Wolfire Games filed a lawsuit against Valve over abuse of their market position

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).

In what way would a reduction of Valve's share change this situation? It would actually force remaining alternatives out of the market.

I would say actually owning the games you buy is quite the groundbreaking feature in this day and age.

That's why I mentioned itch.io and GOG as an exception.

Some indie developers like to blame Steam for their indie game not being profitable as Valheim, Undertale,Stardew Valley or other successful indie titles, but they ignore the fact that all those games have some quality factor that highlights them from the others. They also usually lack of proper marketing their games around the community.

Again, unfortunately due to nowadays saturated market you need something different if you expect your game to sell well enough, and no one is obligated to buy your game so you need to convince the costumers somehow. That's how any non-essential service works.

The only thing you can obligate people to give you money despite the quality is public services, which is why judges and politicians have high paychecks.

the issue is that the public dont want competition, they want convenience at all costs.
people want netflix to be an monopoly so they can sing an single bill and have everything that netflix decides to licence (while ignore that there are a lot of good content unlicenced by netflix), and at the same time they have an single user interface to browser for all the content (lets ignore that its possible to have this by another aproach: separate the content from the presentation, wich is what google tv want to achiev, so you can browser an single ui for the content avaliable on all streaming services)

people want the same convenience on pc gaming, all games in a single user interface, all achievments in a single account, and those steam stickers and other gimmicks on every purchase.

consumers can be quite stupid sometimes, i can understand when an linux user complain that other stores dont support linux at all, the issue is: are we willing to sacrifice everything to push linux foward /keep using it?
backward compatibility is pretty much non existent already.

I personally like to see what I own in one place. I would be really glad, if this was just a frontend that supports thousand of stores and allows you to buy from them, but this means that every store needs to have open API and this will probably never happen.

For now I'm using Steam for most of my games, MiniGalaxy for GOG games and I actually don't have any idea what I own on Humble Bundle (I'm not buying from it that often, so it's OK for me).

For e-books I'm using Callibre, still I would be rather to have them somewhere online, so I don't need to bother with storage, with option to download them if I want.

And the situation is much worse for music (where streaming is standard these days) and movies (there is literally no way to buy DRM free movie, which you could play where you want, except indie movies).

So from a consumer perspective if there would be one Callibre like app for games, that just let's you buy from different stores and allows you to manage the game library in one place, it would be awesome. The same for music, movies, books and any other multimedia content you can think of. And if it would be Free Software, that would be just EPIC. Oh the dreams, the sweet dreams :-)

google tv want to do that, i mean, be able to browser the content from netflix, amazon prime etc all in one user interface, maybe even games with gfn, stadia and xbox gamepass...

the difference is that instead of fighting for an open APi they plan to use their market pressure.

I would say actually owning the games you buy is quite the groundbreaking feature in this day and age.

That's why I mentioned itch.io and GOG as an exception.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood you.

Apparently, I have an unpopular opinion but as a solo developer, the reason I choose Valve is simple. They have the best store with the most features that enable me to build a community around my game. It's all in one central place. I don't have to get people on discord, my games personal forums or anything else.

The other stores simply refuse to add features which I need on top of other stores refusing to properly support GNU/Linux. 12% cut is nice from Epic and now Microsoft but their stores are garbage and I'm not sure I'll make enough of a profit off of their stores to justify the time I'll have to spend supporting said stores.

So the 30% cut is an issue now, 15 years after they started publishing because of their current market share?
How did they ever manage to reach this market share if their cut was so unreasonable/unacceptable/abusive for the past 15 years?
Who was mad enough to put their game on steam if it was so unsustainable?


Last edited by poisond on 30 April 2021 at 5:12 pm UTC

Valve creating a feature were game journalists can freely share reviews of games of the platform isn't doing something for you? What's your point here? That Valve should contract reviewers for the platform?

My point, as I wrote originally, was it's not something Valve should take money for.

Buy who said Valve took money for this, or for their algorithm?

The very article you link to also has Epic stating that 12% is enough to cover their running cost. Yes, no profit from that alone. So increase it to 15%. Now you've got profit

If a 12% cut doesn't make profits with their barebones storefront, how in the world can you imagine a service like Steam could make some with 15%?

