30% is the industry standard across the board, with the exception of Epic which takes 12%. However, Epic has already shown that it’s ready to dump loads of money into store exclusivity deals and tons of free games, so I will argue it’s for the sake of growing the number of users and developers using their platform.
But do they, or any other competitor or similar store, offer the same functionality as Steam? rtxn already mentioned some. And there’s more. And then there’s the fact that Valve is using all that money not only to stuff the pockets of alread rich people (not that Gabe isn’t a multi-millionaire if not billionaire, idk), but actually puts it back into the industry: Their own store, Linux/Proton (you may not care, but Microsoft becoming a monopoly in PC gaming is no good), and hardware (with their Steam Deck handheld, and VR stuffs).
Steam might be the biggest player when it comes to storefronts, but it’s because they’ve actually earned it. And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene (other than existing). In fact, they keep trying, and keep failing, and then going back to Steam.
I’m not opposed to more money going to developers, but let’s not single out Steam, who (perhaps besides GOG? I am not familiar enough with it) is doing the most for users and develpers.
Same! I’ll take the free games. But there is no point in buying from them until their client has feature parity with Steam and has given back the way Steam has.
The EU has a term for what steam is: a gatekeeper. Sure our current overlord is mostly benign, but at the end of the day that doesn’t mean they should be allowed free reign.
“On 6 September 2023 the European Commission designated for the first time six gatekeepers - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft. In total, 22 core platform services provided by those gatekeepers have been designated.”
That’s a direct quote from their website. Perhaps you can elaborate on what specifically makes Valve a gatekeeper in this space, and why they have not been labeled one under EU law by the Digital Markets Act and those who enforce it?
I’m especially curious about how you came to this conclusion. I’m also curious about the do’s and don’t section of this article and what you might feel Valve has fallen afoul of as their obligations to the public and their competitors under this law.
Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing any of a pre-defined set of digital services (‘core platform services’), such as online search engines, app stores, and messenger services. These companies have:
- a strong economic position, significant impact on the internal market and are active in multiple EU countries;
- astrong intermediation position, meaning that they link a large user base toa large number of businesses;
- an entrenched and durable position in the market, meaning that their position has been stable over time.
The only reason steam evaded the label is that they’re too small and the EU has bigger fish to fry atm.
I read the article. You don’t expect me to just take the quote at face value? You asserted that they fall into this category. So show us your work. How and why? A quote is not sufficient.
They clearly fall into all 3 of these requirements. The only requirement that falls somewhat short is their size, and given the current growth of the pc market and their entrenched position, either they’ll hit it naturally or the EU will widen the net first.
They don’t. Look at the first paragraph you quoted. “Significant impact on internal market” what significant impact does Valve exert on the internal gaming market? Specifically, what do they do that Nintendo, or Epic or GOG don’t do that exerts pressure on the gaming platform market?
Even if they were to meet those requirements and actually be a gatekeeper in the space, you still haven’t answered the second question. Look at the do’s and don’t’s. What don’t’s are they actively using to hurt other platforms in the space? What part of their business practices specifically do you feel falls afoul of the Digital Markets Act?
Look at the first paragraph you quoted. “Significant impact on internal market” what significant impact does Valve exert on the internal gaming market?
Their very existence is the impact, they have cornered the pc market and have an entrenched position as an intermediary between every game publisher and player.
Look at the do’s and don’t’s. What don’t’s are they actively using to hurt other platforms in the space? What part of their business practices specifically do you feel falls afoul of the Digital Markets Act?
Their current practices are mostly fine, although i’m sure a couple of these could worked on further for valve. The tricky part is ensuring that they toe the line.
There are several companies (Microsoft) who fall into the same category (being entrenched in PC gaming as a platform and intermediary between gamers and publishers). But Microsoft while more successful overall is not being considered to be a gatekeeper in this instance. They have further reach generally (they are the dominant platform for PC gaming as a whole, and have a competing game store). However you stipulate that Valve simply existing makes them a gatekeeper which runs afoul of the law put in place for economic reasons to provide a fair landscape. Why has Microsoft not pulled ahead of Valve? They take the same cut, have more exclusivity, provide more and arguably better hardware, have the Xbox game store and other competing services. They aren’t being considered in this space to be gatekeepers (the two core platform services noted for them are LinkedIn, and Windows OS).
Nobody is forcing game development companies to do business with Valve. If they didn’t (as an industry) they could absolutely exert enough leverage to push Valve off the top spot. Microsoft could almost definitively do so by themselves. They provide a great deal of the same services and products.
