Here we go again, yet another lawsuit has been filed against Steam developer Valve Software over an alleged abuse of their market position with their 30% cut. This time around it's a noted developer, Wolfire Games (Overgrowth, Receiver), along with two individuals William Herbert and Daniel Escobar "on behalf of all others similarly situated".
According to the documents, the argument is similar to one we've heard before. They're claiming that of the huge market that PC gaming is, "75% flow through the online storefront of a single company, Valve" and that "Valve uses that dominance to take an extraordinarily high cut from nearly every sale that passes through its store—30%" which results in "higher prices and less innovation" and that Valve can do this because of their market position so developers "have no choice but to sell most of their games through the Steam Store, where they are subject to Valve’s 30% toll".
One of the cited people is former Valve developer Richard Geldreich, who famously tweeted:
Steam was killing PC gaming. It was a 30% tax on an entire industry. It was unsustainable. You have no idea how profitable Steam was for Valve. It was a virtual printing press. It distorted the entire company. Epic is fixing this for all gamers.
The suit also mentions clauses Valve have that prevent developers selling at cheaper prices on other stores, "Valve blocks pro-competitive price competition through two main provisions—the Steam Key Price Parity Provision and the Price Veto Provision".
It goes even further to mention the likes of Microsoft, EA and more companies that tried and "failed to develop a robust commercial strategy away from the Steam Gaming Platform" arguing that it shows how vital Steam is and so the behaviour is anticompetitive. On top of that it even pulls in the Steam Workshop and the Steam Market, to claim this keeps developers even more tied to Valve and Steam and that Valve takes a big cut.
What are they hoping to achieve with this lawsuit? On top of damages and the usual, they want "injunctive relief removing Valve’s anticompetitive provisions" to "bring competition to the market and benefit the public as a whole".
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
UltraAltesBrot Apr 30, 2021
Since my comment is rather long, I've put it in a spoiler. Thank you if you read it, just had to get it off my chest somewhere, lol.
Spoiler, click me
As if a mere adjustment of the cut would fix anything. That's far too short-sighted and simplifies the real issue.
Customers/backlog
I'm not a dev, so of course I can only speak from the perspective of a customer. And as a customer I don't have infinite resources: My money and even more as I get older my time is limited. When I reflect on my purchasing behavior and my Steam library itself I notice: I buy way fewer games that I did year ago. Why? Limited time, as mentioned before. That limited time I want to invest in the games that interest me the most (right now) and games I see myself complete - be it a short, sophisticated game with fresh gameplay or a longer game with long-time motivations (collectibles, dense story, ...). Furthermore, I amounted a huge backlog of games that are cool but didn't get to play or finish yet.
Market saturation
What I want to say is that my library is oversaturated. Others already mentioned here in the comments: The market is oversaturated, too. Hundreds of games come out every day and not only do they have to compete with current or future games, but also loads of older (indie)games (e.g. why play a new probably average indie metroidvania when I haven't even touched masterpieces like Hollow Knight, Dead Cells, Shovel Knight or Celeste?). Of course people pay attention to Steam reviews a lot and will probably refrain from buying a game that might not be rated positive enough in their opinion.
Customer expectations
Also, customer interest is way different than years ago: Many players expect "games as a service", multiplayer/coop games and most importantly communication (even more with early access games). You can't throw your game at the store and expect the algorithm to sell it for you. Building a community and communicating with users through blog posts isn't only important on release, but before and after it. Maybe your average-looking farming sim or mediocre JRPG is just that: Not good enough. And even if it's great you have to convince people of it being great not only when they play it, but before: Sell your game. Marketing, communication, build your community.
Why I and probably many others use Steam
Even though Steam has many half-assed features (broadcasts, new chat, 32-bit client without ipv6 support, ...) it's still considered the status quo. Why? Because there is nothing better around especially on Linux:
Epic: Nothing aside from freebies or exclusives keeps customers there, because there is nothing else. Also, no Linux support
GOG: On the rise (see recently released article), but still no Linux support.
Steam: Sales, returns, community, excellent Linux support with Proton which is absolutely insane if you look just 5 years back in time, ...
