While he's there under oath, can they get some HL3 info out of him?
"Objection, this has nothing to do with the case."
"Overruled, the public needs to hear this"
“It has already been released. It has been released for thousands of years. Humanity simply needs to reach a point of true understanding to see it.”
Gabe disappears in a flash of light.
They'll never release HL3. They are not a developer anymore. They are just a game store/directory. HL3 has been overhyped so much that anything released would be a disappointment. The gaming market has changed too much from when they made a game engine and released half life to showcase that game engine.
I can probably list a million more reasons why they'll never release, but those are the big points.
Half-life Alyx was HL3, just it was better to name it not HL3, because fans would lose their minds.
They are not a developer anymore. They are just a game store/directory.
CSGO 2 would like a word with you
Also the fact that they have at least one other game in development. NEON PRIME.
On the one hand, yeah. On the other hand, HL:A ended with an obvious sequel hook, and that hook was the ending of HL2:E2. Spoilers, I guess, but the game's been out for a while.
Of course, that doesn't mean another game is coming, but it does mean that HL:A doesn't mean another game isn't coming, either.
I don't know whether valve has violated anti-trust law or not, and I certainly don't think gaben deserves any more protection from covid than the general public but;
this is a stupid ruling. Why on earth can't he appear remotely, as he requested? They can't "adequately assess his credibility"? Are they gonna have an FBI body language expert on hand? Check his forehead for sweat droplets? There's nothing they can ask him in person that they can't ask him over a camera.
Feels like the plaintiffs are doing some kind of lowkey spite thing here, and I'm surprised the judge played along.
Most courtroom bullshit like this boil down to people who probably shouldn't be in power powertripping.
don't think gaben deserves any more protection from covid than the general public
I think gaben deserves the world’s sickest powered respirator with RGB lights and holographic Team Fortress 2 unusual hat visual effects.
Glad to hear the court will require N95s at least.
They did meet him in the middle, though. Everyone in court has to wear a mask when he's there, and he only has to take it off when he's speaking.
This is not how the masks work though. If I were honestly concerned about my health I'd take this as an insult.
Having everyone in court wear masks absolutely does help protect him. However, what would protect everyone better is proper ventilation systems - but that would cost businesses money, rather than passing the cost and responsibility onto individuals.
Leaving the mask on the entire time is the only way it works. If everyone is taking it off to talk, they're gonna be spreading shit around every time they talk. What state is this court in? Texas?
Everyone leaving their mask on the entire time is the most effective way it works. The judge is seeking a compromise, presumably with the intent of being able to clearly hear him speak and see his facial expressions. I don't think anyone else will be taking their masks off, not even the lawyer asking him questions, so in that regard Gabe will still be somewhat protected.
Like I say though there are far more effective measures involving good ventillation. If you spend a long enough time in a sealed room with someone infected, even the mask won't be enough protection, but if there is good ventillation then you won't be breathing in anywhere near as much of other peoples' germs.
Accordingly, Mr. Newell is ORDERED to attend the deposition in person as noticed. (See Dkt. No. 165-2.) In hopes of alleviating Mr. Newell’s health concerns, the Court mandates the following additional health measures: all participants (including questioning counsel) must wear a tightly fitting certified N95, KF94, or KN95 face mask throughout the deposition. At his discretion, Mr. Newell may provide those certified masks to participants. But Mr. Newell shall remove his mask when responding to questions from Plaintiffs’ counsel.
The bit about Gabe providing the masks makes me raise my eyebrow a little, but I think everyone would still be required to wear a mask regardless of whether or not Gabe hands them out at his own expense - I think it's just so that Gabe can be sure everyone's mask is up to snuff, if he's concerned about that.
You're going to need a lot more than just I'm afraid of covid to get out of being in person for a trial. People with actual fears of being killed for testimony, still appear in person. At this point with vaccines making any serious complications nearly impossible for covid, it's a really desperate attempt to avoid attending.
I was a juror last year for a civil case, half the witnesses were cross examined over zoom before the days of the trial and played back for us. The judge made it explicitly clear that we were to take remote testimony the same as any others done in person
This isn't a criminal trial with Gabe Newell as the defendant, it's a civil trial against the company Valve.
True, but Gabe is CEO and owner of Valve.
True, but Gabe is CEO and owner of Valve.
How should that change the legal process/expectations?
I own a '92 Ford ranger, what legal structure changes for me considering I own that?
Because you would expect the people in charge of the company to answer questions regarding the actions of the company.
If you were driving your truck and crashed into a traffic light, and it was caught on camera, you would be expected to answer questions about that. Even if you weren't driving, as the registered owner you're still going to be asked about it, or at the very least to identify who was driving.
Gabe isn't just a tertiary witness, he has direct responsibility. Not that I think he's done anything wrong here, I'm just saying it makes sense to have him answer questions live in court, rather than give a pre-recorded interview. Doing it live but remote invites other issues, such as poor connection quality, which would rather be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Another thing with the trial I was a jury member on was the plaintiff themselves were not always present, most days it was just their lawyer and paralegal. The judge reminded us each day that we can't hold their physical presence or lack thereof for or against them.
I'm no lawyer, but if neither the plaintiff nor the witnesses needed to be physically present I don't see how they can justify forcing Gabe Newell to be. Despite being CEO he's still not the defendant.
I mean he is pretty close to being the defendant, up to the limited liability of the company he owns and operates.
It's also a fact that different courts, and even different judges, may treat things differently. I have no idea how Seattle handles things, but I reckon this is in line with other cases they've heard.
I appreciate requiring everyone wearing a good mask while he's in the courtroom, but I don't understand how having him in the room to testify would be substantially different from an online appearance.
Same energy as CEOs demanding workers return to the office
It's probably a huge mistake for the plaintiffs. Imagine inviting in gaben so he can steal everyone's hearts.
Also that he has to take off his mask while testifying. seriously wtf that shit is in the air in a closed room.
They get him on the stand and the judge says " so Mr Newell, remembering you are under oath, when is Half Life 3 being released?"
*Gabe starts gesturing to his lawyer to do something*
"Just answer the question."
I mean the simple response from the lawyer is, "Objection, relevance," and the question gets tossed out.
I demand accuracy in my jokes, even if it kills them.
"Objection, relevance?"
"Public interest."
(Though in my joke I meant his lawyer, instead of objecting, would entreat his client to answer the question)
Ah, I understand now. [MODIFYING JOKE MATRIX TO ACCOMMODATE NEW INFORMATION]
"Your honor, I need to fire my lawyer."
"Mr Newell, no competent lawyer in this country would defend you on this point. If you do not answer the question I will hold you in contempt."
“Bailiff, seize him.”
*Half Life 3 drops from his pocket*
"THAT'S NOT MINE"
“It’s actually all of yours. Check you computers, they all have Half Life 3 installed.”
Gabe puts on a top hat, pulls out an umbrella and floats away.
Gaben will then slowly drop his head and whisper into the microphone with a wry chuckle - "You fool. You have just activated my trap card."
Immediately, the Half Life 3 release will drop. Gaben has been holding it back, continuously updating for decades, awaiting exactly this moment. The judge, completely flabbergasted at the proceedings will immediately declare a mistrial. Legal scholars will then study the "Gaben defense" for decades.
"There is no Half-Life 3, there will be no Half-Life 3."
Half life alyx was hl3
Forget HL3; where's HL2: Episode 3? I wanna know what the fuck happened to that garden gnome I carried all the way from the beginning to the rocket at the end.
If this happened I think Gabe would just say "it's not happening, not at least the way you all want" and then we get some half life cyberchip augmented reality game in another 15 years (it is good though)
So is the allegation just that Steam is too successful?
Legit, I've never heard of anti-competetive practices from Valve. Anti-consumer? Sometimes, yeah, though they do a lot more right than most
The argument seems to be that "30% cut is too high" but it's not like there aren't other options if you think that's too high. Epic loves to pay for games to be exclusive there, humble and gog exist, one could even go the retro route and set up their own website (though that's prolly the dumb idea), itch.io comes to mind...
If Valve HAS done some shady shit to ensure their major market share I'd be down to hear it, but to me as a PC gamer since '10ish (and had PC gamer friends since 06) it seems they got there through being a not complete garbage heap of a company that actually improved over the years on user feedback, which is supposed to be the good example of capitalism innit?
Taking a high cut is the opposite of anti-competitive, that makes it easier for competitors to offer a better deal
...unless you have a policy that requires other marketplaces to sell at the same price as on Steam, undercutting the ability for "better deals" to exist at all.
Which is what the lawsuit is actually arguing is going on.
a policy that requires other marketplaces to sell at the same price as on Steam
or what?
Steam has such a policy. Valve may remove any games from Steam which are sold on other marketplaces for less than they are on Steam.
If 30% we're too high, surely just by offering a competitor that takes a lot less if a cut (say, 12,%), developers would flock to thst competitor because it saves them so much money, right?
Right, Sweeney?
yeah, i think the 30% is fair enough, given the amount of stuff you get as a user by using steam, like
good cross-platform support
a working friendlist and chat system
remote play together
the workshop and community features
profile customisation stuff for those that like it
whishlists and gifts
i honestly feel like while they're a monopoly, they don't do anything other companies can't do, their cut goes to fund features others simply don't provide, so it's entierly fair for them to be more expensive than the competition
a working shopping cart
To be honest Epic now has a shopping cart... After almost 5 years of wait, mind you.
People don't buy games on the competitors, but yes may developers did flock to epic, which made everyone hate epic.
Eh, more like Epic approached them with a suitcase full of money, that's very different.
Not even just that. They approached games that has already promised not to be exclusives, including kickstarter games that had already been funded with that promise, as well as buying games and removing them from other stores.
They were paying to have the games removed from better stores so they wouldn't have to compete. That is an example of anti-competitive practices, not just making a better product and charging more for it.
It was both.
People don't hate on Epic because their store has content. They hate on Epic because they tried to buy market share with exclusivity deals. Nobody wants PC gaming to turn into the streaming services.
Hah if 30% is deemed too much the apple app store and pretty much any retail is going to be next. Steam is popular because they don't pull this nonsense. At 70% growth p/a why bother too
As a consumer, the worst days of Steam were in its early years. It took hours to download the HL2 day 1 patch. But those days are long behind us.
