- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
- cross-posted to:
- games@sh.itjust.works
From the opinion piece:
Last year, I pointed out how many big publishers came crawlin’ back to Steam after trying their own things: EA, Activision, Microsoft. This year, for the first time ever, two Blizzard games released on Steam: Overwatch and Diablo 4.
I’m glad steam and gog exist. Both provide an amazing service.
Especially GOG being DRM free but they really need a Linux client.
Hard ask for a Linux client when the Windows client is barely functional.
It would be nice but I like Heroic launcher a lot. I probably wouldn’t bother installing a gog Linux client.
Heroic is currently the best option imo, it at least has cloud saves and updates.
Try Lutris
My friend said he installed gog galaxy onhis steam deck just fine
Why? The website works fine.
downloading 30 separate 4GB files one by one is an unecessary chore. A ‘download all’ would make the website good
I’m fine with them existing, but if there are clauses preventing publishers from proposing their games both on steam and elsewhere while they can’t make it cheaper elsewhere, I would like these clauses to stop. I read somewhere there are such clauses and these kind of clauses seem very uncompetitive to me and I wonder why they are legal (if they are).
To me it would be more uncompetitive for a game to be priced 10x on steam and be basically free on other platforms.
It’s not about what the publisher sets as price, it’s about restricting his options.
I don’t see a problem with it. Steam provides a ton of service as a marketplace and distributor. The social aspect of steam friends seeing what games you’re playing translates into advertising for your game. They allow for regional pricing adjustments so it’s not about blocking players from poorer countries from affording the game. And they have huge frameworks for digital item trading, achievement management, community discussion, modding and more. Their 30% cut of each sale policy is unilaterally enforced and in line with the fees charged by the VAST majority of other distributors. They don’t make exclusivity deals in exchange for taking a smaller cut, unlike some much less consumer-friendly markets. Their market is completely fair across the board. I think it’s also pretty fair to ask publishers not to push that 30% fee onto the consumer, by requiring the price on Steam to not exceed the price on any other marketplace.
That policy is to the benefit of steam customers, because they can be reasonably sure the steam price is the best price (currently) available. It’s not about exclusivity, it’s about protecting the value that Steam offers to the consumer.
I don’t see how any of that justifies that valve prohibits publishers from selling their games for cheaper on a platform other than steam.
If anything, the 30% cut is significant and if a developer finds a cheaper platform elsewhere, why wouldn’t he also be allowed to sell his game for cheaper there too?
It’s really dubious to see valve try to control developers market strategies on platforms other than steam.
I think it only prohibits them from selling steam keys for cheaper elsewhere. It serves to protect steam from bad actor publishers that would try to cut steam out by selling keys on their own website, not paying the 30% platform fee while still using steam’s infrastructure to deliver the game to players. Source
It’s amazing that steam offers this functionality at all, not even mentioning they don’t charge anything for generating keys.
Reddit is not a source, but the source linked in that post isn’t really clear.
However, in this Ars Technica article they state ‘Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this “parity” rule only applies to the “free” Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms. Valve hasn’t responded to a request for comment on this story.’
Has that lawsuit gone anywhere? I’ve seen games published on origin and GoG for cheaper then they are on Steam. And Steam will honor developer provided game keys (hence why places like Humble and Green Man can sell games so cheaply). And after trying to research the claims, all I found was reports about the lawsuit existing. It seems like if that was real, there would be more than reports of a lawsuit and contradictory evidence by way of literally being able to buy games for cheaper on other platforms.
Not saying it’s total bullshit, just seems kind of suspect all things considered.
I wish someone would actually link that clause because I’ve searched and I didn’t find it.
I don’t have any, but I see the following: Cyperpunk 2077, which is available on steam, is cheaper than on the developer’s own platform (gog.com), despite both being at 50% off. Is there any incentive for CDPR to sell it more expensive on their platform?
They’re exactly the same for me, 50% off from 59,99€? If the pricing is not in EUR or USD the comparison between pricing become much harder than because it’s a whole other world with regional pricing and currency conversions etc. that I don’t fully understand. It’s most likely the case that Steam does a better job at calculating the pricing into your currency than other storefronts.
Yes, it seems you are right. Nonetheless, even at equal prices, isn’t it surprising?