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

The contract between Valve and the publishers/developers may have clauses or stipulations which give an "MFN" status and that has to be determined during the hearing.

Aaaah! MFN is a term used to qualify a situation... They want to convince the court that some part of Valve's contract acts like a MFN. Is that so?

Edit: For the record... Don't know why I haven't tought about that in the first place:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favoured_nation

This seems to be so and more so that if their contract has an MFN clause that it harms both consumers and developers. If you have the time to listen to the YouTube video that was posted earlier the lawyer explains what this is and how it could apply to Valve. He goes over the highlights of the law suit and explains what it means legally and what it might mean for Valve or the plaintiff.

I think it's probably worth a watch, and I actually started . . . but it's a frigging hour, man!

It is very long. It went by pretty quick as he kept on point. I put it on while I ran queries and did some extraction work.

You come off like a very aggressive fanboy here.

If that is true you come off like a very aggressive Steam hater, not the first time you show you think Steam is something despicable.

But once facts are presented people just stop replying...

And the first fact you or anyone else in this forum can not deny is that "lower cuts generate lower prices, which is good for customers" is a lie.

Exclusive EPIC games are still costing 60$, still cost the same as if it was on Steam.

The second fact is that EPIC is not investing the same it is own Store infrastructure which explains why they don't need a higher cut. Now, this does not affect you or many people around here who like in UK, EU or the USA which are being well-served not only by EPIC but other stores as PSN and XBOX LIVE with servers near to you and local prices but the damn rest of the world, countries that are not blessed of being inside the EURO protection or near the USA. You get your damn prices in Ponds or Euros, I get those prices in DOLLARS, while Steam use my local coin.

Now the lawsuit is not going anywhere, because part of the concept comes from a mutual agreement, and happens on every single aspect of a free market, as a DEV I am not forced to sell my game on STEAM, neither Steam is forced to accept my game, it is a mutual agreement and both parts should agree. EPIC has been denying to add games from devs that did not accept the Epic exclusivity agreement.

Just forget for a moment is Steam, that store some people hate that much, there are many supermarkets competing with each other and suddenly this product manufacturer does not like the agreement they have with one of these, you think the manufacturer with waste thousands of dollars on lawsuits? No, they just simply take the product off.

Big companies have been mentioned in the lawsuit but none of them as joining the legal action, because it is so obviously someone is pulling the strings, this is part of the lawsuit "acts as an artificial barrier to entry by potential rival platforms and as higher prices lead to less sales of PC Games"
Rival platforms, you mean EPIC, STADIA? If this is true this practice has been for years, why now?

BTW Games on Stadia also cost 60$, lol.

has an MFN clause that it harms both consumers and developers.

This is getting old somehow, not only in video games but every other product in the market, from matches to luxury cars I always heard taxes and other rates imposed by countries harms manufacturers and consumers.

In my country happened that it was said that customs duties on foreign products were harming manufacturers and consumers at the same time. These duties were supported by local manufactures that can not compete with cheap labor. Once these duties were abolished, guess what happened? Prices stay the same, we lost jobs and we are paying the same.
Now, these importers are asking for tax relief over their products, this relief is not covering local manufacturers. Don't you think that these local manufacturers have the same rights as the importers?
That is pretty much what Valve does, do not put the price lower in other places because that would be unfair, it is an obvious corporative decision every one of us would make if we were the CEO of Valve.

In the end is the developer who decides if to put the game on Steam, decides the product, and I think this lawsuit is pretty much BULLSHIT, you know why? because Samurai Shodown Collection was free on EPIC on release while on Valve was on 30$ and even then people were flooding the Steam Game hub telling buyers on Steam that they were suckers for buying the game with links to the Epic store where you can get the game for free and none of these threads were censored or deleted.

So please, please, cut the crap with the "consumer being harmed" thing, this is devs wanting a bigger cut, this is a bunch of devs getting money from only God knows to lawsuit Steam, while Epic is handpicking games for stores as they accept their exclusivity agreement.

In the end, as a dev you can choose whenever you want to put a game, this is not consoles, Steam is not a monopoly and has plenty of competition.

You come off like a very aggressive fanboy here.

If that is true you come off like a very aggressive Steam hater, not the first time you show you think Steam is something despicable.

But once facts are presented people just stop replying...