I'm also curious what the allegations are. The only ones I ever heard were from Epic, which was basically making a big fuss to promote their own competitive platform (which was so shit it didn't gain any traction apart from the free games).
I've tried all the online stores ever since the cloudification (remember Impulse?) but none have ever been able to compete with Steam in terms of features and value to the customer. Steam didn't get to the top by being anti competitive, it got there by being competitive and offering a better product to all stakeholders, not just to shareholders.
And as you mentioned, there is plenty of competition for Steam. Don't like the monoply? Get it on GOG or Itch instead.
PMFN (Platform Most-Favored-Nations clause): Valve forces publishers to price games on other platforms at the same price or higher than Steam. This is an anticompetitive monopoly because publishers can't sell the game at lower prices on platforms with a lower cut than 30%, which would improve competitiveness. Very valid point
Keys that publishers can sell on other storefronts are limited. This point is moot. The fact that Steam allows you to activate a product that was purchased elsewhere and then use their infrastructure to download the game is way more than they have to do. They can completely make the rules here as this is basically a free service that you get from Valve.
Some murky points about Valve policing review bombing that isn't explained properly.
Valve devotes only a small percentage of its revenue to maintaining and improving the Steam Store, and dedicates very few employees to that effort.
Okay yeah I was annoyed that it took Epic's store to make Valve update their ancient UI, but Proton has gone a long way to improving my opinion of them (and it's open source to boot).
Also is a shame that the court won't have the background to know that invoking EA's complaints about anti-competitiveness and price gouging is so completely laughable.
Escape from Tarkov has been very successful with their own site and launcher. I don’t see it ever going to steam and it’s regularly in the top 10 of twitch
That's like saying racism doesn't exist because there are black people in power.
No, it’s saying if you make a good game and launcher then you don’t need to rely on one of the storefront that take 30% like epic or Valve. Idk what GoGs cut is but I’ve also never bought anything from there
It's survivorship bias. You're looking at the success of Tarkov but you don't hear about all the games that failed because they weren't on Steam.
Thousands fail every day on the platform as well, is that survivorship bias as well or just evidence that trash fails and quality succeeds regardless of location
🤮
humble
That's who's suing Valve here.
Edit: I'm wrong, they created Humble Bundle but haven't owned it since 2017.
No, humble bundle isn't run by them anymore. They haven't been run by the wolfire guys since 2017. If I'm wrong and they are then I'm probably not buying anything from humble again.
You're right and I'm wrong. I guess I'm out of touch - what did the Wolfire guys do since then that makes you dislike them?
Suing valve. Like, valve is the only company I'm okay with having the amount of marketshare they currently have. I'm legit worried that if they go too hard on the lawsuit, it could result in the monkey's paw curling ("I wish valve didn't have so much marketshare" "granted: steam has been spun off into its own company. Without steam, valve goes under and "steamcorp's" new management goes public")
monkey’s paw
nailed it, I completely agree in this one instance.
They're heathens, obviously.
I think there was some cross-pollination for a couple years beyond that. Sounds like they sold Humble off to be its own thing, but the Wolfire guys were still running it until 2019 (see Wikipedia quote below). Either way, they've got out of Humble well before they filed this suit.
Rosen and Graham, the founders of Humble Bundle [and the CEO and COO, respectively, of Wolfire Games], announced in March 2019 that they have stepped down as CEO and COO of the company, respectively, with Alan Patmore taking over the company operations.
Is Wolfire Games associated with Humble at all or am I missing something?
Wolfire Games created the original Humble Indie Bundle, but they've been divested from it for a few years now. From Wikipedia:
The Humble Bundle concept was initially run by Wolfire Games in 2010, but by its second bundle, the Humble Bundle company was spun out to manage the promotion, payments, and distribution of the bundles. In October 2017, the company was acquired by Ziff Davis through its IGN Entertainment subsidiary.
The comment above that Humble's the ones suing Valve here is inaccurate.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure both are run by the same dude. He got butt hurt by valve’s cut about the time he started Humble Bundle.
I think this should be admissible in court.
Valve hasn't done anything shady, but monopolies are still bad and unhealthy. Both things are true. And there are no other options for less of a cut if you want to actually make sales, pc gamers won't purchase from other platforms.
Monopolies are bad, but is it a monopoly if they naturally gained market share because their product was first and better?
Honestly I'd be fine with them removing the "PMFN" clause, but I'd rather it be a law that it can't be enforced because you know Valve isn't the only one to include it. But even if they did get rid of it, I don't think they'd see a major shift away from their platform.
Yes, it's unhealthy for the undustry even if you enjoy it today. Gabe newel is old. He's going to retire soon and likely sell the company. You won't like what happens after that, and the fact that so much of the industry is provided via their product means they have a lot of agency to tighten the screws.
"OH but then we'll just use something else". That's not how the monopoly works, you might, most won't. Most of what you want won't be on the something else.
Yes. Yes it is. It doesnot matter how a monopoly was created. It's the definition of a current market state, not behaviour.
In many countries it although does not have be a true monopoly (aka a single object), but a undisputed, sizeable market portion.
They've had some shady situations, but they tend to walk them back when we lose our shit.
Pretty much. Meanwhile other stores engage in actual behaviour that deserves an anti-trust lawsuit like buying up developer studio's and making their games exclusive to their own platforms. Or paying devs to make games exclusive to their store temporarily. You know, things that actually screw the consumer over.
Lmao Valve made a service so good at what it does, it's fucking over all these other business ghouls like Tim Sweemey who are actively trying to dominate the market without actually competing; just look at Epic's store, it's d o g s h i t. They give out free games and still no one I know wants to use it. It's the same across the board, these companies do not want to make good services, they want to legally strongarm the consumer.
I'll tell you a secret) nowadays ALMOST all corporations regardless of what they make business into wanna strongarm the consumer, for quick example look up denuvo and baldurs gate, if product is good then people will buy and denuvo won't be needed
GOG has shown that drms are never needed. More often than not, denuvo causes issues to the player, and gets bypassed by a pirate easily. It is simply there because gamedev companies think they get something out of it, when in reality they don't.
Denuvo isn't easily bypassed, unfortunately. I think there's still only like two people cracking Denuvo and one of them is batshit insane.
Empress, right? I've seen some things from her (if Empress indeed is a chick) that I thought really couldn't be meant seriously.
Yeah. I don't even know that much about the whole thing, just what I learned when going to look for a game a while back, and even from that little it was like, wtf is with this person?
Only Empress left now I think, the other one who cracked sports games called it quits, or so i've heard
Never had an issue pirating a denuvo game.
Bingo.
I recently got Alan wake 2 on EGS because I'm a huge Remedy head and huge fan of the first game and couldn't contain my excitement to wait for a steam release and potentially see spoilers, and damn dude that store really is the most bare bones half assed thing ever. Even EAs store on their launcher is nicer.
Alan Wake 2 was a great game at least.
I'm stoked to play it, but I'm waiting for some other store front first. Sigh.
this is very true, its not like they saying no to other stores like apple for example, they just cant compete so they sue instead, really show how pathetic they are.
This lawsuit is specifically about Steam threatening to delist games if the creator tries to sell them at lower price than is listed on Steam.
Tries to sell steam keys at a lower price on other platforms than listed on Steam and not planning on giving the same rebate for Steam customers
Doesn't matter how good the service is if they break consumer laws.
Valve shouldn't be able to control the prices on other storefronts. That is out of their jurisdiction.
So there is an anti-trust lawsuit against steam, but not apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft.... Etc of those giant companies who literally destroy everything in their way? Please tell me they're next?
There are anti trust lawsuits going on with most the companies you listed though? Microsoft had one in the early tech days that they won, but there’s probably going to be another one soon…
DoJ is currently in a lawsuit against Google for search monopoly. Been going on for a while now.
Good. Other giant ones need to be next.
EDIT: If it's true that Valve is also refusing to sell games that are sold for a lower price in other stores where steam keys are not being sold then I think there's definitely a case here. I didn't understand that was their policy but if so it sucks and I take back anything good I said about them being permissive. Thanks to this comment for finding the exact language in the lawsuit that alleges this.
I'd be interested to see what Wolfire's case is, if there's more to it that I don't know about I'd love to understand, but if the article is characterising their case accurately...
claiming that Valve suppresses competition in the PC gaming market through the dominance of Steam, while using it to extract "an extraordinarily high cut from nearly every sale that passes through its store."
...then I don't think this will work out because Valve hasn't engaged in monopolistic behaviour.
This is mainly because of their extremely permissive approach to game keys. The way it works is, a developer can generate as many keys as they want, give them out for free, sell them on other stores or their own site, for any discount, whatever, and Steam will honour those keys and serve up the data to all customers no questions asked. The only real stipulation for all of this is that the game must also be available for sale on the Steam storefront where a 30% cut is taken for any sale. That's it.
Whilst they might theoretically have a monopoly based on market share, as long as they continue to allow other parties to trade in their keys, they aren't suppressing competition. I think this policy is largely responsible for the existence of storefronts like Humble, Fanatical, Green Man Gaming and quite a number of others. If they changed this policy or started to enshittify things, the game distribution landscape would change overnight. The reason they haven't enshittified for so long is probably because they don't have public shareholders.
To be clear I'm against capitalism and capitalists, even the non-publicly-traded non-corporate type like Valve. I am in fact a bit embarrassed of my take on reddit about 7 or 8 years ago that they were special because they were "private and not public". Ew, I mean even if Gabe is some special perfect unicorn billionaire that would never do any wrong, when he's gone Valve will go to someone who might cave to the temptation to go public. I honestly think copyright in general should be abolished. As long as copyright exists I'd love to see better laws around digital copies that allow people to truly own and trade their copies for instance, and not just perpetually rent them. I just don't see this case achieving much.
I'm so worried about what will happen to Steam when Gabe dies. I really hope he has a successor picked out who is as ideologically stringent. Otherwise I'm going to lose a huge library.
I was under the impression that the policy required a game's price to be the same on all marketplaces, even if it's not a steam key being purchased. I.e. a $60 game on steam must sell for $60 off-platform, including on the publisher's own launcher.
I just went to double check my interpretation, but the case brief by Mason LLP's site doesn't really specify.
If it only applies to steam keys, as you say, then I agree they don't really have a case since it's Steam that must supply distribution and other services.