Don't get me wrong. As soon as there is a really superior platform on the market or Steam turns anti-customer, people will switch and vote with their wallets. See the paid mods drama they started or that the Steam cut already gets adjusted if you reach a certain threshold sales (which is still out of the league for indie games, though).
Conclusion
What's the solution then? I don' know! I'm not getting paid to come up with one.
Is Steams cut too high? Probably, depending of how much devs use Steam features in their games. As a minimum they'll give you an audience that you have to make use of, host your game, do the billing and a lot of community features from a forum over game server network capacity to inventories with paid skins and stuff. Maybe let devs choose what they need and adjust the cut based on that.
Should the price parity be dropped? Depends. If a dev decides to release on a storefront with fewer features that can offer to sell their game cheaper due to lower running costs or whatever, that should be possible. But what would happen in the long term? I think games value and prices would drop even more, which first seems good but quality would severely suffer long-term. E.g. key stores are there yet and Steam sees nothing of the money gained there, even though they cover all hosting costs and stuff.
All in all I believe Valve is still a giant money-sink that could innovate way more. Since they are privately-owned, nobody knows how much money they really own or where it goes. Imo they haven't abused their market power that much. If other big companies like EA or Activision would be in charge, we'd be screwed. But for the time being, competition hasn't managed to catch up despite Valve's/Steam's flaws and due to the complexity of the market.
Customers/backlog
I'm not a dev, so of course I can only speak from the perspective of a customer. And as a customer I don't have infinite resources: My money and even more as I get older my time is limited. When I reflect on my purchasing behavior and my Steam library itself I notice: I buy way fewer games that I did year ago. Why? Limited time, as mentioned before. That limited time I want to invest in the games that interest me the most (right now) and games I see myself complete - be it a short, sophisticated game with fresh gameplay or a longer game with long-time motivations (collectibles, dense story, ...). Furthermore, I amounted a huge backlog of games that are cool but didn't get to play or finish yet.
Market saturation
What I want to say is that my library is oversaturated. Others already mentioned here in the comments: The market is oversaturated, too. Hundreds of games come out every day and not only do they have to compete with current or future games, but also loads of older (indie)games (e.g. why play a new probably average indie metroidvania when I haven't even touched masterpieces like Hollow Knight, Dead Cells, Shovel Knight or Celeste?). Of course people pay attention to Steam reviews a lot and will probably refrain from buying a game that might not be rated positive enough in their opinion.
Customer expectations
Also, customer interest is way different than years ago: Many players expect "games as a service", multiplayer/coop games and most importantly communication (even more with early access games). You can't throw your game at the store and expect the algorithm to sell it for you. Building a community and communicating with users through blog posts isn't only important on release, but before and after it. Maybe your average-looking farming sim or mediocre JRPG is just that: Not good enough. And even if it's great you have to convince people of it being great not only when they play it, but before: Sell your game. Marketing, communication, build your community.
Why I and probably many others use Steam
Even though Steam has many half-assed features (broadcasts, new chat, 32-bit client without ipv6 support, ...) it's still considered the status quo. Why? Because there is nothing better around especially on Linux:
Epic: Nothing aside from freebies or exclusives keeps customers there, because there is nothing else. Also, no Linux support
GOG: On the rise (see recently released article), but still no Linux support.
Steam: Sales, returns, community, excellent Linux support with Proton which is absolutely insane if you look just 5 years back in time, ...
Don't get me wrong. As soon as there is a really superior platform on the market or Steam turns anti-customer, people will switch and vote with their wallets. See the paid mods drama they started or that the Steam cut already gets adjusted if you reach a certain threshold sales (which is still out of the league for indie games, though).
Conclusion
What's the solution then? I don' know! I'm not getting paid to come up with one.
Is Steams cut too high? Probably, depending of how much devs use Steam features in their games. As a minimum they'll give you an audience that you have to make use of, host your game, do the billing and a lot of community features from a forum over game server network capacity to inventories with paid skins and stuff. Maybe let devs choose what they need and adjust the cut based on that.