I understand developers need to eat, and if you want to maximise profits and scale down services, it is your own right. But it also means Steam is not the place to sell your software.

Sidestepping the issue there. Valve have far too much control over gaming.

So much control that they can't prevent Epic from buying exclusives and enforcing a lower cut upon the whole market.


Last edited by omer666 on 30 April 2021 at 5:15 pm UTC

If you don't sell anything, you won't pay. And if you have to rely on the additional few percent per sale you can get on alternative stores you have been doomed from the get go.

Obviously, but if you think in the low-margin world of indie development a difference of 10-15% in income cannot make the difference between "can live from it" and "nope!", then you are sorely mistaken.

Makes sense from your perspective since you also state that

3% is a very good profit margin as every trader on this planet will tell you

(Haven't met a trader who assured me that 3% is really all they would strife for.)

Epic stating that 12% is enough to cover their running cost.

I have never been on the Epic store (naturally), but from what I have heard the whole thing is laughable in comparison to Steam. Which makes me wonder whether these 12% would suffice for all the things Steam (potentially) has to offer. Let alone their contributions to the - definitely not profitable - Linux gaming world.

Take this a step further: Valve becomes "less greedy" and drops the quote to 15%. I suppose even if they wouldn't make any profit from it, it would help them to take GOG out of business, with Epic to follow. If it takes longer to wipe the slate clean, well, they could drop this Linux crap. And/or cut down a few servers.
I what way would that help anyone? Apart from a few desperate developers of "me too" indie games? (There might always be a few games and developers not making it into the limelight despite being good - has been the same for the last 35 or 40 years.)

I don't know whether 30% is excessive or adequate but neither does anyone else on this forum.

In what way would a reduction of Valve's share change this situation? It would actually force remaining alternatives out of the market.

Reduction of Valve's share would mean people are using somewhere else - so overall share to the customer wouldn't be decreased. Unless shady deals are pushing people elsewhere without choice (and that's not really competition), then it's by offering better deals, better services, better value to a customer.
Or, Valve would do better to keep people.
Either way the customer wins.

That's some wacky reasoning... (Or maybe I am too dim, but I doubt that.)

The prices for the customer stay exactly the same. Valve might drop services. The customer has no benefit whatsoever except the vague promise of "better games" because the developers earn more. (Wasn't that one of the selling points of the Epic Store?)

The Epic Store is there. And from what I can tell: Apart from the free games people get there, there is nothing that can be counted as a "win for the customer".

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...

Open Source has never been about corporate freedom. It has always been about individual freedoms. I have no love for corporations which try to screw the consumer over every chance they can get.

Why do you think competition would hurt, by the way? Your words don't explicitly state that, true, but are highly suggestive of it.

I don't think that competition hurts and I am rooting for underdogs - hence I am on Linux, browse with Firefox and have AMD hardware (though I should probably switch to Intel for that...)
But in what way would this lawsuit - if successful - foster competition? In what way would lowering the 30% share achieve that?
From what I understand you mean the reduction of Valve's share can either lead to lower prices for the customer OR better support by the developers. Correct?
However, for an unknown reason I can't use the Epic Store as an example how lowering the cut leads to same prices AND worse user experience. Yes, in an ideal world this might work out. In reality it just doesn't. With the 30% share you have game developers on Steam who care for their customers and plenty who don't. Why should this be in any way different when Steam, say, charges 25%? Or 22%? Or 29.90%? Lowering the cut might also lead to reducing the service by Valve (after all the developer can take up instead). But what to drop? Forums? Modding and workshops? Cloud syncing? Region specific pricing?

Valve has never had the consumer in mind. It, like every other company out there, is all about what the simplest and easiest way for them to get boatloads of cash. Valve rarely even makes video games any more because it is easier and cheaper to run their online store and rake in the cash.

Valve did not take on Linux because they want to champion open source or because it was the right thing to do. Valve for the longest time had zero interest in Linux and said they would never make games for it. The only reason they shifted is because they freaked out that Microsoft was going to start locking things down like Apple and cut them completely out of the Windows market and lose more of the Apple market as well. So Valve did what any company would have done and looked for ways to protect themselves and their profits and started to advocate Linux as a bet against Apple & Microsoft and their stores. It wasn't charity it was a solid business decision and one they still keep doing.