But, if the policy applies to independent marketplaces, then it should be obvious that it is anticompetitive. The price on every platform is driven up to compensate for Steam's 30% fees, even if that particular platform doesn't attempt to provide services equivalent to Steam.
According to a Valve quote from the complaint (p. 55), it applies to everything:
In response to one inquiry from a game publisher, in another example, Valve
explained: “We basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the
same shared PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop
selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on
ours. . . .”
Wow, that's some good research! I'll edit my comment about this, I don't think my glowing description of their policy should stand without this info.
Thanks, that clears it up. So yeah, I think Wolfire has a case to make, then.
Does it though? It seems like Valve is targetting the fact, that you can't run the same game on a different platform for different amounts. So if Valve gets 30%, and some other store gets less, then they ask you to not run it cheaper. I.e. you can't sell on both stores for $40, and then set a permanent -30% sale there.
What right does valve have to discriminate against devs and publishers who are selling their game on other platforms? They have to compete for their business, not punish them for having a game that is more successful on another store that gives a higher revenue cut to the dev and a lower price to the customer.
I think the reason why valve is doing this is because people might buy a game at a higher price, either on Steam or another storefront, and then complain that it was cheaper on Steam or another storefront and start demanding refunds or demand that Valve reduce the game's price on steam.
What do you do then?
If you don't address it, you're automatically seen as the asshole even if it was the developer's choice.
You can give out refunds, which makes you look like the good guy, but that also looks bad to companies like Visa or PayPal (my understanding is that large numbers of refunds tend to look bad to payment processors, even if the refund was initiated from the company and not the consumer). Granted, Valve is a big enough company that they shouldn't have issues with that kinda thing, especially since they already offer refunds, but my understanding is that it still doesn't look good to payment processors and can make them upset.
You can ask the developer to reduce the price on steam, but what if the dev says no?
You can force the dev to reduce the price, but now you're even more of an asshole.
You can lower the cost on your storefront and cover the difference yourself, but now you're potentially losing money. That, if I'm not mistaken, is actually anti-competative from a legal standpoint.
You're kinda screwed if you're trying to be the good guy.
That's not even getting into how bad it looks if it's cheaper on steam than somewhere else when you have a marketshare as large as Valve's.
So what? Who cares if it "looks bad"? They have to compete on service. They need to find out why devs want to sell on steam at a higher price.
If other platforms want to compete in ways that make prices lower for customers lower for customers, so be it.
The same right as epic games has to prevent a game from going on Steam, or anywhere else, for the first year.
They usually sign an exclusivity deal in exchange for funding the development of the game. David is alleging that steam pressured him in ways not covered by steam ToS. It's not like valve funded development of receiver.
Yes, that is problematic. Not by itself, but coupled with a large captive userbase it is. As an example:
Let's say you want to start a game marketplace, which simply runs a storefront and content distribution—you specifically don't want to run a workshop, friends network, video streaming, or peer multiplayer. Because you don't offer these other services, you keep costs down, and can charge a 5% fee instead of a 30%.
With Steam's policy, publishers may choose to:
List on your platform at $45, and forego the userbase of Steam
List on Steam and your platform at $60, and forego the reduced costs your platform could offer
Obviously, pricing is much more sophisticated than this. You'd have to account for change in sales volume and all. Point is, though, that publishers (and consumers!) cannot take advantage of alternative marketplaces that offer fewer services at lower cost.
The question the court has to answer is whether the userbase/market share captured by Steam causes choice (2) to be de-facto necessary for a game to succeed commercially. If so, then the policy would be the misuse of market dominance to stifle competition.
And I think Wolfire might be able to successfully argue that.
Yeah they can, they just don't have to sell on steam.
This... misses the point? Of course the can not sell on Steam. That's always an option.
The antitrust aspect of all of this is that Steam is the de-facto marketplace, consumers are stubborn and habitual and aren't as likely purchase games less-known platforms, and that a publisher opting not to sell on Steam might have a negative influence on the games success.
If that consumer inertia gives Steam an undue advantage that wouldn't be present in a properly competitive market, then it there is an antitrust case to be made, full stop. At this point, the court will decide if the advantage is significant enough to warrant any action, so there's really no need for us to argue further.
But I really don't like seeing Wolfire—which is a great pro-consumer and pro-open-source studio—having their reputation tarnished just because Lemmyites have a knee-jerk reaction to bend over and take it from Valve just because Steam is a good platform.
Can I create a shitty service that only me and my brother use, and then sue Steam cause they have more players? It's a dumb lawsuit, plain and simple
As I said, no need for us to argue further. The lawsuit has grounds, even if you don't understand why. Read articles and legal briefs on the matter if you would like to learn more.
No, it doesn't.
Oh ok
Steam runs weekly deals and daily sales all the time. I doubt they have to check with gog.
This is kind of necessary. You could open a store just selling Steam keys. You get Steam's software distribution, installed user base, networking for free and pay nothing to them. Steam is selling all of those services for a 30% cut. Since your overhead is $0, you can take just a 1% fee and still turn a profit because Valve is covering 99% of your costs.
Steam could disable keys or start charging fees for them. As long as they're being this ridiculously generous and permitting publishers to have them for free, some limitation makes sense.
I'm dubious, though. There must be a provision for promotional pricing. I've definitely bought keys for less than Steam prices.
As I said, Steam would be in their rights to enforce that pricing policy for Steam keys, because they provide distribution and platform services for that product after it sells.
But as @Rose clarified, it applies to not just Steam keys, but any game copy sold and distributed by an independent platform. Steam should not have any legitimate claim to determining the pricing within another platform.
David said in a blog post that the suit is specifically alleging price fixing tactics for other platforms that aren't key sellers, but sell the whole game. Whether that holds up in court - we will see.
For those being happy that valve is in this position, don't. Any company that gets into a monopoly position, accidentally or not, will turn. Google too had "do no evil" in their manifest, until they didn't
While I agree, it is important to note that Valve is a private company. When you don't have to please shareholders and do absolutely everything to increase revenue, there is possibility for a level-headed leader that keeps the company customer friendly.
But if anything changes (greed takes over or leadership changes), it could still turn.
Valve is a private company right now. But Gaben is 61 and it goes without saying that Valve is at the top of every predatory tech capitalist's wishlist. Can you even imagine what Microsoft or Google or Meta would pay for Valve? Steam is great, but that probably won't last forever. GOG is waiting in the wings if Steam ever becomes enshittified, but most of your library cannot be transferred over.
Yeah. I don't have a lot of negative things to say about Steam, and there's a lot of high-value stuff. The mod workshop is great. Linux support is top-tier. There's a lot of good stuff. The only major bad thing from my point of view is lock-in. Having a vast library of games tied to one account isn't great. And having publishers and mod-makers etc essentially forced to rely on that platform is not good. Steam itself is good - but consolidation of power is generally a bad thing.
For that reason, most of my new games have been coming from GOG over the last couple of years. GOG's DRM free policy means there's basically no lock-in effect. That's a major strength, even if some of their other features aren't as strong as Steam.
I have mixed feelings on GOG. I want to like them, but the lack of Linux support is a real thorn in my side… Having DRM free stuff is great and I’d love if more games had DRM free versions, but currently steam actually supports me and GOG wants to pretend I don’t exist… And realistically, I’m not totally sold on GOGs promise of always having access to your games… If GOG explodes you’re probably going to lose access to your games too? I mean, of course it’s easier to archive a game for yourself if it doesn’t have DRM, but unless you do that religiously for each game on GOG you won’t be able to acquire them after GOG hypothetically explodes either… Hopefully you get enough warning to archive what you care about, I guess?
I do totally respect that DRM free copies can make a big difference but everybody argues that GOG means you’ll always have access to your games, and I’m not sure it’s substantially different than steam in that respect for “normal” people, you know? If either store kicks the bucket people are going to be out of luck. I kind of just want to throw Steam and GOG in a closest until they make out, though. Would be nice to get the best of both worlds.
Lombardi is still second in command, right? If Gabe died tomorrow, who would control Valve?
Where did this rumor come from? Private companies have shareholders, too, and they have as much say in the profit direction of the company as the shareholders of any public company.
Shares ≠ stocks
You're not wrong, but shareholders look at their investment very differently than stockholders. Private shareholders can't necessarily cash out whenever they want because the sale of private equity is usually tightly controlled by the company. This means they need to be interested in long-term growth and success. While public stockholders can also hold their shares for a long time, there's much more ability and incentive to buy and sell quickly to make a quick profit.
Anecdotally, I worked for a publicly traded company for 6 years before they got bought and taken private by a private equity group. The way profitability and trends are measured is night and day. As a public company, everything was hyper focused on quarter by quarter results. One underperforming quarter meant a tank in stock prices, hiring freezes, and a general sentiment to the employees of "quit spending money on expenses if you want to have a job next quarter". Being controlled by private equity, they're most concerned with year over year growth and the long-term stability of our operations.
The only time when I'm concerned that Valve will grow rotten is if Gabe leaves.
Valve has been the market leader for years and still hasn't let the consumer down. Their business strategy comes down to offering us the best possible service. Meanwhile crappy stores like Epic Games try to lure you in with free games and timed exclusives and I still gave up on their featureless mess of a platform.
I'm out of the loop, can someone reply what's going on? I'll leave this comment for those like me who curious what happened
David Rosen of Wolfire Games (Receiver, Overgrowth, Lugaru) is alleging that steam reps have threatened to de-list his game if he lists it as less expensive on other platforms. Specifically not just steam keys but other distribution platforms.
Which is hard to believe, considering how many times I've bought steam games on other (legitimate) platforms that were cheaper than on steam, that are still on steam today and werent removed for being cheaper on another platform.
Sure, but Valve essentially reserve the right to no longer sell your game if it's offered cheaper elsewhere. See the quotes on pages 54 through 56 of the complaint.
Which is a dick move on valves part.
Remember folks, Valve isnt the peoples company.
All the good things it does, it does only because of regulation pressure or lost lawsuits.
Remember folks, Valve isnt the peoples company.
No corporation is "the peoples corporation", but some corporations treat their customers with a lot more respect and fairness in pricing/policies than others.
Yes, but people have to be reminded of that with "sweetheart" companies like AMD and Valve, because they get too deep in the koolaid and forget it.