Should the price parity be dropped? Depends. If a dev decides to release on a storefront with fewer features that can offer to sell their game cheaper due to lower running costs or whatever, that should be possible. But what would happen in the long term? I think games value and prices would drop even more, which first seems good but quality would severely suffer long-term. E.g. key stores are there yet and Steam sees nothing of the money gained there, even though they cover all hosting costs and stuff.
All in all I believe Valve is still a giant money-sink that could innovate way more. Since they are privately-owned, nobody knows how much money they really own or where it goes. Imo they haven't abused their market power that much. If other big companies like EA or Activision would be in charge, we'd be screwed. But for the time being, competition hasn't managed to catch up despite Valve's/Steam's flaws and due to the complexity of the market.
14 Likes, Who?
Rosen and Graham have been CEO and COO of Humble Bundle up until 2019, and are still in the company today as "advisors" after stepping down. SourceI feel now that my money should rather go to Valve than to them for sure.They haven't been a part of Humble Bundle for years.
The solution is simple: Lower the minimal cut to something reasonable (closer to the Epic cut), then allow developers to opt-in to features they actually need, which would then increase the cut.If you do this, it's the customers who will complain, like they did with the Epic store. People want community hubs, Steam Family Sharing, Steam overlay's custom gamepad button mapping, etc. Games from developers who don't have the money to get these will be even more prejudiced.
These aren't popular games, but they're solid games that used to get exposure. Now they don't. So the 30% cut by Valve, for these devs, is particularly insulting, because Valve is adding precisely no value. Indeed, many of these indies saw (for the first time, ever, over years) greater sales via Itch, than on Steam.The algorithm is a real problem indeed, but it doesn't mean the cut is unfair. People these days want to get everything for free and they realise later on why it was so cheap. Steam does take 30% but they inject it back in functionality, infrastructure and (sometimes open source) development.
Epic spend most of their money into buying exclusives, which are AAA games. In the end both consumers and indie developers get screwed but no one seems to care.
3 Likes, Who?
Chronarius Apr 30, 2021
They haven't been a part of Humble Bundle for years.
They have been "Humble Bundle" before they sold it off to IGN.
Last edited by Chronarius on 30 April 2021 at 1:15 pm UTC
0 Likes
Richard Geldreich, that guy has a huge chip on his shoulder about Valve, I don't believe a word he's saying. Of course he's siding with Epic.
This guy sounds over the top in many regards.
But, indeed, he seems to outright hate his former employer Valve.
Judging from his tweets I wouldn't blame Valve, though.
3 Likes, Who?
The same argument and frustration is often voiced around Play and Apple's store - they take their 30% cut but unless you magically put out the next minecraft, factorio or limbo, you're gonna languish with pitiful sales until you go out of business.
And the solution would be what? Everybody is always screaming for CoMPetItiOn... and when they have that and lose against other more popular titles, it sucks. Go figure.
The point is how they get popular. If the algorithm was fairer for new titles, then indies would have a better chance at leveraging Steam and becoming the next big thing. But since it doesn't, they never hit the front-page and the same tired (but popular) games are constantly regurgitated on the carousel and in the discovery queues.
There's also a huge amount of opacity around how that algorithm works. It used to be "okay" for indies, but a couple of years ago (maybe 2018?) it changed, and multiple indies saw their revenues destroyed. They weren't even being surfaced during sales. It put some studios out of business.
You can't force being popular. No algorithm in the world can change that. It used be be "okay" for indies, because there was less competition. Less games that would take away your attention.
Valve already tries what they can with Game Festivals and whatnot, where they highlight hundreds of games.
Do people complain about Bandcamp or iTunes or Amazon, because their unknown albums and movies aren't able to compete with Taylor Swift and Star Wars?
The algorithm did change that. It's nothing to do with competition. Sure, you can't force being popular, but even 1000 sales for an indie were important and they got those sales, year after year, sustainably. Then the algorithm changed (devs were informed by Valve that this was happening, but no details as to what it meant) and 1000+ sales turned into less than 100.
So, multiple indies reporting that their sales literally fell off a cliff, as a result of this one change.
These aren't popular games, but they're solid games that used to get exposure. Now they don't. So the 30% cut by Valve, for these devs, is particularly insulting, because Valve is adding precisely no value. Indeed, many of these indies saw (for the first time, ever, over years) greater sales via Itch, than on Steam.
