Valve abusing the market power of Steam on game pricing according to a lawsuit

which I still think is unlikely because why make an entirely baseless claim to waste your time and money (lawyers, etc.) with?

https://heelbynature.com/wrestling-news/wwe-news/judge-dismisses-frivolous-lawsuit-against-wwe-filed-by-fan/

And again, there are flaws in the lawsuit, like the Microsoft Store claim, which is just wrong. If they can't even get something as simple as this right...?

Lol. What's happening to the world? Ever since Tim Sweeney decided that play store and ios store are monopolies people see monopolies everywhere.

Soon somebody will sue GamingOnLinux for monopolizing its pages and preventing writers from posting about windows and not allowing other news providers to host their own comments section under the articles.

But of course not before I sue myself for monopolizing the space of this post.

I don't see how I minimize other practices. I just explained how as a developer, you do what you have to in order to stay afloat.

The practice of Steam of not allowing lower prices on other stores, if true, is what I criticize.

What examples of lower prices are you talking about?
If it is about Steam keys, those are excempt from the contract if I understood that correctly.
If there are more than those, then it is quite possible Steam didn't "catch" those (not all contractually "illegal" things are brought to court, after all) or the claim is indeed baseless - which I still think is unlikely because why make an entirely baseless claim to waste your time and money (lawyers, etc.) with?

Well, in the moment you accept that devs following other anti-consumer practices it's okay because they need the extra money you're minimizing those practices.

Regarding some examples (Using US prices):
https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/product/football-manager-2021-touch/home
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1263860/Football_Manager_2021_Touch/

But you have to pay the same price for the FM2021 regular edition. Either way, there are many examples of price difference between GOG, Steam and Epic.

Customers get screwed

... Or the opposite - that it ensures that Steam users are getting a lower price than they would if not.
I mean, it could easily go both ways, that devs would be adding the Valve cut on Steam (40% isn't it?), while operating with a different price elsewhere.

Customers get screwed

... Or the opposite - that it ensures that Steam users are getting a lower price than they would if not.
I mean, it could easily go both ways, that devs would be adding the Valve cut on Steam (40% isn't it?), while operating with a different price elsewhere.

It's 20-30%, depending on the revenue that's been generated.

But of course not before I sue myself for monopolizing the space of this post.

Tell Sweeney this space also belongs to steam, and he'll help you with the proce$$

Well, in the moment you accept that devs following other anti-consumer practices it's okay because they need the extra money you're minimizing those practices.

There is a VERY large difference between selling your game on a store that everyone can use (hell, even we can by now via some frontends) with the only inconvenience being that you have to use something other than Steam for up to one year if you really want that game right now on one hand.
And on the other hand you have the practice of forcing developers to ask the same prices everywhere, even on places where you could ask for less due to a lower cut (or maybe because you want to push that other platform).

One is a minor to medium inconvenience for customers (and not even illegal), the other (again, if true) a serious misuse of market power that could prevent a gain of profit especially for smaller developers.
As well as artificially trying to uphold a monopoly-like market position - which is almost certainly illegal in itself.

Apples and oranges.

Or the opposite - that it ensures that Steam users are getting a lower price than they would if not.
I mean, it could easily go both ways, that devs would be adding the Valve cut on Steam (40% isn't it?), while operating with a different price elsewhere.

That's a very far-fetched theory. I don't see any reason to expect that developers would suddenly raise their prices on one platform because they can lower their prices on another.

It's not like Valve increases their cut - if they did, that would lead to higher prices on Steam.

Most likely scenario is no price changes for the most part with a few devs or publishers lowering prices on platforms with a lower cut.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 1 February 2021 at 4:01 pm UTC

Maybe Valve should just save themselves some grief and not hand out Steam keys for free to publishers to use at other stores.

Smells like BS PR, by Epic and friends, scrutinizing everything Steam does to find a flaw and tarnish Steam's reputation.

