. I think they adjust or big customers.
Anyway - Games are not cheaper on epic, so I don't care. Nothing in it for me. What I get are great steam download speeds, always maxing my ISP speed. Cloud saves, forums, guides. It's a good ecosystem

 

[fermcr]

Lawsuits, lawsuits and more lawsuits... Everybody wants more money.

 

[Sentenza]

I haven't heard about any humble bundles for a long time. Are those still a thing?

Yeah. They are bigger than ever?

But the guy here has no involvement with the HB brand anymore.

 

[Hugare]

I dont know why a dynamic option hasnt been implemented already

< 1M sales : 15%
> 5M sales: 25%

Something like that. So they dont fuck indies and etc.

Would encourage a lot of devs thst are unsure about their game's sales performance to out their games on the store.

 

[Sean Mirrsen]

The closest thing i could find is that when selling steam keys in other stores, the prices and discounts there must be the same as the ones in steam, in which case i find completely fair since games sold through keys still use Steam's enviroment and resources.

It's not even that they "must be the same", the wording is "Steam users must be provided with a comparable offer within a reasonable time". So you could sell your game on EGS at a semi-permanent 30% discount, as long as that discount periodically goes away and reappears on Steam, say during the seasonal sales.

 

[synce]

I dont know why a dynamic option hasnt been implemented already

< 1M sales : 15%
> 5M sales: 25%

Something like that. So they dont fuck indies and etc.

Would encourage a lot of devs thst are unsure about their game's sales performance to out their games on the store.

I think it's in fact the opposite, where Valve offers bigger discounts to bigger companies. Was something like 20% for the biggest sellers.

Hope to see both Apple and Valve lose these lawsuits. 30% commission is ridiculous for doing practically nothing.

 

[Hugare]

I think it's in fact the opposite, where Valve offers bigger discounts to bigger companies. Was something like 20% for the biggest sellers.

Hope to see both Apple and Valve lose these lawsuits. 30% commission is ridiculous for doing practically nothing.

Which is kinda ridiculous.

Its not like those big distributors would stop selling their games on Steam at 30%. Even at 40%, I think. Too many customers.

But 30% to indie devs means a lot.

 

[HoodWinked]

This antitrust crap is moot if the current system most greatly benefits customers.

The whole point of antitrust is to stop the practice of a monopoly to lower prices only temporarily to eliminate or buyout the competition then jack up prices as they were the only option. Even when there was less competition on PC there was even greater discounts on steam.

 

[MadPanda]

only applies to Steam keys though, what are they to do? Provide all their services they already do for free and allow publishers to undercut them on top?

So something similar to buying physical media on consoles? Imagine if Sony and Microsoft said that you can't sell games for cheaper at Walmart, gamestop or wherever

 

[Guilty_AI]

So something similar to buying physical media on consoles? Imagine if Sony and Microsoft said that you can't sell games for cheaper at Walmart, gamestop or wherever

Except a physical PC release doesn't need to be through a steam key, unlike with a PS or Xbox.

 

[Alexios]

So something similar to buying physical media on consoles? Imagine if Sony and Microsoft said that you can't sell games for cheaper at Walmart, gamestop or wherever

You think Sony doesn't get a cut from the games walmart, gamestop, or whoever sells? Wut? Lmfao. It's explained perfectly in the post but no, you had to selectively quote it just to post your disgracefully ignorant hot take!

And reverse it on top of that, as it's not the retailers discounting but the devs/publishers and they're not told not to discount it but that they also have to similarly discount it on Steam at some point.

Wtf?! So, no it's not similar at all. Get a grip.

 

[JCK75]

What Steam provides to Devs is not exactly cheap to maintain, I don't think 12% is sustainable for anyone not making billions off of Windows/Fortnite
The fact EGS lost millions says everything you need to know about why Valve is like.. fuck that shit.

 

[Guilty_AI]

What Steam provides to Devs is not exactly cheap to maintain, I don't think 12% is sustainable for anyone not making billions off of Windows/Fortnite
The fact EGS lost millions says everything you need to know about why Valve is like.. fuck that shit.

I assume 12% can be sustainable as long as you sacrifice other features as well as the overall quality of the store/launcher.
Itch io for example works on a system where devs pick how much they wish to share with the store (even 0%), but while their store does run its quality and features are clearly lacking.

 

[JCK75]

I assume 12% can be sustainable as long as you sacrifice other features as well as the overall quality of the store/launcher.
Itch io for example works on a system where devs pick how much they wish to share with the store (even 0%), but while their store does run its quality and features are clearly lacking.

I think the biggest costs are the storage and bandwith so people can redownload 100GB games over and over for the rest of time.. I think a 30% cut is pretty fair considering I can just keep accessing a game from the PSX era while Sony takes a 30% cut and unless you kept your PS3 around you ain't redownloading those games.

 

[A.Romero]

Do you know if Valve charges devs some kind of rent or if the 30% includes perpetual hosting and support?