And the first fact you or anyone else in this forum can not deny is that "lower cuts generate lower prices, which is good for customers" is a lie.

Exclusive EPIC games are still costing 60$, still cost the same as if it was on Steam.

The second fact is that EPIC is not investing the same it is own Store infrastructure which explains why they don't need a higher cut. Now, this does not affect you or many people around here who like in UK, EU or the USA which are being well-served not only by EPIC but other stores as PSN and XBOX LIVE with servers near to you and local prices but the damn rest of the world, countries that are not blessed of being inside the EURO protection or near the USA. You get your damn prices in Ponds or Euros, I get those prices in DOLLARS, while Steam use my local coin.

Now the lawsuit is not going anywhere, because part of the concept comes from a mutual agreement, and happens on every single aspect of a free market, as a DEV I am not forced to sell my game on STEAM, neither Steam is forced to accept my game, it is a mutual agreement and both parts should agree. EPIC has been denying to add games from devs that did not accept the Epic exclusivity agreement.

Just forget for a moment is Steam, that store some people hate that much, there are many supermarkets competing with each other and suddenly this product manufacturer does not like the agreement they have with one of these, you think the manufacturer with waste thousands of dollars on lawsuits? No, they just simply take the product off.

Big companies have been mentioned in the lawsuit but none of them as joining the legal action, because it is so obviously someone is pulling the strings, this is part of the lawsuit "acts as an artificial barrier to entry by potential rival platforms and as higher prices lead to less sales of PC Games"
Rival platforms, you mean EPIC, STADIA? If this is true this practice has been for years, why now?

BTW Games on Stadia also cost 60$, lol.

WTF? Games on Stadia are still the same price even though you literally never 'own' it?

You know what I find amusing? I can understand why people can be fans of a platform, piece of software, etc. Fine, makes sense, some people get used to a thing, and they like it for whatever reason. I can even understand if there is some friendly rivalry between platforms, software, etc. Hell, I know I have gotten into many Atari / Amiga / DOS fights in the past.

What I don't understand is the anger some people feel about something that isn't competing with their own use, and have to just constantly badger people that happened to buy a product (for whatever reasons that may have been). I have a large Steam library, but I also apparently have 400+ games on GOG. I refuse to buy anything from Epic because of their exclusivity deals are preventing me from playing some games on Linux. I have a perfectly valid reason to hate on EPIC. And the fact that they say they take a smaller cut than the competition, yet still charge the same amount just confirms what I always say, NO DEALS between publisher and developer will ever actually benefit the customers. Anyone who thinks otherwise is just being naive.

Dealing with a couple of bitter asshats about the AtariVCS lately, where they don't own the machine, don't plan on owning the machine, and were hardcore saying it was a scam, and everyone who backed it was a fool, and it'll never see the light of day! Like the fact that a crowdfunding campaign existed at all, and that the Atari name belongs to a company now (no matter how inept their management may be, it's not like the old holders of the Atari name were geniuses) just gets sand in their vagina. They legit keep arguing that even if the physical system is made, people who bought it are enjoying it, people are learning things by hacking it in a similar way to how people are learning and doing all sorts of things with the Raspberry Pi (someone even connected a GTX 1060 via the mini-PCIe slot to it), that it'll never succeed, and people will never pay XX for it, because you can get some mini-PC with he same specs, and blah blah blah...

Anyhow, back on topic. Let's look at 'abuse of power'
Valve: they have Steam, which is the first online game store that was really successful, and they had years of zero competition, but finally others started to pop up. Due to this they also started to make great improvements to Steam. It was kind of crap there for a long time. Accused of price fixing somehow...
Microsoft: Literally strong armed OEMs into not selling BeOS, have lobbied for multiple laws to be passed, including one that requires every computer sold by a company has to have an operating system included. (Some would include FreeDOS to get around it).
Apple: Requiring every app to use their payment method, giving them a slice of every transaction. Not allowing any alternative stores, nor sideloading.

So I'm curious; how the hell is valve abusing any power? There are other stores, Literally people are not 100% to use it, unlike what happened with Windows, or with the Apple App store.

If that is true you come off like a very aggressive Steam hater, not the first time you show you think Steam is something despicable.

That's because I call shitty things out when I see them, independent of the good stuff the same entity (Valve in this case) does.