Fyi I like valve but im in no way sworn to them.
I think the justification would probably be that if they continued listing the item:
It maybe mislead consumers into paying more for the same thing
The reason why people pay more in that scenario is for convenience (IE all games in the same place) but that would be exersizing valves monopoly, so it may be safer to just remove to reduce complaints to steam about the higher pricing because there will be operational cost to processing those support requests and complaints
I don't feel like valve does everything because of lawsuits. Open sourcing proton wasn't due to a lawsuit. Releasing Cs2 as a free upgrade to csgo wasn't due to a lawsuit.
On the other hand and in response to your comment, I think the regulatory fix is that platforms must display their platform fee clearly and separately to the publishers price.
Open sourcing proton wasn't due to a lawsuit.
Wine and dxvk was already opensource. They couldn't have closed it even if they wanted to.
Minor note about only a single point here
CS2 as an “upgrade” to CSGO has been less than well received from what I can tell. If they wanted it to be free it should have been a new game and left CS:GO in place. Removing a game many of us paid for in favor of a newer, different game isn’t something that should be praised, and should be called out as the anti-consumer move it was.
It isn't the peoples' company, but nor is it a publicly traded company that is obligated to pursue profits above all else. It's Gabe's company, and he gets to run it as he sees fit.
Ultimately Wolfire's argument falls apart not because Valve is setting the terms, but because their claims about Valve's position in the industry and supposed abuse of power don't hold much water.
They also make nice hardware, but they don't do that out of the goodness of their hearts of course
TIL: valve is run by robots.
All those Humble Bundles for a start.
I believe it is in the Steam marketplace agreement, and applies to all games. Are you referring to sales on other platforms, or to the full listed price?
That hasn't been my experience, could be a regional pricing thing.
HumbleBundle...
Not only that, but games you’ve actually heard of, too
Valve is trying to escape Microsoft's monopolistic practices with Linux while out performing their competition in a fair market. I like competition but I don't get what advantage steam has that their competition doesn't. Even with the steam deck they're using standardized hardware and open source software to make a competitive product leaving room for competition to create their own versions.
Steam has a large userbase, which offers a lot of consumer inertia to prefer games on Steam. They also have a policy where game pricing on other platforms cannot undercut Steam.
The main complaint is that this pricing policy coupled with the consumer inertia makes it difficult for other gaming marketplaces to enter the market. You cannot undercut steam unless a publisher wants to not put their game on Steam at all (which would be suicide for anything but the largest titles), so you have to sell at Steam's price point. Few platforms could match Steams' established workshop, multiplayer, streaming, and social services; all of which benefit from costs at scale and the established user content.
Imagine trying to convince a user: "Buy your game here instead. It will cost the same as on Steam. No, you won't have access to the existing Workshop. No, you won't have in-platform multiplayer with your Steam friends." Even if you had feature parity, people would prefer Steam since that's where their existing games and friends are.
Note that the main argument Wolfire is making is that game marketplaces (buy/download the game) and game platforms (online features, mod distribution, social pages) need to be decoupled. By integrating the two, Steam is vertically integrating, amortizing the cost, and then forcing every other marketplace to bear the cost of a platform in their pricing.
If you bought a game and paid for platform services separately, then competition can better exist for both of those roles. Which is good for consumers.
I’m going to be real, the seperatization might be good technically from a consumer standpoint, but mostly will just prove to make consumers lives harder for no reason. One of the major benefits of Steam is that it handles everything, and isn’t something I, or anyone else, would be happy to give up.
I typically try to buy games from gog if available and on epic if not and steam if it's on sale. The only harm I see is how janky the other storefronts are and how frequently they break or refuse to load and that's not steams fault. I don't play a lot of online games but epic and gog are my primary platforms to play on.
I'm not defending steam but I also don't see how the advantage a platform like steam has is a direct result of any anti consumer practices. Honestly I prefer a storefront over rootkits and heavy handed drm any day not to mention downloading gamepatches directly from the publishers website.
One can appreciate Valve's contributions to Linux gaming without idealizing them. The likely reason they went for Linux is that they would have to pay Microsoft to use Windows.
This is true that it is a likely reason. It is also possible that Gabe Newell runs his company in a very deliberate way because he thinks it's a net benefit to both his company and gaming in general. From what I have heard, which of course may be a flawed understanding of the man, it seems like he has certain principles. I guess the question is whether or not a person believes intent matters or only the end result.
Their VR is all open as well for the good of the universe. Perhaps have a little deeper look.
I don't idealize them, I use the other storefronts (gog epic) potentially more because they often don't sell games with any form of drm. I just don't get it because as far as my experience goes they're all about the same minus more jank on the other two.
I've actually spent the most time with Rockstar games launcher thanks to GTA V and RDR2 and that one is a real piece of work tbh.
Years of experience. It's like wow. When your audienfe is so entrenched other MMOs can't compete
Really? Steam? With all those EGS, GOG and Origins? Is it Apple's trolling?
Oh lawd he comin
Half Life 3 has been delayed by another three months.
Is this why they were giving away all free steam keys on 4chan yesterday? I thought it was just Black Friday deals, shoulda known those anons don't do anything for the sake of being nice.
Wow. I used to follow the development of Overgrowth, and now they're suing Steam? What dickheads...
Wolfire originally operated Humble Bundle, and they have a very legitimate case. Steam uses anticompetitive pricing policies that makes it difficult for other marketplaces to compete.
If anticompetitive means "it's your choice to enter into an agreement in which we host your game for 30%, and distribute it on our platform, with unlimited patch updates, and unlimited user downloads, and a fuckton of features like community forums, guides, groups etc., also if your game is good we will promote it free of charge"
Then I suppose companies like Epic who choose to run at a loss, as opposed to providing a good service, have no chance, and Steam is anticompetitive.
The counter narrative exists though, Steam is just a good service, and if you want to compete with them, you need to provide a good service, like GOG.
That us all fine. David is alleging that Valve is trying to restrict other platforms wolfire can sell their cases on. Valve needs to compete, not threaten to stop distributing a game if they don't like how it is selling elsewhere.
I've never heard of Valve trying to prevent a developer from distributing their game on other PC store platforms, it's quite an assertion.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how the case goes.
The Platform Most Favored Nation policy employed by Steam is the one at issue in this case. And yes, it is anticompetitive. It abuses userbase size to prevent alternative marketplaces from providing fewer services for smaller cuts
Again, it just sounds like Valve is offering a good service and other companies don't want to compete. If it's Valves fault for providing a good service and lots of users choose to use their platform instead of others, I fail to see what they could do to rectify that.
Valve offers a great service, and I enjoy it a lot. But it's very difficult for a competitor to enter the market because they won't be able to match Steam's services immediately. Typically in a market the approach is then to undercut Steam, but that is exactly what this policy is designed to make impractical by forcing publishers to overprice, on penalty of losing Steams' userbase.
I mean I don't know what else to say. It is anti-competitive. It doesn't take too much to see why. There are many good articles and legal briefs on the matter. It hurts you and me, the consumer, and it hurts publishers. It enriches Valve, benevolent though they may appear. You shouldn't like this type of strong-arming the market when Amazon does it, and you shouldn't roll over and take it from Valve either.
Doesn't even matter, the court is going to sort it out for us. But I hate to see the reputational hit Wolfire is taking here. I like their studio, I believe their developers are operating in genuine good faith, and I think they are doing consumers a favor.
I still don't see what you're seeing.
Just to play devils advocate, what do you think Valve should do differently?
After learning more about it, I'm understanding the problem is that Wolfire (and every other developer/publisher) has a contract with Valve, in which they aren't allowed to sell their game on another PC market for a cheaper price than Steam.
Though, I wouldn't describe that as anticompetitive, rather, neutrally-competitive. Valve is offering a level playing field, they can take it or leave it. This is a fairly standard practice among businesses (though I understand this does not make it right).
If valve wanted to be anticompetitive they would dictate that games published on Steam are exclusive to Steam on PC.
What Wolfire wants to happen is for game marketplaces and game services platforms to be decoupled. Right now Valve has vertically integrated the two. You buy the game, and they offer peer multiplayer, social, workshop, etc.
If those services were charged separately, so that the costs of those services was not forced into the pricing of other marketplaces that don't offer those services, you open the market to more competition.
So Wolfire's idea of being anticompetitive is to restrict how many features a platform may offer?
Honestly, it just sounds like Wolfire has an axe to grind. Steam doesn't price in the features it offers, their 30% cut existed a long time before most of this stuff was added.
Something like this will never be implemented. Consider the outcome: Steam decouples the marketplace from the extra services, so they create a separate application and offer it as a free service, and creates a link between the two services. There are a hundred ways around this, and all of them inconvenience the consumer.
I'm at my wits end trying to explain this. I guess I can just recommend reading the legal briefs that summarize the matter, or articles that dig deeper than this one.
Maybe I'll think about it later and make a more complete write up with concrete examples. I really hate to see the confusion here. Wolfire is doing us a favor, we should not be handing Valve the keys to the market just because they act like Mr. Benevolent.
Sorry, as aforementioned, I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.
I love this new narrative that undercutting the competition's pricing is anti-competitive and not just winning at the competition because the other teams don't want to improve.
It's not Steam's price to control. It's the developers'.
Not talking about the game prices on the store, which are already set by the developers.
I can't believe that a company that puts out a device running Linux that gives you access to the OS in a few clicks and provides guides for how to install competing distribution platforms is more anticompetitive than Sony, Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google. Valve and Steam aren't perfect. It's difficult to accept that having a store and charging for it is worse than, for example, Sony buying studios and paying millions of dollars for some games to be exclusive on their platform.
You know that court cases are not competitions about who's the most illegal, right?
ITT: a lot of people worried that one of the few examples of corporate-provided services that isn't a flaming pile of anti-consumer profit-before-everything garbage is going to be punished for not being that via political ratfucking.
I hope steam is broken up. Monopolies and DRM are never in the users favor.
What monopoly? If I have to choose between GOG, Steam, Epic, Ubisoft, Blizzard, Rockstar, EA, and others I am going with the least user-hostile, and the one that has Linux support.
Steam is the only one that actually cares about the quality of a service, so maybe look at that instead of crying monopoly.
