Valve facing New Lawsuit over 'Steam' Digital Dominance

[Endus]

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.

I'd just like to point out this is a direct internal contradiction.

If they were going to "miss out on sales" without being on Steam, then they did benefit from Valve's distribution of their product, gaining sales they would have failed to garner without Valve's assistance.

And of course developers release games on Steam because they'll make more money, even minus the 30% cut, than if they didn't use Steam; that both Steam and developer benefit is how the entire business arrangement works. If they didn't make more money despite the cut, nobody would give Steam the cut in the first place, because it wouldn't be worth it.

It should be clear to everybody that Valve is a dominate force in the PC gaming market and because Valve is dominate force in the PC gaming distribution market regulators should be looking at the practices.

Sure, but "Steam makes a lot of money while helping developers make a lot of money" isn't a practice worth looking at. This whole thing is just sour grapes.

[oplawlz]

Steam is widely used because it works better than literally any other Platform and it had years of consumer trust by the time other launcher popped up.

It's dominance is purely due to its competition being mostly trash.

This is the simple truth. Epic disdaining forums and user reviews ensured it would never be a serious contender. Add to that the fact that it still doesn't even have basic online store features and it's no wonder no one wants to use it.

- - - Updated - - -

Support for the storefronts, not the games themselves. If you have technical problems with a game, Steam can't do anything about it.

While you're technically correct, I've solved more technical issues via steam forums than any other means by a fairly large margin.

[ati87]

I'd just like to point out this is a direct internal contradiction.

If they were going to "miss out on sales" without being on Steam, then they did benefit from Valve's distribution of their product, gaining sales they would have failed to garner without Valve's assistance.

And of course developers release games on Steam because they'll make more money, even minus the 30% cut, than if they didn't use Steam; that both Steam and developer benefit is how the entire business arrangement works. If they didn't make more money despite the cut, nobody would give Steam the cut in the first place, because it wouldn't be worth it.



Sure, but "Steam makes a lot of money while helping developers make a lot of money" isn't a practice worth looking at. This whole thing is just sour grapes.

Not really a contradiction. It just means that the for developers there is a lack of choice when it comes to releasing a game because of the dominate position of Valve holds in the distribution of games.
Question isn't if companies make money or not when releasing a game on Steam, question is if the 30% fee that the distribution platforms demand is fair price for there services or not.

[Rogalicus]

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 2077 was likely on 20% cut even before it was released, since it requires less than 1M fullpriced copies to achiveve and it's expected to have sold more than 5M.

[Stickiler]

Not really a contradiction. It just means that the for developers there is a lack of choice when it comes to releasing a game because of the dominate position of Valve holds in the distribution of games.

There's plenty of choice, and your original post was absolutely a contradiction. If the 30% cut is more than the value of steam, companies wouldn't release their games on Steam. There's heaps of places to release your game, Itch.io, Humble, Origin, Uplay, GoG, as downloaded zip files from your website. You'll never get as many sales as if you released it on Steam, but that's part of the 30% cut.

[Polyxo]

I don't think the "but they take 30%!" complaint holds water at all. There are several creative industries where creators would kill for their publishers/distributors to only take 30%.

[Dastreus]

rofl something tells me Epic games is behind this lawsuit.

[KrayZ33]

They probably can't, which is why they don't do it, but I'm going to ask anyway:

Couldn't they just charge 30% more on Steam for their game?

I don't understand what Valve is supposed to do...
Should they put a link to other platforms on their platform or something?
There is a reason why the playerbase/gaming community chose steam and not Origin/Uplay or GoG/Epic.

Epic is far more "aggressive" than steam in that regard.

[Yriel]

It should be clear to everybody that Valve is a dominate force in the PC gaming market and because Valve is dominate force in the PC gaming distribution market regulators should be looking at the practices.

They are big but only because the customers chose to buy there. It's not like a internet provider being the only one in your area and price-gouging you because of that. People can buy their games freely in a number of online stores, many just prefer steam.
I don't think there is any reason to regulate them.