I am neutral.
Of course, to the mind of a rabid fanboy, calling things out like a way too big cut or a refusal to have regional pricing within the same currency zone immediately makes you a hater.

In this case, it turned out the whole thing of the article was a lot of smoke about nothing and it will most certainly go nowhere. I initially assumed there was actually some point to the lawsuit - as in, Valve actually does what the lawsuit claims it does. And of course argued based on that assumption.
But apparently that doesn't seem to be the case. Making it all just very weird.

And the first fact you or anyone else in this forum can not deny is that "lower cuts generate lower prices, which is good for customers" is a lie.

I don't know who said that, but I sure didn't. A few devs may choose to lower the price due to a lower cut, but most won't.
A lower cut is good for developers and neutral for customers.

So in total, a positive thing.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 7 February 2021 at 10:02 am UTC

A lower cut is good for developers and neutral for customers.

So in total, a positive thing.

I guess this could hypothetically be a bad thing for customers if it means the store owner (Valve in this case) decides to cut spending on platform development and upkeep due to smaller profit margins. Personally I'm not a big fan of Steam's business model or most of its features, but I do like their contributions to Linux as a gaming platform.

A lower cut is good for developers and neutral for customers.

So in total, a positive thing.

I guess this could hypothetically be a bad thing for customers if it means the store owner (Valve in this case) decides to cut spending on platform development and upkeep due to smaller profit margins.

Eh, their profit margins are so large, they can - and do - already offer lower cuts to large publishers / developers.
And those deals are outside of the automatic lowering of the cut to 20% after - IIRC - selling 50 million $ worth of game.

Funny enough, large publishers wouldn't even need all those cuts to begin with due to the sheer number of their sales (not that they don't welcome them, mind you).
Adding to all of that, large game releases are what earns Steam the most money - yet they are willing to take a lower cut there - but nowhere else. Hmmmm.

Meanwhile, indie devs get no such treatment - despite Valve being more than capable of granting them a lower cut as well.
And this is mostly about indie/small devs for me, as that is where the best games and most of the passion are at. For them, the 30% cut is more than just a small problem. E.g. the difference between having to sell 1000 games a month to make a living or having to sell 1150 is significant.
For big publishers, the difference is merely one of making a bit more or a bit less profit (but it is profit, either way).

tl;dr: Steam does already grant lower cuts, so it's not like they couldn't afford it - but not to those who'd need it.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 7 February 2021 at 11:21 am UTC

Eh, their profit margins are so large, they can - and do - already offer lower cuts to large publishers / developers.

Valve isn't a public company so there is no way to know the profit. You're speculating here.

And those deals are outside of the automatic lowering of the cut to 20% after - IIRC - selling 50 million $ worth of game.

Funny enough, large publishers wouldn't even need all those cuts to begin with due to the sheer number of their sales (not that they don't welcome them, mind you).
Adding to all of that, large game releases are what earns Steam the most money - yet they are willing to take a lower cut there - but nowhere else. Hmmmm.

Meanwhile, indie devs get no such treatment - despite Valve being more than capable of granting them a lower cut as well.
And this is mostly about indie/small devs for me, as that is where the best games and most of the passion are at. For them, the 30% cut is more than just a small problem. E.g. the difference between having to sell 1000 games a month to make a living or having to sell 1150 is significant.
For big publishers, the difference is merely one of making a bit more or a bit less profit (but it is profit, either way).

tl;dr: Steam does already grant lower cuts, so it's not like they couldn't afford it - but not to those who'd need it.

Other stores takes the exact same cut but it seems that Steam is always the one that get all the FUD.

Valve isn't a public company so there is no way to know the profit. You're speculating here.

Hardly.
I can't know the exact numbers, obviously, but you can do a rather well educated guess based on the public numbers Valve does release, the prices, what you know about hosting / infrastructure costs, the relatively low number of employees, etc.
Hint: You won't end up at 30% as the required number for a tidy profit.

Other stores takes the exact same cut but it seems that Steam is always the one that get all the FUD.

Valve is just a topic here more often due to most other stores barely being relevant to this site. Obviously the same cut isn't really justified anywhere.
But in contrast to e.g. the PlayStation Store, developers on PC have a choice of where to publish if they want a lower cut. At least in theory. That choice simply doesn't exist on consoles, or on IOS/Android.

