They have the highest market share because every other platform has been shit (until gog), and customers voted with their wallet. They aren’t squeezing competition out, everyone else needs to suck less.
If you think removing those abusive clauses will have an impact on the market you’re delusional.
Third party sellers have no reason to have a lower price on a different store, unless the store itself is paying them the offset of a lower price. That’s only going to suffocate smaller stores that don’t have money to burn.
And the stores with first party games can already create a bigger incentive for their store by keeping their games store exclusive because it would be the only place to play that particular game (it’s why streaming services have gone down the route of exclusivity). Also having the game with a higher price point on Steam would just lead to a controversy which will hurts sales and damage the reputation of the company.
You mean that people who came up with those laws, as a consequence of monopolies abusing their power, were delusional. Take a step back to think what’s more likely.
In case you were not paying attention you said Valve has to remove abusive clauses, which there is only one in question here and that’s about price parity, so other stores could compete. At not point did you mention any actual laws and at no point did I mention anything remotely related to laws. I said you thinking that removing that one clause will make other stores competitive is delusional thinking.
EDIT: And I got blocked. I guess that says all there is to say about OP.
So sell epic keys or some other store fronts keys and move on with your life? There are other digital store keys they could sell at literally any price they want. And that’s why this is bogus.
They don’t have to sell their game digitally with steam keys. They can create keys on other platforms to sell their game.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Market share has nothing to do with this.
Allegedly they can’t because confidential agreement prevents them. And they won’t move away from Steam because it’s a monopoly. Which is why this is illegal.
First filed back in 2024 by Vicki Shotbolt, the lawsuit claims that Valve charges “excessive commission charges” that lead to “an unfair price which is then passed on to consumers”.
These fees are 30% cut of profits per game key sold, not an extra fee on top of that. So selling the steam key costs the same amount and nets about the same profit as selling a PlayStation or Nintendo key.
Literally every other online store (Epic, GOG, Xbox, PlayStation, …) does the exact same thing when it comes to both game keys and DLCs. Seems frivolous on that point at least.
This has been alleged before. And it was a nothing burger then. There’s a whole pictograph floating around comparing the cut that other game sale platforms take and I think only like 2 of them take a smaller than 30% cut.
This compares physical games to electronic keys, and that’s also a nothing burger. The cost will be higher with those on the manufacturing side because of the cost of materials to make the physical copies, the logistics of delivery to retailers, and the cost of manufacturing them.
Steam isn’t a monopoly. You keep using that word but it has a very finite legal definition. That definition provides that through practices of the company that are anti-consumer or anti-competitve, or both, the company retains a significant majority of the market share.
So again I’m not even suggesting that these devs leave steam. But the crux of the matter is that they want to use steam keys on other store fronts etc and don’t want to pay steam 30% for the use of those steam keys. They can use a different store front with a different store front’s game keys and still provide steam keys through steam. They are not required to use steam keys on their own website or other digital store fronts.
You also aren’t required to launch games from or use steam for anything except downloading the game. You can launch them, update them, modify them, etc without even having steam running.
As I said before, DLC being tied to the store front that supplied the key makes sense and is a normal standard business practice.
If what you allege is true then literally no exclusive games on the Epic store could every be made available on steam (after the exclusivity contracted time ends), because I think what you’re trying to suggest is that Steam (through confidential agreement) is forcing these devs to only provide steam keys. Which is a pretty bogus claim.
Valve can’t enforce prices across other store by mandating they can’t be cheaper because they’re a monopolist. If this part of their agreement is true then they are out of the line, in breach of law, and should be punished. Being a monopoly isn’t illegal, how Valve got there doesn’t matter. Their behaviour as a monopolist matters. It’s literally the law in most civilised countries and those laws come from the times when people didn’t simp for monopolies.