Yeah, and they change the algorithm again and they constantly tune it and they have the Steam Labs (they just released the new store to hopefully improve visibility), but when you are one in 50000 games, how is Steam supposed to give everybody the same exposure?
And if they aren't happy on Steam, they can just leave and be successful elsewhere, like Itch. Free market.
They're already on Itch? What's your point here? Mine is that multiple indie devs are aggrieved by a 30% cut because Valve adds no value. Nobody said anything about "same exposure". All the indies want a moment in the spotlight. Valve used to do that, now they don't.
Also, no, they don't change the algorithm that much - they announced this change. And it crippled many indies.
You know what? Maybe you're right, and they do change it all the time. That doesn't change the argument that a 30% cut of nothing is still nothing.
1 Likes, Who?
Rosen and Graham have been CEO and COO of Humble Bundle up until 2019, and are still in the company today as "advisors" after stepping down. SourceI feel now that my money should rather go to Valve than to them for sure.They haven't been a part of Humble Bundle for years.
I think the confusion is that Wolfire sold Humble Bundle to IGN in 2017, even though the CEO's of Wolfire stayed on the Humble board as advisors, while also being CEO of Wolfire. A bizarre arrangement.
These aren't popular games, but they're solid games that used to get exposure. Now they don't. So the 30% cut by Valve, for these devs, is particularly insulting, because Valve is adding precisely no value. Indeed, many of these indies saw (for the first time, ever, over years) greater sales via Itch, than on Steam.The algorithm is a real problem indeed, but it doesn't mean the cut is unfair. People these days want to get everything for free and they realise later on why it was so cheap. Steam does take 30% but they inject it back in functionality, infrastructure and (sometimes open source) development.
Epic spend most of their money into buying exclusives, which are AAA games. In the end both consumers and indie developers get screwed but no one seems to care.
I'm tired of arguing this on behalf of the various indies I follow on Twitter, but I'll say it one more time - these Indies used to (past tense) get great value from Valve, by way of large customer base and a tiny bit of exposure to engage that customer base. As of the 2018 change, that is no longer the case.
There's simply no point in justifying a 30% cut by promoting services that will never be used... because no-one knows these games exist, since the algorithm doesn't give any exposure. It used to be a tiny sliver. Now it's not even that.
Personally, I suspect that Valve realised that a non-curated store was a terrible mistake - it led to uninteresting, fringe and plain "bad" titles being surfaced on its front page. Therefore this is simply a way to push those titles to the bottom of pile without actually taking the bad press that shutting them out would generate.
Just a shame it pole-axed the indies at the same time.
3 Likes, Who?
Is it really the algorithm ?
https://www.statista.com/statistics/552623/number-games-released-steam/
There are more and more game on steam, people tends to also buy and play games from a few year ago especially as game tend to get support for years concurrency is not just new game but also all the game released on the last few years. 100 milions players is not that much when there is 40-50 thousand games compared with the one thousand or so DS game for the same userbase.
It's really the algorithm yes. Devs saw their sales fall off a cliff. That doesn't happen with natural growth of the market.
You can't buy what you don't know about. Sure, a bigger market makes everything worse, but it doesn't have an overnight effect on sales drying up.
3 Likes, Who?
Rosen and Graham have been CEO and COO of Humble Bundle up until 2019, and are still in the company today as "advisors" after stepping down. SourceI feel now that my money should rather go to Valve than to them for sure.They haven't been a part of Humble Bundle for years.
I think the confusion is that Wolfire sold Humble Bundle to IGN in 2017, even though the CEO's of Wolfire stayed on the Humble board as advisors, while also being CEO of Wolfire. A bizarre arrangement.
These aren't popular games, but they're solid games that used to get exposure. Now they don't. So the 30% cut by Valve, for these devs, is particularly insulting, because Valve is adding precisely no value. Indeed, many of these indies saw (for the first time, ever, over years) greater sales via Itch, than on Steam.The algorithm is a real problem indeed, but it doesn't mean the cut is unfair. People these days want to get everything for free and they realise later on why it was so cheap. Steam does take 30% but they inject it back in functionality, infrastructure and (sometimes open source) development.