Critizing Valve, in contrast e.g. to criticizing Sony, might actually lead to a result that is beneficial to developers. Especially since EGS showed up.

I can't know the exact numbers, obviously, but you can do a rather well educated guess based on the public numbers Valve does release, the prices, what you know about hosting / infrastructure costs, the relatively low number of employees, etc.
Hint: You won't end up at 30% as the required number for a tidy profit.

I can also do a rather well educated guess of Steam infrastructure and I can tell you that it isn't cheap. But mostly, I can see that Valve invest their profit in the gaming market so is kinda difficult to me to say that I don't think that they deserve that cut.

Critizing Valve, in contrast e.g. to criticizing Sony, might actually lead to a result that is beneficial to developers. Especially since EGS showed up.

But the discussion is always focused on what EGS "criticize". Everyone talks about the 30% cut but never talks about the cut that devs get when items of his game are sold in the market, the tools that Steam provides in order to simplify the release/development process for their games or the access that devs have to activation keys in order do a retail sale wherever they want. Let's be honest, this is not about developers this is just about the FUD that Epic created against Valve.


Last edited by x_wing on 7 February 2021 at 3:51 pm UTC

But mostly, I can see that Valve invest their profit in the gaming market

Wrong, again.
You can see that they invest some of their profit into the gaming market. Which is undoubtedly more than others do, which is a great thing, especially for us.
If they didn't invest anything back, they'd end up with a similar share to Epic, about 12% for developing/maintaining their store infrastructure and all things related to it. Actually Epic nets a profit from even that, but they don't have as much stuff to maintain and their service is just straight worse, so let's just say 12% let's you be even if you are Valve.

Now, if you want to assume that those 18% of Valve's cut they invest back into the market in the form of hardware & software research (incl. Proton), I can't stop you. But I can tell you it is absurd. Even if you assumed twice the number of employees that the highest estimate shows for Valve you couldn't spend that much money on them - assuming Valve doesn't pay multiple times the industry standard wages for everyone...

More realistically, they invest maybe half of that or less into non-profitable endeavours, meaning they could easily ask for a 20% cut from everyone, still do everything they do now, and still be on top of it all.

Let's be honest, this is not about developers this is just about the FUD that Epic created against Valve.

Let's be honest, yes: You have no idea what you are talking about in this matter.
I haven't read a single argument of yours that actually holds up upon inspection.
People have been bringing the same points against the 30% cut since way before Epic entered the picture, though Epic certainly lend the whole criticism much more publicity and credit.
You should do yourself a favor and stop now, before it gets too embarrassing.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 7 February 2021 at 4:37 pm UTC

But mostly, I can see that Valve invest their profit in the gaming market

Wrong, again.
You can see that they invest some of their profit into the gaming market. Which is undoubtedly more than others do, which is a great thing, especially for us.

Grammar games? Really? Please don't twist my words, with this I meant that as a customer I can see were the money goes with Valve (and as a Linux user, this is a strong argument). Unfortunately I cannot say the same with other stores.

If they didn't invest anything back, they'd end up with a similar share to Epic, about 12% for developing/maintaining their store infrastructure and all things related to it. Actually Epic nets a profit from even that, but they don't have as much stuff to maintain and their service is just straight worse, so let's just say 12% let's you be even if you are Valve.

How do you know that? If I have to guess, Epic is losing money right now. For each free copy they give they are probably forced to pay a fee to the publisher. Not to mention that the temporal exclusives aren't cheap. This strategies aren't new in the gaming market, many new comers always worked at loss in the first years.

More realistically, they invest maybe half of that or less into non-profitable endeavours, meaning they could easily ask for a 20% cut from everyone, still do everything they do now, and still be on top of it all.

"Wrong, again." There is now way you can get any number out of this as Valve isn't a public company. Unless you're Valve's accountant or a shareholder of Valve, this number are pure speculation (not to mention that you don't evaluate costs).

Let's be honest, yes: You have no idea what you are talking about in this matter.
I haven't read a single argument of yours that actually holds up upon inspection.
People have been bringing the same points against the 30% cut since way before Epic entered the picture, though Epic certainly lend the whole criticism much more publicity and credit.
You should do yourself a favor and stop now, before it gets too embarrassing.