Valve only really seems to be guilty of innovating in a space that other larger companies ignored and being successful at pricing a product that people prefer. I’m not sure that’s enough to warrant them being lumped in with companies that obviously use anti-consumer and anti-competition business practices to exert control over the digital market place.
The Digital Marketplace Act was created seemingly to force economic fair practice and provide a level playing field for businesses (startups or industry titans) to operate. Valve seems to be operating within those constraints and you haven’t actually proven your supposition that they have done anything wrong to achieve what they have achieved.
Further I am going to say that you don’t understand that “cornered the market” actually has a legal definition. "In finance, cornering the market consists of obtaining sufficient control of a particular stock, commodity, or other asset in an attempt to manipulate the market price. " - According to Wikipedia. So, how are Valve attempting to manipulate the market price of games?
We know already that they only enforce the price of steam keys (meaning that you cannot sell a steam key for less on any other platforms than you do on steam). But that’s a steam key, and doesn’t translate to the price of any other licensing key provided by any other license agreement.
What else are they doing that you feel or can prove is cornering the market. Getting to market first and offering goods at the same or a similar price as competitors with better service isn’t it.
No. Platforms as used here by the EU is just an intermediary between the business and the client. It has nothing to do with the OS. If you want a counter example look at meta and tiktok which are designated gatekeepers.
And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene
Doesn’t Steam also mandate that a game on Steam that’s also on other platforms MUST have the lowest price on Steam? So if a game goes on sale on another store, the Steam version must also match that sale within a given time period.
That’s a pretty big road block, especially if a developer might be willing to sell for a lower price on another storefront that takes another cut.
That requirement only exists when you also offer a Steam key for the game that’s being sold. So Valve is actually the good guy here: You can sell on another store, where Steam doesn’t get any money, and give the user a Steam key, provided by Steam for free, and the only thing they ask is to match the price on Steam.
Don’t offer a Steam key, and you can pick any price.
That is my understanding of the issue.
There is a claim by some developers that Valve was pressuring them behind the scenes (“don’t offer your game for cheaper elsewhere or else we’ll take it down from our store”) a while ago, but I’ve never seen appropriate proof of it, and that was part of (an earlier?) lawsuit.
I’ve looked into Wolfire’s claims multiple times in the past, but it was never confirmed elsewhere, so I don’t know what to think. Maybe this was a thing Valve did in the past (in which case, yes, boo!), but they couldn’t get away with it anymore, with the volume of developers that are now on their platform.
Because that’s not beneficial for companies. They want to make (more) money.
The only option most developers and publishers would have is to move to another store, where the cut is usually the same, with the exception of Epic Games Store. And as pointed out elsewhere, setting up and managing your own store ends up being more expensive than a 30% cut. And then you still don’t have the same features as Steam.
edit 2: They do run their own store, but it’s a bit janky, has less payment options if I recall, and no regional pricing.
edit: Besides, one of the reasons indies like to be on Steam is because Steam basically does free advertising for you, with Discovery Queue and just generally pushing games that do well to more people (beneficial for Steam also, of course). But that’s a service that’s paid for by that 30% cut (among other things).
Because that’s not beneficial for companies. They want to make (more) money.
If having a lower price means you make more sales, then yes, it definitely can be beneficial for companies.
If you want to make $40 per copy, you could sell for $60 on Steam, or about $47.00 on Epic.
Being on sale for $47 would “unlock” more customers than you’d get if your game was only available for $60 everywhere. Some customers won’t ever buy the game at $60, but they would at $47, and the company makes the same amount of money.
Exactly; this whole price restriction on Steam is for games that will be hosted and downloaded from Steam.
It makes no sense for Steam to allow developers to sell Steam keys for cheaper via other stores when Steam has to then shoulder all the bandwidth and Remote Play/etc.
Or they could sell on Epic for $60 and just pocket more per sale because most players are used to new games being $60 anyway.
Besides, Steam itself also unlocks more customers even at same or higher prices because it can be a pain to get EGS games working on Linux sometimes, whereas Steam’s seamless. Maybe we’re a non-existent market force, but personally I’ve been maining Linux for my gaming PC for 4 years and now about 2 years ago I deleted the Windows partition I’d only kept around because I had Forza on the Microsoft store rather than Steam.
Or they could sell on Epic for $60 and just pocket more per sale because most players are used to new games being $60 anyway.