They literally don't know what a monopoly is, they just asked for Steam to be "broken up"
I can see why Steam seems to have a monopoly on PC gaming. Pretty much everybody uses Steam as a launcher and store, and Valve has seen success with the Steam Deck so thats the hardware field also covered. They even managed to upset Nintendo when the Switch emulator was showcased lol.
A good size of the fanbase are also massive Valve fanboys, so there is a lot of brand loyalty, making the service have a larger presence than others.
At the end of the day, the fact remains is that there are other storefronts, launchers, and Valve has even opened up the Steam Deck's specs and OS. Theres like, no monopoly there. I hope the parent commenter can eventually see that.
No one is stopping EA or Ubisoft from developing better launcher though. People use Steam because alternatives are garbage.
Someone dose seem to stopp EA from doing it though, as they somehow managed to develop a worse launcher then their old one.
But I really don't think that someone was Steam.
How would they even break up Steam? Separate their software and hardware development from the store? Can't imagine that making any real impact on their practices.
While he's there under oath, can they get some HL3 info out of him?
"Objection, this has nothing to do with the case."
"Overruled, the public needs to hear this"
“It has already been released. It has been released for thousands of years. Humanity simply needs to reach a point of true understanding to see it.”
Gabe disappears in a flash of light.
They'll never release HL3. They are not a developer anymore. They are just a game store/directory. HL3 has been overhyped so much that anything released would be a disappointment. The gaming market has changed too much from when they made a game engine and released half life to showcase that game engine.
I can probably list a million more reasons why they'll never release, but those are the big points.
Half-life Alyx was HL3, just it was better to name it not HL3, because fans would lose their minds.
CSGO 2 would like a word with you
Also the fact that they have at least one other game in development. NEON PRIME.
On the one hand, yeah. On the other hand, HL:A ended with an obvious sequel hook, and that hook was the ending of HL2:E2. Spoilers, I guess, but the game's been out for a while.
Of course, that doesn't mean another game is coming, but it does mean that HL:A doesn't mean another game isn't coming, either.
I don't know whether valve has violated anti-trust law or not, and I certainly don't think gaben deserves any more protection from covid than the general public but;
this is a stupid ruling. Why on earth can't he appear remotely, as he requested? They can't "adequately assess his credibility"? Are they gonna have an FBI body language expert on hand? Check his forehead for sweat droplets? There's nothing they can ask him in person that they can't ask him over a camera.
Feels like the plaintiffs are doing some kind of lowkey spite thing here, and I'm surprised the judge played along.
Most courtroom bullshit like this boil down to people who probably shouldn't be in power powertripping.
I think gaben deserves the world’s sickest powered respirator with RGB lights and holographic Team Fortress 2 unusual hat visual effects.
Glad to hear the court will require N95s at least.
They did meet him in the middle, though. Everyone in court has to wear a mask when he's there, and he only has to take it off when he's speaking.
This is not how the masks work though. If I were honestly concerned about my health I'd take this as an insult.
Having everyone in court wear masks absolutely does help protect him. However, what would protect everyone better is proper ventilation systems - but that would cost businesses money, rather than passing the cost and responsibility onto individuals.
Leaving the mask on the entire time is the only way it works. If everyone is taking it off to talk, they're gonna be spreading shit around every time they talk. What state is this court in? Texas?
Everyone leaving their mask on the entire time is the most effective way it works. The judge is seeking a compromise, presumably with the intent of being able to clearly hear him speak and see his facial expressions. I don't think anyone else will be taking their masks off, not even the lawyer asking him questions, so in that regard Gabe will still be somewhat protected.
Like I say though there are far more effective measures involving good ventillation. If you spend a long enough time in a sealed room with someone infected, even the mask won't be enough protection, but if there is good ventillation then you won't be breathing in anywhere near as much of other peoples' germs.
The case is being heard in Seattle, Washington. This is the specific order: https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/wawdce/2:2021cv00563/298754/170/0.pdf
The bit about Gabe providing the masks makes me raise my eyebrow a little, but I think everyone would still be required to wear a mask regardless of whether or not Gabe hands them out at his own expense - I think it's just so that Gabe can be sure everyone's mask is up to snuff, if he's concerned about that.
You're going to need a lot more than just I'm afraid of covid to get out of being in person for a trial. People with actual fears of being killed for testimony, still appear in person. At this point with vaccines making any serious complications nearly impossible for covid, it's a really desperate attempt to avoid attending.
I was a juror last year for a civil case, half the witnesses were cross examined over zoom before the days of the trial and played back for us. The judge made it explicitly clear that we were to take remote testimony the same as any others done in person
This isn't a criminal trial with Gabe Newell as the defendant, it's a civil trial against the company Valve.
True, but Gabe is CEO and owner of Valve.
How should that change the legal process/expectations?
I own a '92 Ford ranger, what legal structure changes for me considering I own that?
Because you would expect the people in charge of the company to answer questions regarding the actions of the company.
If you were driving your truck and crashed into a traffic light, and it was caught on camera, you would be expected to answer questions about that. Even if you weren't driving, as the registered owner you're still going to be asked about it, or at the very least to identify who was driving.
Gabe isn't just a tertiary witness, he has direct responsibility. Not that I think he's done anything wrong here, I'm just saying it makes sense to have him answer questions live in court, rather than give a pre-recorded interview. Doing it live but remote invites other issues, such as poor connection quality, which would rather be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Another thing with the trial I was a jury member on was the plaintiff themselves were not always present, most days it was just their lawyer and paralegal. The judge reminded us each day that we can't hold their physical presence or lack thereof for or against them.
I'm no lawyer, but if neither the plaintiff nor the witnesses needed to be physically present I don't see how they can justify forcing Gabe Newell to be. Despite being CEO he's still not the defendant.
I mean he is pretty close to being the defendant, up to the limited liability of the company he owns and operates.
It's also a fact that different courts, and even different judges, may treat things differently. I have no idea how Seattle handles things, but I reckon this is in line with other cases they've heard.
I appreciate requiring everyone wearing a good mask while he's in the courtroom, but I don't understand how having him in the room to testify would be substantially different from an online appearance.
Same energy as CEOs demanding workers return to the office
It's probably a huge mistake for the plaintiffs. Imagine inviting in gaben so he can steal everyone's hearts.
Also that he has to take off his mask while testifying. seriously wtf that shit is in the air in a closed room.
They get him on the stand and the judge says " so Mr Newell, remembering you are under oath, when is Half Life 3 being released?"
*Gabe starts gesturing to his lawyer to do something*
"Just answer the question."
I mean the simple response from the lawyer is, "Objection, relevance," and the question gets tossed out.
I demand accuracy in my jokes, even if it kills them.
"Objection, relevance?"
"Public interest."
(Though in my joke I meant his lawyer, instead of objecting, would entreat his client to answer the question)
Ah, I understand now. [MODIFYING JOKE MATRIX TO ACCOMMODATE NEW INFORMATION]
"Your honor, I need to fire my lawyer."
"Mr Newell, no competent lawyer in this country would defend you on this point. If you do not answer the question I will hold you in contempt."
“Bailiff, seize him.”
*Half Life 3 drops from his pocket*
"THAT'S NOT MINE"
“It’s actually all of yours. Check you computers, they all have Half Life 3 installed.”
Gabe puts on a top hat, pulls out an umbrella and floats away.
Lmao this is great
Gaben will then slowly drop his head and whisper into the microphone with a wry chuckle - "You fool. You have just activated my trap card."
Immediately, the Half Life 3 release will drop. Gaben has been holding it back, continuously updating for decades, awaiting exactly this moment. The judge, completely flabbergasted at the proceedings will immediately declare a mistrial. Legal scholars will then study the "Gaben defense" for decades.
No comment.
Does "no comment" count as an answer?
"There is no Half-Life 3, there will be no Half-Life 3."
Half life alyx was hl3
Forget HL3; where's HL2: Episode 3? I wanna know what the fuck happened to that garden gnome I carried all the way from the beginning to the rocket at the end.
If this happened I think Gabe would just say "it's not happening, not at least the way you all want" and then we get some half life cyberchip augmented reality game in another 15 years (it is good though)
https://youtu.be/0d6yBHDvKUw?si=pnLuhBLn7vIKSOES
So is the allegation just that Steam is too successful?
Legit, I've never heard of anti-competetive practices from Valve. Anti-consumer? Sometimes, yeah, though they do a lot more right than most
The argument seems to be that "30% cut is too high" but it's not like there aren't other options if you think that's too high. Epic loves to pay for games to be exclusive there, humble and gog exist, one could even go the retro route and set up their own website (though that's prolly the dumb idea), itch.io comes to mind...
If Valve HAS done some shady shit to ensure their major market share I'd be down to hear it, but to me as a PC gamer since '10ish (and had PC gamer friends since 06) it seems they got there through being a not complete garbage heap of a company that actually improved over the years on user feedback, which is supposed to be the good example of capitalism innit?
Taking a high cut is the opposite of anti-competitive, that makes it easier for competitors to offer a better deal
...unless you have a policy that requires other marketplaces to sell at the same price as on Steam, undercutting the ability for "better deals" to exist at all.
Which is what the lawsuit is actually arguing is going on.
or what?
Steam has such a policy. Valve may remove any games from Steam which are sold on other marketplaces for less than they are on Steam.
If 30% we're too high, surely just by offering a competitor that takes a lot less if a cut (say, 12,%), developers would flock to thst competitor because it saves them so much money, right?
Right, Sweeney?
yeah, i think the 30% is fair enough, given the amount of stuff you get as a user by using steam, like
i honestly feel like while they're a monopoly, they don't do anything other companies can't do, their cut goes to fund features others simply don't provide, so it's entierly fair for them to be more expensive than the competition
To be honest Epic now has a shopping cart... After almost 5 years of wait, mind you.
People don't buy games on the competitors, but yes may developers did flock to epic, which made everyone hate epic.
Eh, more like Epic approached them with a suitcase full of money, that's very different.
Not even just that. They approached games that has already promised not to be exclusives, including kickstarter games that had already been funded with that promise, as well as buying games and removing them from other stores.
They were paying to have the games removed from better stores so they wouldn't have to compete. That is an example of anti-competitive practices, not just making a better product and charging more for it.
It was both.
People don't hate on Epic because their store has content. They hate on Epic because they tried to buy market share with exclusivity deals. Nobody wants PC gaming to turn into the streaming services.