Are you sure that my arguments don't holds up an inspection? Is kinda fun to read this when in this same answer I see that you're giving me some credit regarding the Epic participation. Also, I mentioned the advantages of Steam for many developers (with extra revenue sources), something that you may want to add to your revenue estimations. Regarding "People have been bringing the same points against the 30%" I probably should ask by whom? Before Epic drama, I never heard a complain about that cut (at least not for Steam).

You're really an arrogant person. You imply that I don't bring any valid argument and I have no idea of what I'm talking about when you keep creating numbers from nowhere in order to justify what could be the right fee of a Store. Not to mention that you try to show some advantages of fee reduction for customer when many showed you that Epic didn't bring any advantage for us. If you don't find any sense on my arguments it's probably related to the fact that you've decided to not read my answers. So yeah, just lie to yourself.

Of course, to the mind of a rabid fanboy, calling things out like a way too big cut or a refusal to have regional pricing within the same currency zone immediately makes you a hater.

How do you know it's a way too big cut? What cut would be appropriate?

Eh, their profit margins are so large, they can - and do - already offer lower cuts to large publishers / developers.

How do you know that they already offer lower cuts to large publishers/developers? CD Projekt Red is pretty big and Cyberpunk 2077 was one of the biggest launches in history. They didn't get an extra deal.

Valve isn't a public company so there is no way to know the profit. You're speculating here.

Hardly.
I can't know the exact numbers, obviously, but you can do a rather well educated guess based on the public numbers Valve does release, the prices, what you know about hosting / infrastructure costs, the relatively low number of employees, etc.
Hint: You won't end up at 30% as the required number for a tidy profit.

gog broke down their costs running the store any say said that running their store costs about 20% and 10% is actual profit for them.

Let's be honest, yes: You have no idea what you are talking about in this matter.
I haven't read a single argument of yours that actually holds up upon inspection.

You haven't shown any sign that you have an idea what you are talking about. Nothing but allegations that you can't back up.

How do you know that? If I have to guess, Epic is losing money right now. For each free copy they give they are probably forced to pay a fee to the publisher. Not to mention that the temporal exclusives aren't cheap. This strategies aren't new in the gaming market, many new comers always worked at loss in the first years.

You are mixing different points here. We're talking about the store cut of 12%. With that low cut, Epic still nets a profit:
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1120441795010338816

Of course, if you also take all the other measures into account - the exclusivity deals and the free games - then yeah, I'm fully with you they most likely run at a net loss right now.
But those other growth measures are not the topic of discussion here.

"Wrong, again." There is now way you can get any number out of this as Valve isn't a public company. Unless you're Valve's accountant or a shareholder of Valve, this number are pure speculation (not to mention that you don't evaluate costs).

I did list some of the numbers you CAN get despite Valve not being a public company. It isn't totally precise, but there's no way it is entirely off, either. If you wanna do the math, be my guest. I did that ~2 years ago when EGS first entered the picture and it turned out that Epic is very much right on this one.
And the last two years only saw more growth and profit for Valve, so I don't see any reason to assume much has changed in this regard.

Regarding "People have been bringing the same points against the 30%" I probably should ask by whom? Before Epic drama, I never heard a complain about that cut (at least not for Steam).

Is this the part where you pretend something didn't happen because you didn't see it happen?
Honestly, just set your search engine to present you results from before 2017 or so and look for discussions about the store owner cut. You'll find quite a few, and absolutely not only about Steam, but also about mobile app stores, consoles, etc.

Your claim was that Epic "created" this narrative in some kind of FUD approach. And that is just provably false.
What Epic did was bring this to way more people's attention, which is a service in itself and if that discussion is the only thing that remains of Epic's efforts, it'll still be at least something good.
Now, did they push this point in an attempt to discredit others and get people on their store? Probably. I couldn't care less about intentions. I care about results.

You're really an arrogant person. You imply that I don't bring any valid argument and I have no idea of what I'm talking about when you keep creating numbers from nowhere in order to justify what could be the right fee of a Store.

Knowledge is often mistaken for arrogance by those who don't possess it, especially if it isn't sugarcoated, so I'll take that compliment, thank you.

Just because you don't understand where the numbers are coming from, doesn't mean I created them out of thin air. I think I dropped enough keywords by now for anyone to do their own research and I am under no obligation to hand you my own research and do the thinking for you. Nor do I care if you believe me or not, so I'm really not willing to go that extra mile.