I think it’s you who is missing the point everyone is trying to explain to you. Valve doesn’t dictate the price on other stores, want proof? Epic gives free games regularly, those same games are sold on steam, for example currently you can get Definitely not fried chicken for free on Epic, but it has never been free on steam.
Valve only forbids you to sell Steam keys cheaper than on Steam. And even then they tend to turn a blind eye to stuff like humble bundle. They provide you with free Steam keys that you can sell and keep 100% of the value, but in exchange you can’t sell them cheaper than on Steam, which just seems like common sense really. If that lawsuit goes somewhere what Valve will do is charge for extra steam keys, or stop providing them, both of which are bad for developers.
Valve can for the keys that they provide. The keys they provide are free. Their agreement only is valid for Steam Keys. Those are freely generated Steam licenses of the game for the game dev to sell on other store fronts. For which the developer gets 100% of profits.
And steam is not a monopoly. I will not continue to reiterate the legal definition of that.
Steam keys means everything still happens in their store, with users attached to the platform without a way out. This is not a serious answer.
Steam is a monopoly because of their massive market share, that’s all there is to it, having irrelevant competition doesn’t matter in this case. You think monopoly = bad and therefore Steam can’t be a monopoly. That’s not how it works.
Circular logic, no? Devs have to kneecap themselves by limiting their reach to stores with 5% cumulative market share or accept everything Valve wants. Take a look at this and see what happens when a big publisher goes against them:
EA has issued a response to the game’s removal, saying that it was “not an EA decision or the result of any action by EA,” saying instead that the game was removed because an agreement that developer Crytek made with “another download service” violates an unspecified rule Steam has for its distribution partners. Valve has not responded to requests by Gamasutra for clarification. An EA spokesperson provided this statement to Gamasutra: “It’s unfortunate that Steam has removed Crysis II from their service. This was not an EA decision or the result of any action by EA. Steam has imposed a set of business terms for developers hoping to sell content on that service – many of which are not imposed by other online game services. Unfortunately, Crytek has an agreement with another download service which violates the new rules from Steam and resulted in its expulsion of Crysis II from Steam. Crysis II continues to be available on several other download services including Amazon, GameStop and Origin.com.”]
It’s anticompetitive when you have 90% market share and you do this. Monopolies are generally legal but can’t do certain things regular companies can.
How is it anticompetitive to regulate the price for items on their store? Valve doesn’t dictate price on any other store unless they sell steam keys.
They have the highest market share because every other platform has been shit (until gog), and customers voted with their wallet. They aren’t squeezing competition out, everyone else needs to suck less.
And Valve has to remove abusive clauses from their agreements with the devs so that it can actually happen, yes.
If you think removing those abusive clauses will have an impact on the market you’re delusional.
Third party sellers have no reason to have a lower price on a different store, unless the store itself is paying them the offset of a lower price. That’s only going to suffocate smaller stores that don’t have money to burn.
And the stores with first party games can already create a bigger incentive for their store by keeping their games store exclusive because it would be the only place to play that particular game (it’s why streaming services have gone down the route of exclusivity). Also having the game with a higher price point on Steam would just lead to a controversy which will hurts sales and damage the reputation of the company.
Removing the price parity clause will do nothing.
You mean that people who came up with those laws, as a consequence of monopolies abusing their power, were delusional. Take a step back to think what’s more likely.
In case you were not paying attention you said Valve has to remove abusive clauses, which there is only one in question here and that’s about price parity, so other stores could compete. At not point did you mention any actual laws and at no point did I mention anything remotely related to laws. I said you thinking that removing that one clause will make other stores competitive is delusional thinking.
EDIT: And I got blocked. I guess that says all there is to say about OP.
Go gaslight someone else.
So sell epic keys or some other store fronts keys and move on with your life? There are other digital store keys they could sell at literally any price they want. And that’s why this is bogus.
They don’t have to sell their game digitally with steam keys. They can create keys on other platforms to sell their game.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Market share has nothing to do with this.