Hah if 30% is deemed too much the apple app store and pretty much any retail is going to be next. Steam is popular because they don't pull this nonsense. At 70% growth p/a why bother too
As a consumer, the worst days of Steam were in its early years. It took hours to download the HL2 day 1 patch. But those days are long behind us.
I'm also curious what the allegations are. The only ones I ever heard were from Epic, which was basically making a big fuss to promote their own competitive platform (which was so shit it didn't gain any traction apart from the free games).
I've tried all the online stores ever since the cloudification (remember Impulse?) but none have ever been able to compete with Steam in terms of features and value to the customer. Steam didn't get to the top by being anti competitive, it got there by being competitive and offering a better product to all stakeholders, not just to shareholders.
And as you mentioned, there is plenty of competition for Steam. Don't like the monoply? Get it on GOG or Itch instead.
You can read the complaint in full here.
Edit: Updated with a more recent version.
Thanks. So TLDR:
Okay yeah I was annoyed that it took Epic's store to make Valve update their ancient UI, but Proton has gone a long way to improving my opinion of them (and it's open source to boot).
Also is a shame that the court won't have the background to know that invoking EA's complaints about anti-competitiveness and price gouging is so completely laughable.
Escape from Tarkov has been very successful with their own site and launcher. I don’t see it ever going to steam and it’s regularly in the top 10 of twitch
That's like saying racism doesn't exist because there are black people in power.
No, it’s saying if you make a good game and launcher then you don’t need to rely on one of the storefront that take 30% like epic or Valve. Idk what GoGs cut is but I’ve also never bought anything from there
It's survivorship bias. You're looking at the success of Tarkov but you don't hear about all the games that failed because they weren't on Steam.
Thousands fail every day on the platform as well, is that survivorship bias as well or just evidence that trash fails and quality succeeds regardless of location
🤮
That's who's suing Valve here.Edit: I'm wrong, they created Humble Bundle but haven't owned it since 2017.
No, humble bundle isn't run by them anymore. They haven't been run by the wolfire guys since 2017. If I'm wrong and they are then I'm probably not buying anything from humble again.
You're right and I'm wrong. I guess I'm out of touch - what did the Wolfire guys do since then that makes you dislike them?
Suing valve. Like, valve is the only company I'm okay with having the amount of marketshare they currently have. I'm legit worried that if they go too hard on the lawsuit, it could result in the monkey's paw curling ("I wish valve didn't have so much marketshare" "granted: steam has been spun off into its own company. Without steam, valve goes under and "steamcorp's" new management goes public")
nailed it, I completely agree in this one instance.
They're heathens, obviously.
I think there was some cross-pollination for a couple years beyond that. Sounds like they sold Humble off to be its own thing, but the Wolfire guys were still running it until 2019 (see Wikipedia quote below). Either way, they've got out of Humble well before they filed this suit.
Is Wolfire Games associated with Humble at all or am I missing something?
Wolfire Games created the original Humble Indie Bundle, but they've been divested from it for a few years now. From Wikipedia:
The comment above that Humble's the ones suing Valve here is inaccurate.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure both are run by the same dude. He got butt hurt by valve’s cut about the time he started Humble Bundle.
I think this should be admissible in court.
Valve hasn't done anything shady, but monopolies are still bad and unhealthy. Both things are true. And there are no other options for less of a cut if you want to actually make sales, pc gamers won't purchase from other platforms.
Monopolies are bad, but is it a monopoly if they naturally gained market share because their product was first and better?
Honestly I'd be fine with them removing the "PMFN" clause, but I'd rather it be a law that it can't be enforced because you know Valve isn't the only one to include it. But even if they did get rid of it, I don't think they'd see a major shift away from their platform.
Yes, it's unhealthy for the undustry even if you enjoy it today. Gabe newel is old. He's going to retire soon and likely sell the company. You won't like what happens after that, and the fact that so much of the industry is provided via their product means they have a lot of agency to tighten the screws.
"OH but then we'll just use something else". That's not how the monopoly works, you might, most won't. Most of what you want won't be on the something else.
Yes. Yes it is. It doesnot matter how a monopoly was created. It's the definition of a current market state, not behaviour.
In many countries it although does not have be a true monopoly (aka a single object), but a undisputed, sizeable market portion.
They've had some shady situations, but they tend to walk them back when we lose our shit.
Pretty much. Meanwhile other stores engage in actual behaviour that deserves an anti-trust lawsuit like buying up developer studio's and making their games exclusive to their own platforms. Or paying devs to make games exclusive to their store temporarily. You know, things that actually screw the consumer over.
How's In the Valley of Gods doing?
Lmao Valve made a service so good at what it does, it's fucking over all these other business ghouls like Tim Sweemey who are actively trying to dominate the market without actually competing; just look at Epic's store, it's d o g s h i t. They give out free games and still no one I know wants to use it. It's the same across the board, these companies do not want to make good services, they want to legally strongarm the consumer.
I'll tell you a secret) nowadays ALMOST all corporations regardless of what they make business into wanna strongarm the consumer, for quick example look up denuvo and baldurs gate, if product is good then people will buy and denuvo won't be needed
GOG has shown that drms are never needed. More often than not, denuvo causes issues to the player, and gets bypassed by a pirate easily. It is simply there because gamedev companies think they get something out of it, when in reality they don't.
Denuvo isn't easily bypassed, unfortunately. I think there's still only like two people cracking Denuvo and one of them is batshit insane.
Could you elaborate on that?
Probably referring to Empress
Empress, right? I've seen some things from her (if Empress indeed is a chick) that I thought really couldn't be meant seriously.
Yeah. I don't even know that much about the whole thing, just what I learned when going to look for a game a while back, and even from that little it was like, wtf is with this person?
Only Empress left now I think, the other one who cracked sports games called it quits, or so i've heard
Never had an issue pirating a denuvo game.
Bingo.
I recently got Alan wake 2 on EGS because I'm a huge Remedy head and huge fan of the first game and couldn't contain my excitement to wait for a steam release and potentially see spoilers, and damn dude that store really is the most bare bones half assed thing ever. Even EAs store on their launcher is nicer.
Alan Wake 2 was a great game at least.
I'm stoked to play it, but I'm waiting for some other store front first. Sigh.
this is very true, its not like they saying no to other stores like apple for example, they just cant compete so they sue instead, really show how pathetic they are.
This lawsuit is specifically about Steam threatening to delist games if the creator tries to sell them at lower price than is listed on Steam.
Tries to sell steam keys at a lower price on other platforms than listed on Steam and not planning on giving the same rebate for Steam customers
Doesn't matter how good the service is if they break consumer laws.
Valve shouldn't be able to control the prices on other storefronts. That is out of their jurisdiction.
So there is an anti-trust lawsuit against steam, but not apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft.... Etc of those giant companies who literally destroy everything in their way? Please tell me they're next?
There are anti trust lawsuits going on with most the companies you listed though? Microsoft had one in the early tech days that they won, but there’s probably going to be another one soon…
Apple, Google, Amazon (by the FTC).
Good. Thank you for sharing.
DoJ is currently in a lawsuit against Google for search monopoly. Been going on for a while now.
Good. Other giant ones need to be next.
EDIT: If it's true that Valve is also refusing to sell games that are sold for a lower price in other stores where steam keys are not being sold then I think there's definitely a case here. I didn't understand that was their policy but if so it sucks and I take back anything good I said about them being permissive. Thanks to this comment for finding the exact language in the lawsuit that alleges this.
I'd be interested to see what Wolfire's case is, if there's more to it that I don't know about I'd love to understand, but if the article is characterising their case accurately...
...then I don't think this will work out because Valve hasn't engaged in monopolistic behaviour.
This is mainly because of their extremely permissive approach to game keys. The way it works is, a developer can generate as many keys as they want, give them out for free, sell them on other stores or their own site, for any discount, whatever, and Steam will honour those keys and serve up the data to all customers no questions asked. The only real stipulation for all of this is that the game must also be available for sale on the Steam storefront where a 30% cut is taken for any sale. That's it.
Whilst they might theoretically have a monopoly based on market share, as long as they continue to allow other parties to trade in their keys, they aren't suppressing competition. I think this policy is largely responsible for the existence of storefronts like Humble, Fanatical, Green Man Gaming and quite a number of others. If they changed this policy or started to enshittify things, the game distribution landscape would change overnight. The reason they haven't enshittified for so long is probably because they don't have public shareholders.
To be clear I'm against capitalism and capitalists, even the non-publicly-traded non-corporate type like Valve. I am in fact a bit embarrassed of my take on reddit about 7 or 8 years ago that they were special because they were "private and not public". Ew, I mean even if Gabe is some special perfect unicorn billionaire that would never do any wrong, when he's gone Valve will go to someone who might cave to the temptation to go public. I honestly think copyright in general should be abolished. As long as copyright exists I'd love to see better laws around digital copies that allow people to truly own and trade their copies for instance, and not just perpetually rent them. I just don't see this case achieving much.
I'm so worried about what will happen to Steam when Gabe dies. I really hope he has a successor picked out who is as ideologically stringent. Otherwise I'm going to lose a huge library.
I was under the impression that the policy required a game's price to be the same on all marketplaces, even if it's not a steam key being purchased. I.e. a $60 game on steam must sell for $60 off-platform, including on the publisher's own launcher.
I just went to double check my interpretation, but the case brief by Mason LLP's site doesn't really specify.
If it only applies to steam keys, as you say, then I agree they don't really have a case since it's Steam that must supply distribution and other services.
But, if the policy applies to independent marketplaces, then it should be obvious that it is anticompetitive. The price on every platform is driven up to compensate for Steam's 30% fees, even if that particular platform doesn't attempt to provide services equivalent to Steam.
According to a Valve quote from the complaint (p. 55), it applies to everything:
Wow, that's some good research! I'll edit my comment about this, I don't think my glowing description of their policy should stand without this info.
Thanks, that clears it up. So yeah, I think Wolfire has a case to make, then.
Does it though? It seems like Valve is targetting the fact, that you can't run the same game on a different platform for different amounts. So if Valve gets 30%, and some other store gets less, then they ask you to not run it cheaper. I.e. you can't sell on both stores for $40, and then set a permanent -30% sale there.