Not to mention that you try to show some advantages of fee reduction for customer when many showed you that Epic didn't bring any advantage for us.

Seriously doubt that I ever made such an attempt. I said that some developers might decide to lower their prices due to the lower cut, but most won't.
So for customers, not much of an improvement.

But honestly, customers are cared for pretty well already. Games are cheap, too cheap IMO but that's a different topic altogether. It's the indie/small devs that struggle the most, and that is my perspective, too, so that's what I'm most concerned about.

How do you know that they already offer lower cuts to large publishers/developers?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition
Just as the most recent example. That isn't specific to large devs, of course, but I hope you can see how that benefits those the most.
The deals between Steam and large publishers beyond that are more of an open secret, but you won't find many articles about it. Contracts not being disclosed and all that.

gog broke down their costs running the store any say said that running their store costs about 20% and 10% is actual profit for them.

If that is true - and I have my doubt here - it would tell you two things:
1.) They suck at running at their business. Epic can run their store at about 5-8% and the rest is profit, but GOG requires three times that much? Something is very wrong here.
2.) 10% profit is already absolutely crazy as any investor will gladly tell you. Do you know how much profit normal, non-digital stores (e.g. supermarkets, electronic markets, etc.) make from products they sell? 1-3%.

But honestly, I think this might just be throwing different things together, not all actually related to the store itself. Or their sales numbers are much lower than I ever expected.

How do you know it's a way too big cut? What cut would be appropriate?

My suggestion would be to not have one-cut-fits-all, but a minimal cut, say 10-15%.
And then developers can add packages on top. Want a forum with it? +1%. Want multiplayer servers/matchmaking, etc.?+1-4% Other stuff? +1% each.
You get the idea.
This might actually end up with something close to 30% in the end for the premium package, but it's a fact that most developers don't even need half the services Steam supposedly takes such a large chunk for.

How do you know that they already offer lower cuts to large publishers/developers?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition
Just as the most recent example. That isn't specific to large devs, of course, but I hope you can see how that benefits those the most.

That is not what you claimed. You said that Valve makes deals with big publishers so that the 20/25/30% cut rule doesn't apply. This applies to everybody.

The deals between Steam and large publishers beyond that are more of an open secret, but you won't find many articles about it. Contracts not being disclosed and all that.

So you make baseless claims and just say that this is an open secret. Who does this apply to? Why doesn't this apply to CD Projekt Red, a big money maker for Steam?

gog broke down their costs running the store any say said that running their store costs about 20% and 10% is actual profit for them.

If that is true - and I have my doubt here - it would tell you two things:
1.) They suck at running at their business. Epic can run their store at about 5-8% and the rest is profit, but GOG requires three times that much? Something is very wrong here.
2.) 10% profit is already absolutely crazy as any investor will gladly tell you. Do you know how much profit normal, non-digital stores (e.g. supermarkets, electronic markets, etc.) make from products they sell? 1-3%.

It's what they said. You don't know if Epic can run their store at 5-8%... you have no insight into the costs.

But honestly, I think this might just be throwing different things together, not all actually related to the store itself. Or their sales numbers are much lower than I ever expected.

Of course they sell much less than Steam, but that's at least still some actual data.

How do you know it's a way too big cut? What cut would be appropriate?

My suggestion would be to not have one-cut-fits-all, but a minimal cut, say 10-15%.
And then developers can add packages on top. Want a forum with it? +1%. Want multiplayer servers/matchmaking, etc.?+1-4% Other stuff? +1% each.
You get the idea.
This might actually end up with something close to 30% in the end for the premium package, but it's a fact that most developers don't even need half the services Steam supposedly takes such a large chunk for.[/quote]
That's not what I asked.

That is not what you claimed. You said that Valve makes deals with big publishers so that the 20/25/30% cut rule doesn't apply. This applies to everybody.

So you do not see how this is just a veiled deal with all big publishers as those are the only ones (bar a few indie successes maybe?) who can even fulfill it?
The goal with this was - and it was successful, too - to get big publishers to come back to Steam instead of running their own exclusive stores which they started doing prior to this. There was this period of a year or so (not entirely sure how long it was) where for example EA did not release anything big on Steam.

So you make baseless claims and just say that this is an open secret.

