Valve facing New Lawsuit over 'Steam' Digital Dominance

[Daedius]

With how much people bitch about every new launcher it’s weird that they love steam.

I remember the time before Steam, playing Half-Life 1 on its WON.net ... then the transition to Steam, and how everyone said it was shit and kept bashing it...

How time flies two decades later with us building massive backlogs on the platform with all them sales...

[Twdft]

But from a developer pov the 30% cut regardless of what Valve does for you is kind of a hard pill the swallow.

CD Project Red for example absolutely did not need any assistance from Valve promoting and distributing Cyberpunk (ignoring what you feel about the game) and the developer in question released the game on Steam (and on Gog, EPIC) because missing out the sales probably hurt them more then the 30% fee.

Cyberpunk sold about 15 million copies i think, each about 80 GB to download once and then the frequent patches. Bandwidth isn't free, just imagine you'd have to host that yourself. €18 for distributing my copy sounds a bit steep but then again Valve will host it for a long time and I can delete & download it new every day if I want.

I think CDPR is fine with 30% for not having to care about distribution at all anymore.

[Edge-]

Bandwidth isn't free, just imagine you'd have to host that yourself.

Bandwidth is much cheaper than it used to be.

I think CDPR is fine with 30% for not having to care about distribution at all anymore.

Except they do, it's literally on their own storefront too.

https://www.gog.com/game/cyberpunk_2077

[Gorsameth]

Cyberpunk is a both a terrible and great example to use since CD Project actually own the GoG store, and therefor could sell it at 0% through there, but still chose to also sell it on Steam and take a profit hit.

[Lollis]

But the argument is not wanting to buy a product, it's a developer wanting to sell their product and where and how they can do that. There are a LOT of differences between the fast food industry and the digital distribution of video games that just make the comparison ineffectual, IMO. I can kinda see where you're trying to go with it, but all those difference just kill it for me.

They can create their own store. Or sell it as a downloadable executable on their own website. Or sell it on disc. You know, like everyone used to do before Steam came along.

If they want to cheap out on Steam by taking advantage of their systems such as reviews and forums, while not contributing to those services via payments by selling on other stores, then it's absolutely in Valve's interest to tell them to fuck off.

[PACOX]

I barley use Steam anymore and have been critical of it in the past but in 2021 its 'dominance' is on the shoulder of games.


One reason why I don't use much anymore is because in 2021 there are strong alternatives to use. The games that see 'exclusive' to Steam are fair game now with other platforms holding their own exclusives. Yes Steam is still prime real estate but it's not the unshakable monolith it used to be. Being able to secure the #1 spot doesn't mean you're running a monopoly. This lawsuit is a few years too late.

- - - Updated - - -

"let the market handle it" is nonsense because the market can't handle it. Epic is trying right now and they are burning through cash to maybe achieve this.

I'm not arguing the merits of this case however unlike the smartphone market, developers do have a bit more leeway with the PC market . However unless Epic pays you for exclusivity or your a big publisher (Ubisoft, Blizzard) you really need to just suck it up put your game on Steam otherwise you really won't sell that many copies of your game.

Which does come back to is the 30% cut faire? Hard to answer really which is why we have legislation because "the market" really doesn't solve that many problems.

Epic's strategy is fine as long as they know how to play the game and have a goal that just isn't 'be Steam'.

Burning money is how a lot of big ventures come up. The important that is where that money comes from and how well you manage the funds.

[Rennadrel]

Cyberpunk is a both a terrible and great example to use since CD Project actually own the GoG store, and therefor could sell it at 0% through there, but still chose to also sell it on Steam and take a profit hit.

It think it shows you that they acknowledge the size of Steam's user base can't be ignored.

[Edge-]

It think it shows you that they acknowledge the size of Steam's user base can't be ignored.

It can't be, hence why Ubisoft has never tried to compete with uplay and why EA raised the white flag with Origin not too long ago. It's why Epic is dumping so much money into EGS to try to make it an actual competitor after it builds up a big enough install base and starts getting folks to use it more regularly.

[Katchii]

They can create their own store. Or sell it as a downloadable executable on their own website. Or sell it on disc. You know, like everyone used to do before Steam came along.

If they want to cheap out on Steam by taking advantage of their systems such as reviews and forums, while not contributing to those services via payments by selling on other stores, then it's absolutely in Valve's interest to tell them to fuck off.

Never denied, or argued against, any of that.

[callipygoustp]

Yah, break it up so we can end up having some shitty alternative!

[cparle87]

I get that...but they put no work into the games and they're taking almost a 3rd of the profit

Like every retailer ever?

[Edge-]

Like every retailer ever?

Retailers get a retailer cut because they're literally being put on store shelves that could be used to stock/sell other products. They also pay for the games up-front, that's sell-in, which means developers already got paid and the store is just waiting to make back its cut when the game sells-through to a customer. Shelf space is hugely coveted, especially for a lot of smaller publishers that struggle to get their games sold into bigger retailers to begin with, and has value that can't be matched in a digital store. Even with storefront takeovers for a release/sale or other co-marketing deals.