What right does valve have to discriminate against devs and publishers who are selling their game on other platforms? They have to compete for their business, not punish them for having a game that is more successful on another store that gives a higher revenue cut to the dev and a lower price to the customer.
I think the reason why valve is doing this is because people might buy a game at a higher price, either on Steam or another storefront, and then complain that it was cheaper on Steam or another storefront and start demanding refunds or demand that Valve reduce the game's price on steam.
What do you do then?
If you don't address it, you're automatically seen as the asshole even if it was the developer's choice.
You can give out refunds, which makes you look like the good guy, but that also looks bad to companies like Visa or PayPal (my understanding is that large numbers of refunds tend to look bad to payment processors, even if the refund was initiated from the company and not the consumer). Granted, Valve is a big enough company that they shouldn't have issues with that kinda thing, especially since they already offer refunds, but my understanding is that it still doesn't look good to payment processors and can make them upset.
You can ask the developer to reduce the price on steam, but what if the dev says no?
You can force the dev to reduce the price, but now you're even more of an asshole.
You can lower the cost on your storefront and cover the difference yourself, but now you're potentially losing money. That, if I'm not mistaken, is actually anti-competative from a legal standpoint.
You're kinda screwed if you're trying to be the good guy.
That's not even getting into how bad it looks if it's cheaper on steam than somewhere else when you have a marketshare as large as Valve's.
So what? Who cares if it "looks bad"? They have to compete on service. They need to find out why devs want to sell on steam at a higher price.
If other platforms want to compete in ways that make prices lower for customers lower for customers, so be it.
The same right as epic games has to prevent a game from going on Steam, or anywhere else, for the first year.
They usually sign an exclusivity deal in exchange for funding the development of the game. David is alleging that steam pressured him in ways not covered by steam ToS. It's not like valve funded development of receiver.
Yes, that is problematic. Not by itself, but coupled with a large captive userbase it is. As an example:
Let's say you want to start a game marketplace, which simply runs a storefront and content distribution—you specifically don't want to run a workshop, friends network, video streaming, or peer multiplayer. Because you don't offer these other services, you keep costs down, and can charge a 5% fee instead of a 30%.
With Steam's policy, publishers may choose to:
Obviously, pricing is much more sophisticated than this. You'd have to account for change in sales volume and all. Point is, though, that publishers (and consumers!) cannot take advantage of alternative marketplaces that offer fewer services at lower cost.
The question the court has to answer is whether the userbase/market share captured by Steam causes choice (2) to be de-facto necessary for a game to succeed commercially. If so, then the policy would be the misuse of market dominance to stifle competition.
And I think Wolfire might be able to successfully argue that.
Yeah they can, they just don't have to sell on steam.
This... misses the point? Of course the can not sell on Steam. That's always an option.
The antitrust aspect of all of this is that Steam is the de-facto marketplace, consumers are stubborn and habitual and aren't as likely purchase games less-known platforms, and that a publisher opting not to sell on Steam might have a negative influence on the games success.
If that consumer inertia gives Steam an undue advantage that wouldn't be present in a properly competitive market, then it there is an antitrust case to be made, full stop. At this point, the court will decide if the advantage is significant enough to warrant any action, so there's really no need for us to argue further.
But I really don't like seeing Wolfire—which is a great pro-consumer and pro-open-source studio—having their reputation tarnished just because Lemmyites have a knee-jerk reaction to bend over and take it from Valve just because Steam is a good platform.
Can I create a shitty service that only me and my brother use, and then sue Steam cause they have more players? It's a dumb lawsuit, plain and simple
As I said, no need for us to argue further. The lawsuit has grounds, even if you don't understand why. Read articles and legal briefs on the matter if you would like to learn more.
No, it doesn't.
Oh ok
Steam runs weekly deals and daily sales all the time. I doubt they have to check with gog.
This is kind of necessary. You could open a store just selling Steam keys. You get Steam's software distribution, installed user base, networking for free and pay nothing to them. Steam is selling all of those services for a 30% cut. Since your overhead is $0, you can take just a 1% fee and still turn a profit because Valve is covering 99% of your costs.
Steam could disable keys or start charging fees for them. As long as they're being this ridiculously generous and permitting publishers to have them for free, some limitation makes sense.
I'm dubious, though. There must be a provision for promotional pricing. I've definitely bought keys for less than Steam prices.
As I said, Steam would be in their rights to enforce that pricing policy for Steam keys, because they provide distribution and platform services for that product after it sells.
But as @Rose clarified, it applies to not just Steam keys, but any game copy sold and distributed by an independent platform. Steam should not have any legitimate claim to determining the pricing within another platform.
David said in a blog post that the suit is specifically alleging price fixing tactics for other platforms that aren't key sellers, but sell the whole game. Whether that holds up in court - we will see.
Just don't expect him a 3rd time.
Come on, not every guy with a beard is--
"Hi this is Gaben"
OOOOOOHHHH MA GAWD
Thats: gayben@valvesoftware.com
For those being happy that valve is in this position, don't. Any company that gets into a monopoly position, accidentally or not, will turn. Google too had "do no evil" in their manifest, until they didn't
While I agree, it is important to note that Valve is a private company. When you don't have to please shareholders and do absolutely everything to increase revenue, there is possibility for a level-headed leader that keeps the company customer friendly.
But if anything changes (greed takes over or leadership changes), it could still turn.
Valve is a private company right now. But Gaben is 61 and it goes without saying that Valve is at the top of every predatory tech capitalist's wishlist. Can you even imagine what Microsoft or Google or Meta would pay for Valve? Steam is great, but that probably won't last forever. GOG is waiting in the wings if Steam ever becomes enshittified, but most of your library cannot be transferred over.
Yeah. I don't have a lot of negative things to say about Steam, and there's a lot of high-value stuff. The mod workshop is great. Linux support is top-tier. There's a lot of good stuff. The only major bad thing from my point of view is lock-in. Having a vast library of games tied to one account isn't great. And having publishers and mod-makers etc essentially forced to rely on that platform is not good. Steam itself is good - but consolidation of power is generally a bad thing.
For that reason, most of my new games have been coming from GOG over the last couple of years. GOG's DRM free policy means there's basically no lock-in effect. That's a major strength, even if some of their other features aren't as strong as Steam.
I have mixed feelings on GOG. I want to like them, but the lack of Linux support is a real thorn in my side… Having DRM free stuff is great and I’d love if more games had DRM free versions, but currently steam actually supports me and GOG wants to pretend I don’t exist… And realistically, I’m not totally sold on GOGs promise of always having access to your games… If GOG explodes you’re probably going to lose access to your games too? I mean, of course it’s easier to archive a game for yourself if it doesn’t have DRM, but unless you do that religiously for each game on GOG you won’t be able to acquire them after GOG hypothetically explodes either… Hopefully you get enough warning to archive what you care about, I guess?
I do totally respect that DRM free copies can make a big difference but everybody argues that GOG means you’ll always have access to your games, and I’m not sure it’s substantially different than steam in that respect for “normal” people, you know? If either store kicks the bucket people are going to be out of luck. I kind of just want to throw Steam and GOG in a closest until they make out, though. Would be nice to get the best of both worlds.
Lombardi is still second in command, right? If Gabe died tomorrow, who would control Valve?
Where did this rumor come from? Private companies have shareholders, too, and they have as much say in the profit direction of the company as the shareholders of any public company.
Shares ≠ stocks
You're not wrong, but shareholders look at their investment very differently than stockholders. Private shareholders can't necessarily cash out whenever they want because the sale of private equity is usually tightly controlled by the company. This means they need to be interested in long-term growth and success. While public stockholders can also hold their shares for a long time, there's much more ability and incentive to buy and sell quickly to make a quick profit.
Anecdotally, I worked for a publicly traded company for 6 years before they got bought and taken private by a private equity group. The way profitability and trends are measured is night and day. As a public company, everything was hyper focused on quarter by quarter results. One underperforming quarter meant a tank in stock prices, hiring freezes, and a general sentiment to the employees of "quit spending money on expenses if you want to have a job next quarter". Being controlled by private equity, they're most concerned with year over year growth and the long-term stability of our operations.
The only time when I'm concerned that Valve will grow rotten is if Gabe leaves.
Valve has been the market leader for years and still hasn't let the consumer down. Their business strategy comes down to offering us the best possible service. Meanwhile crappy stores like Epic Games try to lure you in with free games and timed exclusives and I still gave up on their featureless mess of a platform.
I'm out of the loop, can someone reply what's going on? I'll leave this comment for those like me who curious what happened
David Rosen of Wolfire Games (Receiver, Overgrowth, Lugaru) is alleging that steam reps have threatened to de-list his game if he lists it as less expensive on other platforms. Specifically not just steam keys but other distribution platforms.
Which is hard to believe, considering how many times I've bought steam games on other (legitimate) platforms that were cheaper than on steam, that are still on steam today and werent removed for being cheaper on another platform.
Sure, but Valve essentially reserve the right to no longer sell your game if it's offered cheaper elsewhere. See the quotes on pages 54 through 56 of the complaint.
Which is a dick move on valves part.
Remember folks, Valve isnt the peoples company.
All the good things it does, it does only because of regulation pressure or lost lawsuits.
No corporation is "the peoples corporation", but some corporations treat their customers with a lot more respect and fairness in pricing/policies than others.
Yes, but people have to be reminded of that with "sweetheart" companies like AMD and Valve, because they get too deep in the koolaid and forget it.
Fyi I like valve but im in no way sworn to them.
I think the justification would probably be that if they continued listing the item:
I don't feel like valve does everything because of lawsuits. Open sourcing proton wasn't due to a lawsuit. Releasing Cs2 as a free upgrade to csgo wasn't due to a lawsuit.
On the other hand and in response to your comment, I think the regulatory fix is that platforms must display their platform fee clearly and separately to the publishers price.
Wine and dxvk was already opensource. They couldn't have closed it even if they wanted to.
Minor note about only a single point here
CS2 as an “upgrade” to CSGO has been less than well received from what I can tell. If they wanted it to be free it should have been a new game and left CS:GO in place. Removing a game many of us paid for in favor of a newer, different game isn’t something that should be praised, and should be called out as the anti-consumer move it was.