For AAA publishers, definitely. For indie developers or anyone who’d be wanting to try to bring customers to Epic, that wouldn’t be the ideal long-term strategy.
And which platform has the most potential buyers, by a long shot? Steam. That’s why you’re usually seeing all time lows on the Steam platform, because the sheer amount of buyers outweighs the per sale loss.
The other comment points out that it’s only a case of selling steam keys where steam must have the lowest price.
I released a game a while back and while reading the terms it sounded like I couldn’t link my Steam store page to another storefront where the game was available cheaper. Which, honestly, also kind of fair.
But again, I think that’s really only if you’re selling steam keys. If you sold the game DRM-free on your own website, I can’t imagine they’d take down your company website.
If you link to an Itch page or something similar that might be a thornier issue because they’re primarily a storefront.
I’m of the opinion that my game costs X unless it’s discounted to Y. I don’t see the appeal to the end user of having a dozen different prices on a dozen different storefronts.
I could see a situation where a developer wants to always earn, say, $10 from their game. So on Steam it might sell for $13, on another platform it might be $11 to show the difference in platform fees. But I wouldn’t do that because it’s putting me before my players, and that’s not why I make games.
I could see a situation where a developer wants to always earn, say, $10 from their game. So on Steam it might sell for $13, on another platform it might be $11 to show the difference in platform fees.
Yeah, this is the kind of thing I was picturing.
I’ve looked into it and this actually does happen in some other regions’ pricing! But not many people seem to be talking about it happening in USD/CAD, at least at a glance.
I’m still curious as to why that difference would be.
30% is the industry standard across the board, with the exception of Epic which takes 12%. However, Epic has already shown that it’s ready to dump loads of money into store exclusivity deals and tons of free games, so I will argue it’s for the sake of growing the number of users and developers using their platform.
But do they, or any other competitor or similar store, offer the same functionality as Steam? rtxn already mentioned some. And there’s more. And then there’s the fact that Valve is using all that money not only to stuff the pockets of alread rich people (not that Gabe isn’t a multi-millionaire if not billionaire, idk), but actually puts it back into the industry: Their own store, Linux/Proton (you may not care, but Microsoft becoming a monopoly in PC gaming is no good), and hardware (with their Steam Deck handheld, and VR stuffs).
Steam might be the biggest player when it comes to storefronts, but it’s because they’ve actually earned it. And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene (other than existing). In fact, they keep trying, and keep failing, and then going back to Steam.
I’m not opposed to more money going to developers, but let’s not single out Steam, who (perhaps besides GOG? I am not familiar enough with it) is doing the most for users and develpers.
Epic is in stage 1 of enshittification. They will offer a great deal (at their economic expense) to capture users and providers.
It isn’t enshittification because they never had a high-quality product to offer.
Can’t have enshitification if your product was shit to begin with
That’s just called capitalism. And yes, it makes everything shit.
I wonder who are the people buying games from the epic game store over Steam or gog.
I’ve gotten a ton of free games on epic but I’m pretty sure I’ve yet to buy a game on there.
Same! I’ll take the free games. But there is no point in buying from them until their client has feature parity with Steam and has given back the way Steam has.
Until then, it’s just a bad value.
The EU has a term for what steam is: a gatekeeper. Sure our current overlord is mostly benign, but at the end of the day that doesn’t mean they should be allowed free reign.
“On 6 September 2023 the European Commission designated for the first time six gatekeepers - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft. In total, 22 core platform services provided by those gatekeepers have been designated.”
That’s a direct quote from their website. Perhaps you can elaborate on what specifically makes Valve a gatekeeper in this space, and why they have not been labeled one under EU law by the Digital Markets Act and those who enforce it?
I’m especially curious about how you came to this conclusion. I’m also curious about the do’s and don’t section of this article and what you might feel Valve has fallen afoul of as their obligations to the public and their competitors under this law.
The source: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-markets-act-ensuring-fair-and-open-digital-markets_en
Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing any of a pre-defined set of digital services (‘core platform services’), such as online search engines, app stores, and messenger services. These companies have: - a strong economic position, significant impact on the internal market and are active in multiple EU countries; - a strong intermediation position, meaning that they link a large user base to a large number of businesses; - an entrenched and durable position in the market, meaning that their position has been stable over time.The only reason steam evaded the label is that they’re too small and the EU has bigger fish to fry atm.
I read the article. You don’t expect me to just take the quote at face value? You asserted that they fall into this category. So show us your work. How and why? A quote is not sufficient.