[Endus]

Retailers get a retailer cut because they're literally being put on store shelves that could be used to stock/sell other products. They also pay for the games up-front, that's sell-in, which means developers already got paid and the store is just waiting to make back its cut when the game sells-through to a customer. Shelf space is hugely coveted, especially for a lot of smaller publishers that struggle to get their games sold into bigger retailers to begin with, and has value that can't be matched in a digital store. Even with storefront takeovers for a release/sale or other co-marketing deals.

I mean, Steam's offering a lot of servicing, too. Server provision for content distribution and online service access, technical support assistance, workshop services if your product supports customer mods, marketing (not the entire budget, but there's marketing through Steam), forum services, community services, financial brokering of transactions, including handling returns and the like.

Just as much as a lot of retailers, really.

[Magical Mudcrab]

But the argument is not wanting to buy a product, it's a developer wanting to sell their product and where and how they can do that. There are a LOT of differences between the fast food industry and the digital distribution of video games that just make the comparison ineffectual, IMO. I can kinda see where you're trying to go with it, but all those difference just kill it for me.

I could be misunderstanding, but you seem to be missing the point of the argument. The problem is not that developers do not have a choice or that there are no alternatives. This is a problem with those companies not incentivizing their platforms in a way that would draw in customers. I believe @Endus even specifically mentions some practices done by Epic games and other studios that actively turn people away from those platforms, such as the use of exclusives. As it is it appears as though these companies that are are not properly catering to customers or are, frankly, simply unattractive to customers are looking to penalize Valve for having a service that is popular because it is recognizable and marketable.

[NihilSustinet]

Don't expect this to go anywhere at all. There are other options then Steam and expecting you to not sell your stuff in another store for cheaper is not an unreasonable position.

Steam does not have a monopoly, they just happen to be the biggest store.

- - - Updated - - -

selling their game for LESS in a competitors store.

That is a massive difference from what you wrote.

if steam charges 30% and another store charges 20%, i think its fine to want to sell your game for 10% less on the cheaper platform. if steam doesnt like it, they should lower their fees.

[ati87]

Cyberpunk sold about 15 million copies i think, each about 80 GB to download once and then the frequent patches. Bandwidth isn't free, just imagine you'd have to host that yourself. €18 for distributing my copy sounds a bit steep but then again Valve will host it for a long time and I can delete & download it new every day if I want.

I think CDPR is fine with 30% for not having to care about distribution at all anymore.

I mean....if you think so then it must be true.

[Twdft]

I mean....if you think so then it must be true.

The fact it's not a GOG exclusive kinda says they are OK paying Valve for distribution.

[ati87]

The fact it's not a GOG exclusive kinda says they are OK paying Valve for distribution.

No...the fact that it isn't a GOG exclusive kind of says that CDPR acknowledges that in order to maximize sales the game had to be released on Steam which only confirms that Steam holds a dominate position.

This is the basis of the entire discussion. Is Valve misusing there dominate position in online gaming distribution.
Maybe this lawsuit will be thrown out but that's another discussion.

[KrayZ33]

They do not. They can do in-store promotion (co-marketing) and they do that often, but it's only within the store. Any actual broader marketing is handled by the developer/publisher. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo all have similar co-marketing/in-store promotions on their platforms.

As for delivery, they sell the game and let folks download it but that's not a huge ask. A 30% cut for a storefront alone is silly, Valve doesn't have the same kinds of costs that console makers do -

I don't get it.

How do they not?
You basically said "they do not - but they don't".

The Steam Store is where I look for games. The friendlist in Steam is where I look for games.
You think I'd notice shit like Cross-Code if Steam wouldn't exist?

Every dev can put up their game for download somewhere else.
Why do they not do it?
And why should steam care if devs are willing to pay for their service and for what they provide?

If I plant an ad on a soccer game it cost more than if I plant it on some random billboard in town.
Steam is much fairer than the alternative. They charge 30% for everyone and provide the same service for everyone.
Steams product is the userbase (or the brand) and that is what is being sold to the devs, alongside a multitude of other services like infrastructure. This is the case with like every single platform out there.
Facebook, Google, Twitter yada yada etc. etc.

How the hell is that a problem.
If that's a problem, how is Epic Store's exclusivs deals not a much bigger problem?
With steam, I do at least have alternatives.
With exclusive games, I have not.
This is just some devs wanting more money, if they are not willing to pay, then they shouldn't.
How the heck is it possible to sue a company because "the userbase it owns is too large".

"Nobody is buying my car because everyone owns a volkswagen, that's not fair."


I don't quite understand how

"Wolfire Games developed the game Overgrowth, and originally launched it on Steam, only to see new PC store platforms emerging that charged a lower commission. When he asked Valve about putting the game onto one of these other storefronts, the company responded by saying “that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM”.
"

is possible for Steam to do "just like that" (as it is basically being portrayed with that quote).
I'm sure there is acontract that specifically state that and the CEO of Wolfire Games signed himself?
And I'm pretty sure it would just be removed from the store (if at all?) and not removed from the libary because I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't be legal in the EU to do that for steam.

[Verdugo]

It can't be, hence why Ubisoft has never tried to compete with uplay and why EA raised the white flag with Origin not too long ago. It's why Epic is dumping so much money into EGS to try to make it an actual competitor after it builds up a big enough install base and starts getting folks to use it more regularly.

Thing with Epic is that they hope that by giving out free games, they will accumulate a strong base that will be buying games from them. Instead, they unexpectedly attracted mostly one type of person... one who wants free games.