Epic spend most of their money into buying exclusives, which are AAA games. In the end both consumers and indie developers get screwed but no one seems to care.
I'm tired of arguing this on behalf of the various indies I follow on Twitter, but I'll say it one more time - these Indies used to (past tense) get great value from Valve, by way of large customer base and a tiny bit of exposure to engage that customer base. As of the 2018 change, that is no longer the case.
There's simply no point in justifying a 30% cut by promoting services that will never be used... because no-one knows these games exist, since the algorithm doesn't give any exposure. It used to be a tiny sliver. Now it's not even that.
Personally, I suspect that Valve realised that a non-curated store was a terrible mistake - it led to uninteresting, fringe and plain "bad" titles being surfaced on its front page. Therefore this is simply a way to push those titles to the bottom of pile without actually taking the bad press that shutting them out would generate.
Just a shame it pole-axed the indies at the same time.
Andyou still speak in past terms, still referencing the 2018 stuff.
And now you talk abot the non-curated store that led to "uninteresting, fringe and plain "bad" titles being surfaced on its front page" - what? How many of those unsatisfied devs are actually the ones that people complain about?
0 Likes
I hope the lawsuit succeeds, although chances are naturally slim.
Their cut is and always has been too high.
Yes, they offer a ton of services, but practically no developer utilizes even half of them.
The solution is simple: Lower the minimal cut to something reasonable (closer to the Epic cut), then allow developers to opt-in to features they actually need, which would then increase the cut.
But Epic cut is dumping: https://www.techpowerup.com/280877/epic-games-lost-usd-453-million-running-the-epic-games-store-in-2019-2020
They got $265 Million from third parties, which means that they got a profit of 26.5 million. Remove the millions they spend with exclusives and free games plus Fortnite benefits and you will be far from making any profit with that 12% cut.
BTW, seems that GOG takes a similar cut from devs and had financial problems not long ago. Anyway, what a greedy bastards!
Last edited by x_wing on 30 April 2021 at 1:38 pm UTC
0 Likes
I'm tired of arguing this on behalf of the various indies I follow on Twitter, but I'll say it one more time - these Indies used to (past tense) get great value from Valve, by way of large customer base and a tiny bit of exposure to engage that customer base. As of the 2018 change, that is no longer the case.If you are tired of repeating the same argument, why do you keep repeating it?
I read it and acknowledged it, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. What I can state is what I obviously see most of the time: people like Steam as a software, as a product in itself, and someone has to pay for it. If you don't charge developers, then you will have to charge customers for the premium features. What do you think is the best compromise?
4 Likes, Who?
BTW, seems that GOG takes a similar cut from devs and had financial problems not long ago. Anyway, what a greedy bastards!
That's the thing. They take 30%. They broke it down in a documentary. Operating costs, servers, transfer fees, wages and all that crap... it was 20% from the sale. 10% of each sale was their actual profit.
1 Likes, Who?
If they offer a physical disk then 30% is to high but is all digital then is standard %. Until other store's offer a more build in tools.
0 Likes
I follow a lot of indies on Twitter who genuinely despise Steam. Not just for taking a 30% cut, but for taking that cut and giving almost nothing back. They argue that the lure of the biggest audience for gaming is useless when Steam's algorithms are geared to only highlight AAA or "popular" content.
Valve implemented the discovery queue and curators recommendation. And during the sales, you have to explore the discovery queue in order to get a trading card. At least in my case, I was able to discover many nice games with the DQ.
3 Likes, Who?
Little bit look of their past/background.... nah... too many conflict of interests.
BTW, good luck with lawsuit. Don't think any WA states' bureaucrats/system will piss off their own successful corporation, especially on borderline vexatious litigation. You know, the unwritten rule in the USA called "don't chop your hand who feed you".
BTW, good luck with lawsuit. Don't think any WA states' bureaucrats/system will piss off their own successful corporation, especially on borderline vexatious litigation. You know, the unwritten rule in the USA called "don't chop your hand who feed you".
0 Likes
GodofGrunts Apr 30, 2021
So wild to me when people make these claims against Valve.