Allegedly they can’t because confidential agreement prevents them. And they won’t move away from Steam because it’s a monopoly. Which is why this is illegal.
These fees are 30% cut of profits per game key sold, not an extra fee on top of that. So selling the steam key costs the same amount and nets about the same profit as selling a PlayStation or Nintendo key.
Literally every other online store (Epic, GOG, Xbox, PlayStation, …) does the exact same thing when it comes to both game keys and DLCs. Seems frivolous on that point at least.
This has been alleged before. And it was a nothing burger then. There’s a whole pictograph floating around comparing the cut that other game sale platforms take and I think only like 2 of them take a smaller than 30% cut.
This compares physical games to electronic keys, and that’s also a nothing burger. The cost will be higher with those on the manufacturing side because of the cost of materials to make the physical copies, the logistics of delivery to retailers, and the cost of manufacturing them.
Steam isn’t a monopoly. You keep using that word but it has a very finite legal definition. That definition provides that through practices of the company that are anti-consumer or anti-competitve, or both, the company retains a significant majority of the market share.
So again I’m not even suggesting that these devs leave steam. But the crux of the matter is that they want to use steam keys on other store fronts etc and don’t want to pay steam 30% for the use of those steam keys. They can use a different store front with a different store front’s game keys and still provide steam keys through steam. They are not required to use steam keys on their own website or other digital store fronts.
You also aren’t required to launch games from or use steam for anything except downloading the game. You can launch them, update them, modify them, etc without even having steam running.
As I said before, DLC being tied to the store front that supplied the key makes sense and is a normal standard business practice.
If what you allege is true then literally no exclusive games on the Epic store could every be made available on steam (after the exclusivity contracted time ends), because I think what you’re trying to suggest is that Steam (through confidential agreement) is forcing these devs to only provide steam keys. Which is a pretty bogus claim.
You’re missing the point.
Valve can’t enforce prices across other store by mandating they can’t be cheaper because they’re a monopolist. If this part of their agreement is true then they are out of the line, in breach of law, and should be punished. Being a monopoly isn’t illegal, how Valve got there doesn’t matter. Their behaviour as a monopolist matters. It’s literally the law in most civilised countries and those laws come from the times when people didn’t simp for monopolies.
I think it’s you who is missing the point everyone is trying to explain to you. Valve doesn’t dictate the price on other stores, want proof? Epic gives free games regularly, those same games are sold on steam, for example currently you can get Definitely not fried chicken for free on Epic, but it has never been free on steam.
Valve only forbids you to sell Steam keys cheaper than on Steam. And even then they tend to turn a blind eye to stuff like humble bundle. They provide you with free Steam keys that you can sell and keep 100% of the value, but in exchange you can’t sell them cheaper than on Steam, which just seems like common sense really. If that lawsuit goes somewhere what Valve will do is charge for extra steam keys, or stop providing them, both of which are bad for developers.
Valve can for the keys that they provide. The keys they provide are free. Their agreement only is valid for Steam Keys. Those are freely generated Steam licenses of the game for the game dev to sell on other store fronts. For which the developer gets 100% of profits.
And steam is not a monopoly. I will not continue to reiterate the legal definition of that.
Steam keys means everything still happens in their store, with users attached to the platform without a way out. This is not a serious answer.
Steam is a monopoly because of their massive market share, that’s all there is to it, having irrelevant competition doesn’t matter in this case. You think monopoly = bad and therefore Steam can’t be a monopoly. That’s not how it works.
So use other licenses not provided by steam (epic for instance). That’s the point of what I said.
You think monopoly = illegal and what I’m saying is that it doesn’t meet the legal requirement to be a monopoly. This was never about good or bad.
Circular logic, no? Devs have to kneecap themselves by limiting their reach to stores with 5% cumulative market share or accept everything Valve wants. Take a look at this and see what happens when a big publisher goes against them:
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/-i-crysis-2-i-removed-from-steam