It is very obvious from this comment and most of your others that you do not work in the industry or even close to it.
I cannot show you any definite proof of this as that would be a rather stupid thing to do in my position and some of the people I work with.
Believe me or not - it's your choice, but I think we all know you're going to go with the choice that fits into your narrative.

Who does this apply to? Why doesn't this apply to CD Projekt Red, a big money maker for Steam?

Hmmm... why would Valve not cut deals with their direct competitors at GOG?
Yeah, no idea. It is a mystery of which only the brightest detectives would be worthy.

It's what they said. You don't know if Epic can run their store at 5-8%... you have no insight into the costs.

Of course they sell much less than Steam, but that's at least still some actual data.

Ah, so if Epic (well, the person who runs it, anyway) gives you some numbers, that must be a lie.
But if GOG gives you some numbers, that must be true.
I truly hope that you can see the problem in your perception here.

How do you know it's a way too big cut? What cut would be appropriate?

My suggestion would be to not have one-cut-fits-all, but a minimal cut, say 10-15%.
And then developers can add packages on top. Want a forum with it? +1%. Want multiplayer servers/matchmaking, etc.?+1-4% Other stuff? +1% each.
You get the idea.
This might actually end up with something close to 30% in the end for the premium package, but it's a fact that most developers don't even need half the services Steam supposedly takes such a large chunk for.

That's not what I asked.

You asked what cut would be appropriate. How my answer is not what you asked remains your secret so far.
You also asked how I know it's a way too big cut - I already answered that, multiple times over. You just chose to either ignore it or not believe me. Not much more I can do for you there. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 8 February 2021 at 10:33 am UTC

That is not what you claimed. You said that Valve makes deals with big publishers so that the 20/25/30% cut rule doesn't apply. This applies to everybody.

So you do not see how this is just a veiled deal with all big publishers as those are the only ones (bar a few indie successes maybe?) who can even fulfill it?
The goal with this was - and it was successful, too - to get big publishers to come back to Steam instead of running their own exclusive stores which they started doing prior to this. There was this period of a year or so (not entirely sure how long it was) where for example EA did not release anything big on Steam.

This is not the argument you made. You are disingenuous.

So you make baseless claims and just say that this is an open secret.

It is very obvious from this comment and most of your others that you do not work in the industry or even close to it.
I cannot show you any definite proof of this as that would be a rather stupid thing to do in my position and some of the people I work with.
Believe me or not - it's your choice, but I think we all know you're going to go with the choice that fits into your narrative.

So you can't offer any proof. And I'm the one who has a narrative?

Who does this apply to? Why doesn't this apply to CD Projekt Red, a big money maker for Steam?

Hmmm... why would Valve not cut deals with their direct competitors at GOG?
Yeah, no idea. It is a mystery of which only the brightest detectives would be worthy.

That's no argument. gog is barely a direct competitor and why would that play a role?

It's what they said. You don't know if Epic can run their store at 5-8%... you have no insight into the costs.

Of course they sell much less than Steam, but that's at least still some actual data.

Ah, so if Epic (well, the person who runs it, anyway) gives you some numbers, that must be a lie.
But if GOG gives you some numbers, that must be true.
I truly hope that you can see the problem in your perception here.

I didn't say it was a lie. And I'm the one with a problem in my perception?

How do you know it's a way too big cut? What cut would be appropriate?

My suggestion would be to not have one-cut-fits-all, but a minimal cut, say 10-15%.
And then developers can add packages on top. Want a forum with it? +1%. Want multiplayer servers/matchmaking, etc.?+1-4% Other stuff? +1% each.
You get the idea.
This might actually end up with something close to 30% in the end for the premium package, but it's a fact that most developers don't even need half the services Steam supposedly takes such a large chunk for.

That's not what I asked.

You asked what cut would be appropriate. How my answer is not what you asked remains your secret so far.
You also asked how I know it's a way too big cut - I already answered that, multiple times over. You just chose to either ignore it or not believe me. Not much more I can do for you there. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

Yes, I asked what would be appropriate and you didn't offer a proper answer. You threw out a random number without a reason. I could just do the same and say that Steam deserves 49% and keep the explanation to myself. That wouldn't help either.


Last edited by kuhpunkt on 8 February 2021 at 12:02 pm UTC