GOG, Humble, Itch, Amazon, Epic, Origin, and even the Microsoft Store are other options to sell your game.
Also, read some of these cringe statements.
No shit?
How is this Valve's fault in anyway?
So Valve is "abusing" their market position because they offer services that allow devs to integrate with their platform? How is this any different from Microsoft and Sony doing it on their systems? Also, you don't have to use any of Steam's features if you don't want to.
No, we're mad at Epic for sniping games away and requiring them to be locked in to the EGS. If a company only wants to sell their game on one platform that's their prerogative.
They even make that exact argument in the next paragraph.
How are they this self aware?
I really don't think this lawsuit can be read in anyway other than a proxy lawsuit for Epic.
Last edited by GodofGrunts on 30 April 2021 at 2:00 pm UTC
GOG, Humble, Itch, Amazon, Epic, Origin, and even the Microsoft Store are other options to sell your game.
Also, read some of these cringe statements.
"A gamer that has an extensive list of friends on the Steam Gaming Platform along with a large library of games is less likely to purchase the Xbox edition of the game, even if she owns an alternative platform like the Xbox."
No shit?
"Moreover, games that are released on multiple platforms and allow online multiplayer gaming do not always allow the players on each platform to game together. For example, a game released on both PC Desktop and PlayStation does not necessarily allow the PC Desktop gamers to play with the PlayStation gamers. The same is true across PC Desktop Gaming Platforms like the Steam Gaming Platform and the EGS Platform—while both platforms utilize PC hardware, it is still not guaranteed that multiplayer functionality will work across platforms. Therefore, if a gamer has built a large social network on a specific gaming platform, she may lose access to the ability to enjoy multiplayer games with others in her social network if she switches gaming platforms."
How is this Valve's fault in anyway?
Publishers likewise face high switching costs when considering alternative gaming platforms. Games are often published for use on particular platforms in order to leverage platform-specific features like multiplayer, automatic updates, and social networking features. Publishers must often write platform-specific code that makes it costly to publish their games simultaneously on multiple platforms. Therefore, creating alternative versions of games is costly, as shown by the presence of publishers that publish their games solely for the Steam Gaming Platform.
So Valve is "abusing" their market position because they offer services that allow devs to integrate with their platform? How is this any different from Microsoft and Sony doing it on their systems? Also, you don't have to use any of Steam's features if you don't want to.
If a PC Desktop Gaming Platform obtains an exclusive sales contract with a game publisher, gamers using other PC Desktop Gaming Platforms often react negatively, because they want to use the PC Desktop Gaming Platform of their choice and not lose the benefits that have locked them into that PC Desktop Gaming Platform over time.
No, we're mad at Epic for sniping games away and requiring them to be locked in to the EGS. If a company only wants to sell their game on one platform that's their prerogative.
They even make that exact argument in the next paragraph.
The exclusive release of Borderlands 3 as enabled for the EGS Platform (rather than the Steam Gaming Platform), for example, triggered a backlash among some gamers, with reactions including “calls for boycotts, Youtube rants, conspiracy theories and review bombing.”16One user started a petition on the “r/gaming” online Reddit community. That user argued, “We can’t just let Epic Games keep buying out exclusives to their [expletive] launcher. This is very anti consumer and it is literally epic paying millions to 2k [Borderlands 3’s publisher] just to [expletive] over us the buyers. I really suggest everyone on pc to boycott the game until it releases on steam so Epic does not get any of our money.”17 If the use of one PC Desktop Gaming Platform were fully interchangeable with the use of another, there would be no objection or protest to the exclusive launch of a game on an alternative PC Desktop Gaming Platform, and instead gamers would freely switch to the EGS Platform. That platforms within the relevant market are not interchangeable demonstrates that the products at issue in the relevant market are not interchangeable with products outside the relevant market.
How are they this self aware?
I really don't think this lawsuit can be read in anyway other than a proxy lawsuit for Epic.
Last edited by GodofGrunts on 30 April 2021 at 2:00 pm UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Comandante Ñoñardo Apr 30, 2021
Steamplay 2.0 aka PROTON, from my point of view, is a service for the consumers (and developers) and is paid with that 30%.