They clearly fall into all 3 of these requirements. The only requirement that falls somewhat short is their size, and given the current growth of the pc market and their entrenched position, either they’ll hit it naturally or the EU will widen the net first.
They don’t. Look at the first paragraph you quoted. “Significant impact on internal market” what significant impact does Valve exert on the internal gaming market? Specifically, what do they do that Nintendo, or Epic or GOG don’t do that exerts pressure on the gaming platform market?
Even if they were to meet those requirements and actually be a gatekeeper in the space, you still haven’t answered the second question. Look at the do’s and don’t’s. What don’t’s are they actively using to hurt other platforms in the space? What part of their business practices specifically do you feel falls afoul of the Digital Markets Act?
Their very existence is the impact, they have cornered the pc market and have an entrenched position as an intermediary between every game publisher and player.
Their current practices are mostly fine, although i’m sure a couple of these could worked on further for valve. The tricky part is ensuring that they toe the line.
There are several companies (Microsoft) who fall into the same category (being entrenched in PC gaming as a platform and intermediary between gamers and publishers). But Microsoft while more successful overall is not being considered to be a gatekeeper in this instance. They have further reach generally (they are the dominant platform for PC gaming as a whole, and have a competing game store). However you stipulate that Valve simply existing makes them a gatekeeper which runs afoul of the law put in place for economic reasons to provide a fair landscape. Why has Microsoft not pulled ahead of Valve? They take the same cut, have more exclusivity, provide more and arguably better hardware, have the Xbox game store and other competing services. They aren’t being considered in this space to be gatekeepers (the two core platform services noted for them are LinkedIn, and Windows OS).
Nobody is forcing game development companies to do business with Valve. If they didn’t (as an industry) they could absolutely exert enough leverage to push Valve off the top spot. Microsoft could almost definitively do so by themselves. They provide a great deal of the same services and products.
Valve only really seems to be guilty of innovating in a space that other larger companies ignored and being successful at pricing a product that people prefer. I’m not sure that’s enough to warrant them being lumped in with companies that obviously use anti-consumer and anti-competition business practices to exert control over the digital market place.
The Digital Marketplace Act was created seemingly to force economic fair practice and provide a level playing field for businesses (startups or industry titans) to operate. Valve seems to be operating within those constraints and you haven’t actually proven your supposition that they have done anything wrong to achieve what they have achieved.
Further I am going to say that you don’t understand that “cornered the market” actually has a legal definition. "In finance, cornering the market consists of obtaining sufficient control of a particular stock, commodity, or other asset in an attempt to manipulate the market price. " - According to Wikipedia. So, how are Valve attempting to manipulate the market price of games?
We know already that they only enforce the price of steam keys (meaning that you cannot sell a steam key for less on any other platforms than you do on steam). But that’s a steam key, and doesn’t translate to the price of any other licensing key provided by any other license agreement.
What else are they doing that you feel or can prove is cornering the market. Getting to market first and offering goods at the same or a similar price as competitors with better service isn’t it.
Your quote contradicts your claim. Steam is not a platform, it’s just a store. The platform is Windows, Mac, or Linux.
No. Platforms as used here by the EU is just an intermediary between the business and the client. It has nothing to do with the OS. If you want a counter example look at meta and tiktok which are designated gatekeepers.
Doesn’t Steam also mandate that a game on Steam that’s also on other platforms MUST have the lowest price on Steam? So if a game goes on sale on another store, the Steam version must also match that sale within a given time period.
That’s a pretty big road block, especially if a developer might be willing to sell for a lower price on another storefront that takes another cut.
THAT is actively blocking competition.
That requirement only exists when you also offer a Steam key for the game that’s being sold. So Valve is actually the good guy here: You can sell on another store, where Steam doesn’t get any money, and give the user a Steam key, provided by Steam for free, and the only thing they ask is to match the price on Steam.
Don’t offer a Steam key, and you can pick any price.
That is my understanding of the issue.
There is a claim by some developers that Valve was pressuring them behind the scenes (“don’t offer your game for cheaper elsewhere or else we’ll take it down from our store”) a while ago, but I’ve never seen appropriate proof of it, and that was part of (an earlier?) lawsuit.
They absolutely pressure developers to not sell cheaper elsewhere, even without a Steam key.
http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action
Steam might be the best of the gatekeepers, but they’re still anticompetitive.