If you follow the news you will notice that Microsoft is going to totally redo their store and they are dropping their cut down to 12% just like Epic. (https://www.theverge.com/2021/4/29/22409285/microsoft-store-cut-windows-pc-games-12-percent). They are working on a total redesign of the store as well in order to attract more developers back to the store. This is a threat that Valve can't ignore. Yes people will say Microsoft store sucks, but that doesn't mean Valve as a company can just ignore what Microsoft is doing or might do. Linux is simply a hedge for Valve to protect their store and their massive profits for doing very little work, at least compared to developing new software (games/apps/etc).

I have no love for Valve and they have gotten lazy and fat off their store. They have in my opinion abused their position as a monopoly. No you don't have to have 100% of the market to be a monopoly. Remember Microsoft was convicted of being an illegal monopoly and they didn't have 100% of the market either. Same for IBM back in the day.

Other stores have tried to compete against Steam but they are just so large and so entrenched that no one so far has been able to seriously challenge them. That makes them a monopoly and I believe they have abused their position. Valve has used their piles of free cash from their store to buy up other developers to help pump up the store as well. Same type of thing that Microsoft did for year. Microsoft copied everyone or bought out the small innovative startups and make them Microsoft. Valve is headed down the same road.

Remember Valve isn't pro-consumer or you would actually own what you bought from them and you would be able to sell it others once you were done. It being digital doesn't make it magic or unique. I can sell my DVDs and Blurays and books and sheet music and anything else I own, but somehow corporations think digital stuff is magical and you shouldn't be able to resell it. It is all about the greed for them.


Last edited by Protektor on 30 April 2021 at 6:27 pm UTC

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?

Wow... why do you think I keep repeating it?? Maybe because people are constantly parroting the same tripe counter-argument that "it must be competition" or "their game must be crap", ignoring the fact that these devs were previously selling in the thousands, then a day later selling almost nothing. Literally a day, btw. Quite a few devs shared sales graphs of the month it happened.

And no-one is suggesting you don't charge the devs. Where did you come up with that crazy idea?? Again, the indies were generally happy before the algo-change. Sure, maybe they wanted a smaller cut, who doesn't?

But after the algo-change, they're screwed, so the 30% cut of now pitiful sales is doubly frustrating for them.

As for a good compromise? Who knows. I'm repeating their arguments second hand. I have no skin in this game. However, I suppose they'd want the algo changed back to where they got occasional glimpses on the front page, whereas now they get none. Just a guess though.

Steam sucks for having such a high rate but "Epic fixing it for all gamers" is bullshit. They'd kill to be in the same position as Valve. Their exclusives are
as anti-competitive as you can get.

Mark my words. They're down the bait and switch path as every other player who's trying to fight the market big player just so they can become it.

Wow... why do you think I keep repeating it?? Maybe because people are constantly parroting the same tripe counter-argument that "it must be competition" or "their game must be crap", ignoring the fact that these devs were previously selling in the thousands, then a day later selling almost nothing. Literally a day, btw. Quite a few devs shared sales graphs of the month it happened.

So why do you quote a post with none of those arguments in it? You say publishing an indie game on Steam isn't worth bothering any longer, I tell you this is true, but it doesn't mean the 30% cut is the issue here, which is the real subject at hand in the lawsuit.

I really hope they will lose their lawsuit and that "30% cut is too high" nonsense will cease.

In what world do these people live thinking a 70% cut is bad?

Because if you take the "problem" in that way studio/devs/publisher have a 70% cut, which is insanely high.

If I take my job for example (I'm a bartender) we have a wine bottle we pay 2€ and sell 25€. That make 8% for the wine producer and 92% for us. Want another example? Havana club 3 we get the bottle for 4€ sell it for 140€, 2.8% and 97.2%.

We don't have the independent French winemaker or international pernaud-ricard group whining at our door that they get such a low cut on sales. Imagine if our sales were 70% for the producer and 30% for us. No one would ever go to a bar or restaurant ever again.

And these guys have the audacity to whine when they get a 70% share? If with 70% they can't make it. It's not because the 30% is too high. It's because the problem is elsewhere.

