The filing centred around the 30% cut that the platform holder takes, with the developer arguing that Valve used “dominance to take an extraordinarily high cut from nearly every sale that passes through its store” and that it has used its position to “exploit publishers and consumers.”
Isn’t 30% standard in every store? Also, Valve certainly has dominance, but it’s hardly a monopoly. There are more options than any other OS.
Yeah, surely they can point to the Epic v Apple lawsuit and also point to the ability to install Heroic or any other launcher/software on their platform, and the judge will laugh the plaintiffs out of the courtroom.
I’m not a fan of the 30% cut, but that really is par for the course and any other company could compete with them on their own platform, unlike with Apple’s iOS. So I see no basis here for a lawsuit.
I’m guessing the plaintiffs just wanted to meet Gabe and felt this was the easiest way to get a 1:1…
A developer can even sell steam legs directly from their own site and not have to pay Valve the 30% cut. (If I remember correctly.)
Did you mean steam keys or steam legs?
I would like to purchase a single steam leg, please.
I meant keys, but I must have actually been craving some steamed hams.
Yeah as long as the game is available for the same price to consumers on Steam. Most people will just buy directly from Steam, so you would have to convince your audience to buy from your site directly.
Yup, I don’t see how this suit ever goes anywhere. It would be a better use of time to argue that your $500 Xbox has a locked down marketplace and can’t play Steam/PlayStation games.
It shows that companies are regarded above customers when every console is a closed ecosystem with a single store, no sideloading support, but nobody challenges that.
Yeah, all this about phones being able to sideload apps, when are they going after these consoles?
Yeah they don’t even force you to use steam on a steam deck
Apparently this isn’t standard anymore, and I can see how developers don’t like it, but an antitrust lawsuit over this just seems poorly justified. For whoever doesn’t want to sell on Steam under their conditions, there is Epic, GOG, Humble and ItchIO. Maybe those don’t sell as well, but that’s the choice the company is making.
I don’t think being the largest store by itself is grounds for this sort of legal action. Especially not when they became the biggest store simply by providing good services for a good price, rather than any sort of restrictions at companies publishing in it.
It may be now; it wasn’t when Steam first started up. But it was only 5-10% iirc more than the norm at the time.
Do you have some examples?
What other digital distribution storefronts were around when Steam started? I honestly thought they were the first but maybe they were just the first successful one after using HL2 as leverage.
Publishing cut. Not digital store fronts. That’s likely one reason why the higher than standard cut never got pushed back on. Your choice was allowing Valve to take 30% instead of 20% but also have entire creative control over your project and not be beholden to a publisher’s demands.
Fair enough, doesn’t feel like an apples to apples comparison to me but still an interesting point of reference.
Physical sales could see as low as 10% of the sales making it to the developer. Made Steams 30% cut look likea bargain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct2Drive
Steam didn’t allow 3rd party titles until late 2005 but Direct2Drive launched early 2004.
Stardock Central was 2001.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stardock_CentralOh yeah nice, I totally forgot about those, thanks.
Timmy’s going to hire a hitman to take out Gabe because he’s eternally seething at EGS failing to take market share from Steam.
Tbh this thing sounds like that very much. It may not be an assassination attempt at all, ut the ridiculous rules to “show face when speaking so we can see how do you feel about what you say” is very much bullshit in this scenario. A proper written essay about the working of Valve would suit the questions way better than having someone put in person in a limited time to answer things out of mind under pressure.