They know that 12% won't allow them to compete but are trying to force everyone to a lower quality service nonetheless. No thank you!

Well, in the moment you accept that devs following other anti-consumer practices it's okay because they need the extra money you're minimizing those practices.

There is a VERY large difference between selling your game on a store that everyone can use (hell, even we can by now via some frontends) with the only inconvenience being that you have to use something other than Steam for up to one year if you really want that game right now on one hand.
And on the other hand you have the practice of forcing developers to ask the same prices everywhere, even on places where you could ask for less due to a lower cut (or maybe because you want to push that other platform).

One is a minor to medium inconvenience for customers (and not even illegal), the other (again, if true) a serious misuse of market power that could prevent a gain of profit especially for smaller developers.
As well as artificially trying to uphold a monopoly-like market position - which is almost certainly illegal in itself.

Apples and oranges.

Maybe it's "minor" or "medium" inconvenience for someone like you that lives in a first world country and/or don't care on using a non-native client in order to get a game, but for many others it is a major inconvenience (and mostly a deal breaker). It's now clear to me that you minimize other practices because you are unable to think beyong the consecuences you get by them.

So no, this isn't in anyway an apples and oranges comparison. For many of us here buying a game on Steam is not about being fanboys, it's just about what is a better deal.

or the claim is indeed baseless - which I still think is unlikely because why make an entirely baseless claim to waste your time and money (lawyers, etc.) with?

Indeed, why? To find the reason, follow the money. Who paid the lawyers preparing the lawsuit? Some five random indie guys? I doubt it.

Going to jump in with a few quick takeaways:

Remember that just because the lawsuit is filed, that doesn't mean it is valid nor that Valve is guilty. That's the purpose of any trial. As such, we probably shouldn't treat Valve as guilty unless that is determined to be so by a Judge or Jury in this Class Action. That said let's move on to the handful of things I keep seeing people bring up:

You can't compete unless you're on Steam

I said this about Parler when they got kicked off AWS and I'll say it again here: No business has any sort of inherent "right" to be on the most used/most popular platform. There could be legal arguments made that this lawsuit is DOA simply because of how successful things like Battle.net are or games that aren't tied to an online store. Fortnite itself may be an example against the plaintiffs.

When there are examples of 10s of options beyond Steam that are successful (not the largest, mind you), the court is probably going to be hesitant to call it unfair as there is no inherent right for any business (or person) to have automatic access to the most popular option. Basically, you can't punish a business just for being successful/popular with customers.

MFNs violate Anti-Trust

So, I didn't realize this until a few months ago, but Anti-Trust generally is not geared towards protecting consumers, but ensuring competition is no stamped out. Here are a couple notes of what I learned listening to @HoegLaw and other lawyers:

• Monopolies are not illegal, using monopoly power to prevent competition is.


• Anti-Trust claims have a very, very high bar to achieve. It is generally hard to bring a Sherman Act claim against any company as you have to prove they are actively preventing competition.

This could be anti-competitive behavior, but the bar to prove that is very high. I'm no lawyer, so I won't make comment on the potential to succeed.

They are doing this for consumers

Nope, absolutely they are not.

This Class Action is aiming at the way Steam is making pricing agreements with developers. So the platintiffs will be organizations like CDPR and Ubisoft, not the consumer. If anything, the success of a lawsuit like this would probably cause the cost of games to go up for consumers, not down.

In fact, there are groups of Class Action lawyers who just monitor situations like these looking for situations where they think a Class Action might succeed. A vast majority (it seems to me) of money coming from a Class Action goes to the lawyers who offered to file it in the first place, not to the actual plaintiffs :(

For more detailed information from an actual lawyer: https://www.youtube.com/c/HoegLaw/playlists


Last edited by EagleDelta on 1 February 2021 at 4:45 pm UTC

or the claim is indeed baseless - which I still think is unlikely because why make an entirely baseless claim to waste your time and money (lawyers, etc.) with?