It isn't the peoples' company, but nor is it a publicly traded company that is obligated to pursue profits above all else. It's Gabe's company, and he gets to run it as he sees fit.
Ultimately Wolfire's argument falls apart not because Valve is setting the terms, but because their claims about Valve's position in the industry and supposed abuse of power don't hold much water.
They also make nice hardware, but they don't do that out of the goodness of their hearts of course
TIL: valve is run by robots.
All those Humble Bundles for a start.
I believe it is in the Steam marketplace agreement, and applies to all games. Are you referring to sales on other platforms, or to the full listed price?
That hasn't been my experience, could be a regional pricing thing.
HumbleBundle...
Not only that, but games you’ve actually heard of, too
Oh shit. I love David Rosen. I also live GabeN...
I should be the judge.
Yeah, it sucks when mommy and daddy fight.
Valve is trying to escape Microsoft's monopolistic practices with Linux while out performing their competition in a fair market. I like competition but I don't get what advantage steam has that their competition doesn't. Even with the steam deck they're using standardized hardware and open source software to make a competitive product leaving room for competition to create their own versions.
Steam has a large userbase, which offers a lot of consumer inertia to prefer games on Steam. They also have a policy where game pricing on other platforms cannot undercut Steam.
The main complaint is that this pricing policy coupled with the consumer inertia makes it difficult for other gaming marketplaces to enter the market. You cannot undercut steam unless a publisher wants to not put their game on Steam at all (which would be suicide for anything but the largest titles), so you have to sell at Steam's price point. Few platforms could match Steams' established workshop, multiplayer, streaming, and social services; all of which benefit from costs at scale and the established user content.
Imagine trying to convince a user: "Buy your game here instead. It will cost the same as on Steam. No, you won't have access to the existing Workshop. No, you won't have in-platform multiplayer with your Steam friends." Even if you had feature parity, people would prefer Steam since that's where their existing games and friends are.
Note that the main argument Wolfire is making is that game marketplaces (buy/download the game) and game platforms (online features, mod distribution, social pages) need to be decoupled. By integrating the two, Steam is vertically integrating, amortizing the cost, and then forcing every other marketplace to bear the cost of a platform in their pricing.
If you bought a game and paid for platform services separately, then competition can better exist for both of those roles. Which is good for consumers.
I’m going to be real, the seperatization might be good technically from a consumer standpoint, but mostly will just prove to make consumers lives harder for no reason. One of the major benefits of Steam is that it handles everything, and isn’t something I, or anyone else, would be happy to give up.
I typically try to buy games from gog if available and on epic if not and steam if it's on sale. The only harm I see is how janky the other storefronts are and how frequently they break or refuse to load and that's not steams fault. I don't play a lot of online games but epic and gog are my primary platforms to play on.
I'm not defending steam but I also don't see how the advantage a platform like steam has is a direct result of any anti consumer practices. Honestly I prefer a storefront over rootkits and heavy handed drm any day not to mention downloading gamepatches directly from the publishers website.
One can appreciate Valve's contributions to Linux gaming without idealizing them. The likely reason they went for Linux is that they would have to pay Microsoft to use Windows.
This is true that it is a likely reason. It is also possible that Gabe Newell runs his company in a very deliberate way because he thinks it's a net benefit to both his company and gaming in general. From what I have heard, which of course may be a flawed understanding of the man, it seems like he has certain principles. I guess the question is whether or not a person believes intent matters or only the end result.
Their VR is all open as well for the good of the universe. Perhaps have a little deeper look.
I don't idealize them, I use the other storefronts (gog epic) potentially more because they often don't sell games with any form of drm. I just don't get it because as far as my experience goes they're all about the same minus more jank on the other two.
I've actually spent the most time with Rockstar games launcher thanks to GTA V and RDR2 and that one is a real piece of work tbh.
Years of experience. It's like wow. When your audienfe is so entrenched other MMOs can't compete
Really? Steam? With all those EGS, GOG and Origins? Is it Apple's trolling?
Oh lawd he comin
Half Life 3 has been delayed by another three months.
Is this why they were giving away all free steam keys on 4chan yesterday? I thought it was just Black Friday deals, shoulda known those anons don't do anything for the sake of being nice.
Wow. I used to follow the development of Overgrowth, and now they're suing Steam? What dickheads...
Wolfire originally operated Humble Bundle, and they have a very legitimate case. Steam uses anticompetitive pricing policies that makes it difficult for other marketplaces to compete.
If anticompetitive means "it's your choice to enter into an agreement in which we host your game for 30%, and distribute it on our platform, with unlimited patch updates, and unlimited user downloads, and a fuckton of features like community forums, guides, groups etc., also if your game is good we will promote it free of charge"
Then I suppose companies like Epic who choose to run at a loss, as opposed to providing a good service, have no chance, and Steam is anticompetitive.
The counter narrative exists though, Steam is just a good service, and if you want to compete with them, you need to provide a good service, like GOG.
That us all fine. David is alleging that Valve is trying to restrict other platforms wolfire can sell their cases on. Valve needs to compete, not threaten to stop distributing a game if they don't like how it is selling elsewhere.
I've never heard of Valve trying to prevent a developer from distributing their game on other PC store platforms, it's quite an assertion.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see how the case goes.
The Platform Most Favored Nation policy employed by Steam is the one at issue in this case. And yes, it is anticompetitive. It abuses userbase size to prevent alternative marketplaces from providing fewer services for smaller cuts
Again, it just sounds like Valve is offering a good service and other companies don't want to compete. If it's Valves fault for providing a good service and lots of users choose to use their platform instead of others, I fail to see what they could do to rectify that.
Valve offers a great service, and I enjoy it a lot. But it's very difficult for a competitor to enter the market because they won't be able to match Steam's services immediately. Typically in a market the approach is then to undercut Steam, but that is exactly what this policy is designed to make impractical by forcing publishers to overprice, on penalty of losing Steams' userbase.
I mean I don't know what else to say. It is anti-competitive. It doesn't take too much to see why. There are many good articles and legal briefs on the matter. It hurts you and me, the consumer, and it hurts publishers. It enriches Valve, benevolent though they may appear. You shouldn't like this type of strong-arming the market when Amazon does it, and you shouldn't roll over and take it from Valve either.
Doesn't even matter, the court is going to sort it out for us. But I hate to see the reputational hit Wolfire is taking here. I like their studio, I believe their developers are operating in genuine good faith, and I think they are doing consumers a favor.
I still don't see what you're seeing.
Just to play devils advocate, what do you think Valve should do differently?
After learning more about it, I'm understanding the problem is that Wolfire (and every other developer/publisher) has a contract with Valve, in which they aren't allowed to sell their game on another PC market for a cheaper price than Steam.
Though, I wouldn't describe that as anticompetitive, rather, neutrally-competitive. Valve is offering a level playing field, they can take it or leave it. This is a fairly standard practice among businesses (though I understand this does not make it right).
If valve wanted to be anticompetitive they would dictate that games published on Steam are exclusive to Steam on PC.
What Wolfire wants to happen is for game marketplaces and game services platforms to be decoupled. Right now Valve has vertically integrated the two. You buy the game, and they offer peer multiplayer, social, workshop, etc.
If those services were charged separately, so that the costs of those services was not forced into the pricing of other marketplaces that don't offer those services, you open the market to more competition.
So Wolfire's idea of being anticompetitive is to restrict how many features a platform may offer?
Honestly, it just sounds like Wolfire has an axe to grind. Steam doesn't price in the features it offers, their 30% cut existed a long time before most of this stuff was added.
Something like this will never be implemented. Consider the outcome: Steam decouples the marketplace from the extra services, so they create a separate application and offer it as a free service, and creates a link between the two services. There are a hundred ways around this, and all of them inconvenience the consumer.
I'm at my wits end trying to explain this. I guess I can just recommend reading the legal briefs that summarize the matter, or articles that dig deeper than this one.
Maybe I'll think about it later and make a more complete write up with concrete examples. I really hate to see the confusion here. Wolfire is doing us a favor, we should not be handing Valve the keys to the market just because they act like Mr. Benevolent.
Sorry, as aforementioned, I'm just not seeing what you're seeing.
I love this new narrative that undercutting the competition's pricing is anti-competitive and not just winning at the competition because the other teams don't want to improve.
It's not Steam's price to control. It's the developers'.
Not talking about the game prices on the store, which are already set by the developers.
I can't believe that a company that puts out a device running Linux that gives you access to the OS in a few clicks and provides guides for how to install competing distribution platforms is more anticompetitive than Sony, Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google. Valve and Steam aren't perfect. It's difficult to accept that having a store and charging for it is worse than, for example, Sony buying studios and paying millions of dollars for some games to be exclusive on their platform.
You know that court cases are not competitions about who's the most illegal, right?
They should be.
GabeN?
They might as well sue Microsoft
ITT: A lot of corporate simping
ITT: a lot of people worried that one of the few examples of corporate-provided services that isn't a flaming pile of anti-consumer profit-before-everything garbage is going to be punished for not being that via political ratfucking.
I hope steam is broken up. Monopolies and DRM are never in the users favor.
What monopoly? If I have to choose between GOG, Steam, Epic, Ubisoft, Blizzard, Rockstar, EA, and others I am going with the least user-hostile, and the one that has Linux support.
Steam is the only one that actually cares about the quality of a service, so maybe look at that instead of crying monopoly.
They literally don't know what a monopoly is, they just asked for Steam to be "broken up"
I can see why Steam seems to have a monopoly on PC gaming. Pretty much everybody uses Steam as a launcher and store, and Valve has seen success with the Steam Deck so thats the hardware field also covered. They even managed to upset Nintendo when the Switch emulator was showcased lol.
A good size of the fanbase are also massive Valve fanboys, so there is a lot of brand loyalty, making the service have a larger presence than others.
At the end of the day, the fact remains is that there are other storefronts, launchers, and Valve has even opened up the Steam Deck's specs and OS. Theres like, no monopoly there. I hope the parent commenter can eventually see that.
No one is stopping EA or Ubisoft from developing better launcher though. People use Steam because alternatives are garbage.
Someone dose seem to stopp EA from doing it though, as they somehow managed to develop a worse launcher then their old one.
But I really don't think that someone was Steam.
How would they even break up Steam? Separate their software and hardware development from the store? Can't imagine that making any real impact on their practices.