Imagine these guys 20 years ago when games were still sold in boxes and their cut would have been even lower, way way way lower. I remember when digital games started to get out, every one was happy because they still sold the games the same price with a much higher cut on the price. It was the gamer who were not happy to pay the same price without having anything physical. I have a vague memory of something like 10 to 15% share at the time if not lower. (or was it for CDs or books I don't remember well) And now these guys are trying to convince us their share is too small?


Last edited by DerpFox on 30 April 2021 at 9:26 pm UTC

I really hope they will lose their lawsuit and that "30% cut is too high" nonsense will cease.

In what world do these people live thinking a 70% cut is bad?

Because if you take the "problem" in that way studio/devs/publisher have a 70% cut, which is insanely high.

If I take my job for example (I'm a bartender) we have a wine bottle we pay 2€ and sell 25€. That make 8% for the wine producer and 92% for us. Want another example? Havana club 3 we get the bottle for 4€ sell it for 140€, 2.8% and 97.2%.

We don't have the independent French winemaker or international pernaud-ricard group whining at our door that they get such a low cut on sales. Imagine if our sales were 70% for the producer and 30% for us. No one would ever go to a bar or restaurant ever again.

And these guys have the audacity to whine when they get a 70% share? If with 70% they can't make it. It's not because the 30% is too high. It's because the problem is elsewhere.

Imagine these guys 20 years ago when games were still sold in boxes and their cut would have been even lower, way way way lower. I remember when digital games started to get out, every one was happy because they still sold the games the same price with a much higher cut on the price. It was the gamer who were not happy to pay the same price without having anything physical. And now these guys are trying to convince us their share is too small?

A fun anecdote, but it's hardly an equivalent scenario to what the lawsuit deals with. In your example the producers have set a price that they are comfortable with and you resell with markup. The producers get essentially a 100% cut (excluding details like tax), since they aren't part of the transactions with your customers that you are reselling to. Game developers don't set a wholesale price for individual copies of their game and sell them to Valve at that price and Valve resells them with markup, they set a retail price and Valve takes a non-negotiable cut from all sales.

Of course this lawsuit is meritless like similar lawsuits before it. If a developer doesn't like Valve taking a 30% cut and not allowing the developer to undercut Valve on another platform, then they are free to sell through another store. If an indie developer wants better sales then they need to take it on themselves to do some marketing rather than thinking all they have to do is dump their game on Steam.

A fun anecdote, but it's hardly an equivalent scenario to what the lawsuit deals with. In your example the producers have set a price that they are comfortable with and you resell with markup. The producers get essentially a 100% cut (excluding details like tax), since they aren't part of the transactions with your customers that you are reselling to. Game developers don't set a wholesale price for individual copies of their game and sell them to Valve at that price and Valve resells them with markup, they set a retail price and Valve takes a non-negotiable cut from all sales.

So, you are proving me right then, for a 70% cut on a price THEY are fixing, with a 30% cut for Valve that is known way in advance, they are still having issues?

Again the problem is not in the 30% cut, it's in their ability to manage a business. The reality is that many indies don't have a stable business plan and business model for the market they are in.
Reducing valve cut won't alter the oversaturated market we have today. It won't magically make their company profitable. It won't make their thousand upon thousands competitors disappear. It won't change the fact that gamers follow trends and having a big guy on twitch playing one of their competitor will kill their sell instantly while at the same time making said competitor one of the top-selling games.

With an 85 to 90% cut on the sell their problem will still be the same they won't make more money on the long run. If they are not selling enough today, they won't tomorrow either. It's hard, it's sad, but it's the nature of being a business owner. Sometimes shit go sideways.


If you want an example closer to that case. I give you books and bookshop in France. By law every bookshop must sell books at the same price, a price set by the publisher. In general, the cuts are 70% for the publisher and 30% for the bookshop.
When a publisher goes under you never hear them complaining about the 30% cut of the bookshop being too high. Never! They know perfectly that 30% is barely enough to keep most bookshop in business.
And you know what's worst in that case? A book is a physical object so the 70% share is not 70% they have to pay for printers, distributors, authors etc Their real cut on a book price is way lower to pay their employee and still make money.

So, yeah, when an indie game studio come and tell us their 70% cut (that they don't have to share with anyone else) is too small. I have serious doubt on their capacity to maintain a profitable business. And if they have a publisher maybe they badly negotiated their contract and Valve has nothing to do with that.