Indeed, why? To find the reason, follow the money. Who paid the lawyers preparing the lawsuit? Some five random indie guys? I doubt it.

Oh, if this does turn out to be just a shitpost in lawsuit form by Epic, I'll be sure to raise a glass to them. Well done!
Good trolling of competitors like that is an art form.

Maybe it's "minor" or "medium" inconvenience for someone like you that lives in a first world country and/or don't care on using a non-native client in order to get a game, but for many others it is a major inconvenience (and mostly a deal breaker). It's now clear to me that you minimize other practices because you are unable to think beyong the consecuences you get by them.

I'm speaking in objective terms, not subjective ones.
Using a different client to download and play a game is objectively not a problem to anyone who has access to that client and is capable of... clicking and typing.
If some people are some kind of anti-China, anti-Epic or Linux-zealot is irrelevant to the argument at hand and irrelevant to me as a person. In one ear, out the other.

For many of us here buying a game on Steam is not about being fanboys, it's just about what is a better deal.

So they can continue to buy on Steam - devs being allowed to ask for lower prices on platforms that offer lower cuts to them will not affect them in any way.
As I will, btw. The convenience of having everything in the same place far outweighs any monetary benefit I'd gain on EGS - for me, personally. Haven't even gotten a single free game on EGS.

But you don't see me going around taking my personal preferences or situation as some kind of objective argument in discussions.
I guess I'm just not a person who thinks they are entitled to anything not guaranteed by law. Entitlement generally rubs me the wrong way.

They know that 12% won't allow them to compete but are trying to force everyone to a lower quality service nonetheless.

As someone who actually works in the field and knows a lot about server pricing and cost of maintencance of larger infrastructures - 12% is indeed absolutely possible for the services Steam is offering. It would be at the very bottom of profitability, but it could still be profitable.
If they were reasonable, they'd drop their cut to 25 or 20%, but that'll only happen once an actual competitor shows up. You know, what Epic with EGS could have been if the store wasn't such a rubbish storefront.
If they were even more reasonable, they'd start at a low cut (say 15%?) and then devs can pay a higher cut for some services (like multiplayer-services, forums, etc.).
But that Steam cut discussion is just so time-intensive every single time so I'll not go further into this.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 1 February 2021 at 5:01 pm UTC

They are saying that you can't have different prices on different platforms. So they actually dictate the price you need to have elsewhere. So if you have a game on Steam and GOG and there is GOG sale going on, you need to lower price on Steam too.

They don't.

A game dev can sell their game anywhere, at any price they want. No skin off Valve's nose.

If a game dev sells Steam keys (which Valve generates for free, just for the asking) through a store that isn't Steam, at a lower price than they sell them on Steam, then they also need to sell them on Steam at that price at some point. So, as an example, a lot of the games sold in the recent Humble sale were distributed as Steam keys at a lower price than they were going for on Steam; those prices then got lowered on Steam itself once Humble's sale was over.

The lawsuit is talking about the main Steam distribution agreement though, not the Steamworks Steam Keys agreement. They're two different things. As far as I can tell, the Distribution Agreement is confidential and so we cannot see it. This is where the MFN clause is contained.

The agreement does not state as such. Did you do some digging to find out what the agreement is or did you assume it's all private? You source the Hollywood Reporter which doesn't actually do good diligent investigative journalism and find out what the contract says. The lawsuit makes claims it hasn't substantiated and won't until it goes to court. The wording, at the very least, can be misleading, if not outright false.

I've seen that agreement before and it says something to the effect that that publishers must provide Steam users with a deal that is as good for their users as other users. That is they can't provide Steam users with a worse offering. It does not say they must be the same price.

Ubisoft sells some of their Assassin's Creed games (the Ezio collection for example) cheaper on their platform in different bundles than they sell on Steam. Steam users get those games bundled in different packages at a different price, but they aren't exactly the same offering.

What many Epic exclusive developers have done in the past is use Steam as an advertising platform while not selling their games through the Steam Store, but pointing to Epic as the exclusive vendor.