6 Likes, Who?
Wolfire Games?
I'm way too disappointed to what humble bundle became to give them any credit. [...] But then they decided to aim only for money and dropped one by one the nice ideas that brought them success.
Yeah, though for me it was captcha that ruined it - I decided to delete my account there when they decided to spam captcha all over their site: login ? solve captcha; want to get free bundle ? solve captcha; want to buy something ? solve captcha; want to confirm the transaction ? solve captcha; at least logout didn't require it... it was unbearable. No other site required solving captchas from me as much as this one.
1 Likes, Who?
I find interesting how Linux users which spread "freedom" loves a law to hurt the freedom of a corporation. Google, Apple, Valve...
Those three it's on a comfortable state because they make good services. Instead of make the state interfere, just praise the alternative one
How in the hell a large cut is bad for competition? Wtf? This means that the competition have a wider cut to work: 25, 20, 15...
Just go to another store there's a bunch of them: itch, GoG, EGS, Windows Store, Humble, Origin, uPlay...
Those three it's on a comfortable state because they make good services. Instead of make the state interfere, just praise the alternative one
How in the hell a large cut is bad for competition? Wtf? This means that the competition have a wider cut to work: 25, 20, 15...
Just go to another store there's a bunch of them: itch, GoG, EGS, Windows Store, Humble, Origin, uPlay...
1 Likes, Who?
Valve need competition against Steam. The reality is that it's the main place to get most games, and it's the primary point of purchase for just about anything. I've seen a good many comments on this very site that if a game isn't on Steam, they won't buy it. If a developer wants a game to be successful, they've practically no choice but to put in on Steam (exceptions exist of course, but for the vast majority this is quite true).
Valve have far too much influence as a distribution platform. It's not healthy for the gaming ecosystem. They can pretty much do what they want with impunity, and that's really not good.
At about this point I'm sure several people will be foaming at the mouth and already typing out something furiously, but at no point above did I say Valve were bad or evil. They've reached this position by being good at the business. My point is that the situation is bad, and the situation is harmful to gaming, particularly on GNU/Linux.
On a parallel note, the flood of crap on Steam is really harmful to developers, and customers too. Part of the reason I continue to support GOL is for discovering nice games. Something like Vaporum I'd never have seen were it not covered on this site. Valve's so-called "algorithm" is basically just a way for them not to have a hand in any sort of store curation. While there are arguments for and against that, if Valve don't have a hand in it, they shouldn't take money for it. That 30% cut of theirs is, I believe, too much.
The real solution is some competition to force the market to be a little more friendly. The problem with that now is being really difficult to get into the market: Epic did it by spending an awful lot of money to get exclusives, and personally I think they botched it (to say nothing of completely ignoring GNU/Linux).
How is it unhealthy for the gaming ecosystem? How is the situation bad exactly? How is it harmful to gaming?
1 Likes, Who?
It goes even further to mention the likes of Microsoft, EA and more companies that tried and "failed to develop a robust commercial strategy away from the Steam Gaming Platform"
And I thank God everyday for that, I imagine how "Apple-storeish" PC gaming would be if the top game store were owned by one of those companies.
About the 30% cut, I think Valve should make different options for indie developers, like if you're a small company you pay a lower cut, in exchange of not having some "benefits" from the platform. But if your game sells past x keys or if your profit pass $x,xx value, we by contract start to get the standard 30% cut (and you get the "right" to access all the benefits, even if you don't use them).
This way I think it would "balance" a little the current situation.
Also indie devs need to understand that no matter how much love and time they invested developing a game, no one are obligated to buy them, so in today's over saturated market it's really up to them to properly develop a quality game and to properly publicize it. Algorithms will help up to a part, but they're not responsible for it success.
And about the lawsuit, this whole subject is ridiculous. As far as I know it's not like Valve is directly boycotting other stores, they're just the result of Gabe Newell being a visionary back then, when no one thought about this business model, and for Valve continuously investing in make Steam a better platform for consumers, despite already being the leader.
Imagine try to sue whatsapp for being the biggest chat app, or google for being the biggest search engine, or Microsoft for Excel being the biggest spreadsheet program.
4 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me