[ati87]

There's plenty of choice, and your original post was absolutely a contradiction. If the 30% cut is more than the value of steam, companies wouldn't release their games on Steam. There's heaps of places to release your game, Itch.io, Humble, Origin, Uplay, GoG, as downloaded zip files from your website. You'll never get as many sales as if you released it on Steam, but that's part of the 30% cut.

No....companies release there games on Steam because
1) PC games aren't sold on disc anymore, at best a code in a box.
2) Because the alternative markets aren't populaire enough to justify the potential loss of sales.

I mean what are people arguing now? That Valve doesn't have a dominate position in the digital distribution of PC games? Regardless of this lawsuit Valve is the dominate force and developers need to either accept the 30% fee or risk going out of business.

[Corvus]

I don't think the "but they take 30%!" complaint holds water at all. There are several creative industries where creators would kill for their publishers/distributors to only take 30%.

Authors are lucky to get 5%. If you are a big name you get 10%. The other 90%+ goes to the publishers/distributors.

[Katchii]

Sure, but "Steam makes a lot of money while helping developers make a lot of money" isn't a practice worth looking at. This whole thing is just sour grapes.

The only part of this that doesn't sit right with me is that Steam is dictating the price of the game elsewhere. It's not their game, they shouldn't have the power to dictate the pricing of the games on any other platform but their own. However, apparently as part of the contractual agreement to sell on Steam this is something the developers agree to, so they're stuck.

So I get it, but I still don't think it's right. They're just so powerful they can get away with it, which is pretty much what the whole lawsuit is about anyway.

[Endus]

The only part of this that doesn't sit right with me is that Steam is dictating the price of the game elsewhere. It's not their game, they shouldn't have the power to dictate the pricing of the games on any other platform but their own. However, apparently as part of the contractual agreement to sell on Steam this is something the developers agree to, so they're stuck.

So I get it, but I still don't think it's right. They're just so powerful they can get away with it, which is pretty much what the whole lawsuit is about anyway.

They don't actually dictate the price of games on any other platform.

They dictate whether you can continue to sell games on their platform based on abiding by their policies. Part of that involves an agreement on pricing on other platforms, yes, but anyone's free to just sign off and sell through Steam.

Steam can't stop you listing for whatever on another platform. All they can do is cease selling your game, if you don't abide by their contractual agreement. This is just standard business practice. It isn't even that Steam is "powerful". It's that developers want to sell through Steam.

It's the same non-argument being made when people claim being banned from Twitter is an attack on one's freedom of speech. Literally all we're discussing is whether a user is abiding by contractual obligations to maintain service, and that if they violate the agreement, service may be suspended.

There is no "getting away with it". If developers don't like it, they don't have to sell through Steam. Easy. The issue is they want the benefits of selling through Steam, but don't want Steam to set the rules for the use of Steam's own services.

If, for example, Steam was going to sue developers who listed for a lower price on other platforms, to force the removal from those other platforms, you'd have a case for Steam being abusive. But I haven't seen any case that's what happens. It's just that Steam might cancel a business relationship with a dev if the dev violates their contract. Which happens in every business, and size is not in any way relevant. The only way size becomes relevant is that devs seek out Steam, and Steam can ask a lot and it's still worth it to the devs. But that's just business. If the developers don't like the terms, they have other options.

[Morae]

I use steam because it is good. Why would I split my games across several different places?

As it is, even if alternative appears it has to grow reaaaally big before I even look at it. If I hear of a game and I don't find it on steam, I kind of drop that game into "doesn't exists" box in my mind.

[Katchii]

They don't actually dictate the price of games on any other platform.

They dictate whether you can continue to sell games on their platform based on abiding by their policies. Part of that involves an agreement on pricing on other platforms, yes, but anyone's free to just sign off and sell through Steam.

Fair point.

Steam can't stop you listing for whatever on another platform. All they can do is cease selling your game, if you don't abide by their contractual agreement. This is just standard business practice. It isn't even that Steam is "powerful". It's that developers want to sell through Steam.

Well, I'd argue that the reason they want to sell through Steam is because it is so powerful. AKA widespread, well known and accessible.