The lawsuit makes many claims which are based on social media rants, such as clause 67 which states "Game developers overwhelmingly believe that the Steam platform does not justify a 30% commission fee on their earnings." Meanwhile they seemingly have no problem with Microsoft (Xbox), Sony (PlayStation), and Nintendo (Switch) all charging that same 30% fee. Rhetorically speaking, why are they singling out Valve as the market manipulator when all 3 of those other platforms have greater market reach and influence?

Maybe Valve is abusing their market position, but neither this or the Hollywood Reporter article even scratch the surface, dig deeper, and ask probing questions. In fact, both assume the plaintiff is correct and draw leading conclusions based off the claims in the lawsuit.

As someone who actually works in the field and knows a lot about server pricing and cost of maintencance of larger infrastructures - 12% is indeed absolutely possible for the services Steam is offering. It would be at the very bottom of profitability, but it could still be profitable.

Yeah, but Steam doesn't just maintain an infrastructure. Developping VR, store features, open source developpement and other hardware intiatives is not done with volunteering. That's why I say that Epic can't catch up with a 12% cut. This said, I get your point and don't want either to dig deeper than that on the subject.


Last edited by Mohandevir on 2 February 2021 at 12:02 am UTC

The agreement does not state as such. Did you do some digging to find out what the agreement is or did you assume it's all private? You source the Hollywood Reporter which doesn't actually do good diligent investigative journalism and find out what the contract says. The lawsuit makes claims it hasn't substantiated and won't until it goes to court. The wording, at the very least, can be misleading, if not outright false.

Even if I knew, I couldn't say in public for certain, because the agreements are confidential. It's under an NDA last I checked. I don't know how many times in comments I need to say the same thing. The Steam Distribution Agreement cannot be shared and it is not the same as the public steamworks documentation. Entirely different things.

I'm speaking in objective terms, not subjective ones.
Using a different client to download and play a game is objectively not a problem to anyone who has access to that client and is capable of... clicking and typing.
If some people are some kind of anti-China, anti-Epic or Linux-zealot is irrelevant to the argument at hand and irrelevant to me as a person. In one ear, out the other.

You're not being objective here. As I implied in my last comment, Epic doesn't have regional pricing tools as good as Steam has. Being objective would require that you take in account this limitations when you try to imply that a temporal exclusivity is not a big deal. Not to mention that installing Steam client is way simpler in any Linux distro that doing the same with Epic launcher. Try to compare the steps you require in the most common distros in order to get Steam and Epic running. You should be able to see the difference and you should also be able to understand that one client has a major advantage to the other.

But you don't see me going around taking my personal preferences or situation as some kind of objective argument in discussions.

In your opinion not taking in account the perspective of other consumers is being objective? That you don't care of the consequences of this practices doesn't make them a less valid argument.


Last edited by x_wing on 1 February 2021 at 5:45 pm UTC

We can argue here all we want, unless we know what exactly is in the agreement(s), we can't say either wise. Would be nice if such a document ever leaked so we finally know what practices Valve is up to, but I doubt that will happen any time soon.

The outcome of this will be interesting - the actual court judgement.

The suit mentions how Valve require developers to sign an agreement that contains a "Most Favored Nations" provision to have developers keep the price of their games the same on Steam as other platforms.

Epic Games Store "sold" "Steam games" with a 100% discount and Valve did nothing. The Most-Favored-Nation clause is for Steam keys.

The agreement does not state as such. Did you do some digging to find out what the agreement is or did you assume it's all private? You source the Hollywood Reporter which doesn't actually do good diligent investigative journalism and find out what the contract says. The lawsuit makes claims it hasn't substantiated and won't until it goes to court. The wording, at the very least, can be misleading, if not outright false.

Even if I knew, I couldn't say in public for certain, because the agreements are confidential. It's under an NDA last I checked.

You can't break an NDA you didn't sign.

And Sweeney already talked about it publicly.