I’ve looked into Wolfire’s claims multiple times in the past, but it was never confirmed elsewhere, so I don’t know what to think. Maybe this was a thing Valve did in the past (in which case, yes, boo!), but they couldn’t get away with it anymore, with the volume of developers that are now on their platform.
We should regularly be seeing lower All-Time-Lows for most multi-platform games on non-Steam platforms then, right?
I don’t think we do. Why not?
Because that’s not beneficial for companies. They want to make (more) money.
The only option most developers and publishers would have is to move to another store, where the cut is usually the same, with the exception of Epic Games Store. And as pointed out elsewhere, setting up and managing your own store ends up being more expensive than a 30% cut. And then you still don’t have the same features as Steam.
No, it absolutely does not. But if you’re not on Steam, your indie game doesn’t sell.
As a counter example, Vintage Story seems to be doing okay regardless.
They delibarately decided to not be on Steam.
edit 2: They do run their own store, but it’s a bit janky, has less payment options if I recall, and no regional pricing.
edit: Besides, one of the reasons indies like to be on Steam is because Steam basically does free advertising for you, with Discovery Queue and just generally pushing games that do well to more people (beneficial for Steam also, of course). But that’s a service that’s paid for by that 30% cut (among other things).
If having a lower price means you make more sales, then yes, it definitely can be beneficial for companies.
If you want to make $40 per copy, you could sell for $60 on Steam, or about $47.00 on Epic.
Being on sale for $47 would “unlock” more customers than you’d get if your game was only available for $60 everywhere. Some customers won’t ever buy the game at $60, but they would at $47, and the company makes the same amount of money.
That is beneficial for companies.
But you can sell for 47 on epic. You just cannot sell for 47 on epic giving a key that redeems on steam.
Exactly; this whole price restriction on Steam is for games that will be hosted and downloaded from Steam.
It makes no sense for Steam to allow developers to sell Steam keys for cheaper via other stores when Steam has to then shoulder all the bandwidth and Remote Play/etc.
As long as you never want your $60 game featured on Steam, you can absolutely do that.
Which do you think is worth more?
Why wouldn’t that happen?
Why are you making it my responsibility to explain why companies are not passing on their savings to consumers?
As a bystander I appreciate you. I learned some things I didn’t know.
Or they could sell on Epic for $60 and just pocket more per sale because most players are used to new games being $60 anyway.
Besides, Steam itself also unlocks more customers even at same or higher prices because it can be a pain to get EGS games working on Linux sometimes, whereas Steam’s seamless. Maybe we’re a non-existent market force, but personally I’ve been maining Linux for my gaming PC for 4 years and now about 2 years ago I deleted the Windows partition I’d only kept around because I had Forza on the Microsoft store rather than Steam.
For AAA publishers, definitely. For indie developers or anyone who’d be wanting to try to bring customers to Epic, that wouldn’t be the ideal long-term strategy.
Why should we see that?
How much income per sale a seller is willing to accept is a big part of the equation that goes into pricing
And? If they sell at the same price as Steam but with the store taking a smaller cut they’ll make more money per sale.
A lower price may attract more buyers, leading to more money overall (rather than only seeking to maximize each individual sale)
And which platform has the most potential buyers, by a long shot? Steam. That’s why you’re usually seeing all time lows on the Steam platform, because the sheer amount of buyers outweighs the per sale loss.
They don’t and it would be faster to fact check yourself than spreading this misinformation further.
The other comment points out that it’s only a case of selling steam keys where steam must have the lowest price.
I released a game a while back and while reading the terms it sounded like I couldn’t link my Steam store page to another storefront where the game was available cheaper. Which, honestly, also kind of fair.
But again, I think that’s really only if you’re selling steam keys. If you sold the game DRM-free on your own website, I can’t imagine they’d take down your company website.
If you link to an Itch page or something similar that might be a thornier issue because they’re primarily a storefront.
I’m of the opinion that my game costs X unless it’s discounted to Y. I don’t see the appeal to the end user of having a dozen different prices on a dozen different storefronts.
I could see a situation where a developer wants to always earn, say, $10 from their game. So on Steam it might sell for $13, on another platform it might be $11 to show the difference in platform fees. But I wouldn’t do that because it’s putting me before my players, and that’s not why I make games.
There are some open source games that are purchasable on Steam but which are freely available elsewhere.
Yeah, this is the kind of thing I was picturing.
I’ve looked into it and this actually does happen in some other regions’ pricing! But not many people seem to be talking about it happening in USD/CAD, at least at a glance.
I’m still curious as to why that difference would be.
Thank you for sharing your experience!