Steam has such an advantage here that it just has THAT much leverage.

I can see why developers would feel like that gives them an unfair advantage over others and are therefore controlling the market, even if that's not technically true.

There is no "getting away with it". If developers don't like it, they don't have to sell through Steam. Easy. The issue is they want the benefits of selling through Steam, but don't want Steam to set the rules for the use of Steam's own services.

Yeah, I wasn't looking at it that way. Good point.

If, for example, Steam was going to sue developers who listed for a lower price on other platforms, to force the removal from those other platforms, you'd have a case for Steam being abusive. But I haven't seen any case that's what happens. It's just that Steam might cancel a business relationship with a dev if the dev violates their contract. Which happens in every business, and size is not in any way relevant. The only way size becomes relevant is that devs seek out Steam, and Steam can ask a lot and it's still worth it to the devs. But that's just business. If the developers don't like the terms, they have other options.

Again, all fair points.

[Endus]

Well, I'd argue that the reason they want to sell through Steam is because it is so powerful. AKA widespread, well known and accessible.

Steam has such an advantage here that it just has THAT much leverage.

I can see why developers would feel like that gives them an unfair advantage over others and are therefore controlling the market, even if that's not technically true.

The core issue I have is the presentation of this as "power", when what it really is about is Steam's value to the developers.

Those developers want to be on Steam. They want all the benefits of Steam's digital marketplace. That's not "power", that's "a desirable service".

Steam may have a lot of influence as a result of that desirability, but that influence is directly connected; if Steam lost that desirability, with either consumers or developers, it would become irrelevant to both. That influence is the consequence of their desirability.

It's like trying to argue that McDonalds has "too much power" and they need to sell you a Big Mac for half price because you need your daily Big Mac. That's . . . not how anything works.

[Katchii]

The core issue I have is the presentation of this as "power", when what it really is about is Steam's value to the developers.

Those are the same thing, in this context. It has such a high value that it gives Valve a huge amount of leverage.

Like any other tool with similar attributes. It's almost universally accessible, well known, easy to use, etc...

Like Windows.

Those developers want to be on Steam. They want all the benefits of Steam's digital marketplace. That's not "power", that's "a desirable service".

Steam may have a lot of influence as a result of that desirability, but that influence is directly connected; if Steam lost that desirability, with either consumers or developers, it would become irrelevant to both. That influence is the consequence of their desirability.

Influence is a better word than power, but IMO they're basically the same thing. They have so much influence over the PC gaming market that it gives them leverage over the decisions developers make. This practically stifles the competition because of how desirable Steam is, it significantly reduces the likelihood developers will use any alternatives.

It's like trying to argue that McDonalds has "too much power" and they need to sell you a Big Mac for half price because you need your daily Big Mac. That's . . . not how anything works.

I don't even know where you're going with this, TBH. Not meaning to be rude, I just don't see how McDonalds fits into the discussion given the many differences between the fast food industry and the digital distribution of video games.

[Endus]

I don't even know where you're going with this, TBH. Not meaning to be rude, I just don't see how McDonalds fits into the discussion given the many differences between the fast food industry and the digital distribution of video games.

They're a big company.
I want their product.
I want it for a cheaper price.
I claim they are abusing their "power" to not give me what I want at the price I choose.

It sounds dumb because it is dumb, but its basically the same argument.

[Katchii]

They're a big company.
I want their product.
I want it for a cheaper price.
I claim they are abusing their "power" to not give me what I want at the price I choose.

It sounds dumb because it is dumb, but its basically the same argument.

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.

[Zenfoldor]

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

I think they just want to keep their library in one place, and also they have feelings about EGS over arbitrary exclusivity deals that may have pulled the rug out from under them on a few games.....and the PC gaming community pays a bit more attention than probably some of the players in this whole ordeal expected.

IMO, Valve is not in any way a monopoly. I could play most games I want on PC, and perhaps all the games I want, without ever opening a Steam client, so I have options and they aren't overly costly. Nothing exclusive to Steam is required for me to play my games for a cheap or reasonable price, on PC.