Valve Facing £656 Million Class Action Lawsuit : games

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 45 points 1 week ago (5 children)

This BS again. "In exchange for selling Steam Keys of your game on the internet (using steam as the vendor for your game), you, the developer agree to sell those steam keys at the cheapest price you offer. Steam doesn't set the price, takes the same cut from each key sold as almost every other platform including Nintendo, Epic, PS, Xbox, and GOG.

So I am struggling to understand what is anti-competitve about this.

https://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2019/09/GameRetailerCuts_infographic-1.png

https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard

[–] duelistsage@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

Scumbags are salty they can't scum harder.

[–] duelistsage@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 hours ago

Scumbags are salty they can't scum harder.

[–] tb_@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

takes the same cut from each key sold as every other platform

That is just blatantly wrong. Steam takes 30%, Epic takes 12% after the first $1M.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

I just wanted to point out that from the article they linked Valves cut of profits also drop by a certain amount per game sold.

And Epic also notoriously reduced their cut of profits under 1 million just last year.

After $10 million in sales through Steam, Valve’s cut drops to 25% on all new sales, and drops again to 20% on sales after $50 million.

I agree with you though.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago

*"almost" *. missed a word. Will update the comment.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The practice I've found the most concerning is the alleged "most-favored nation" clause/provision in the Steam Distribution Agreement. I haven't been able to actually find the actual Steam Distribution Agreement anywhere, which itself is concerning. I just see it mentioned alongside an NDA that must be signed.

The MFN basically requires that Valve never be undercut in any way, whether or not the game is distributed elsewhere using a Steam Key or not.

No discount. No bonus content. No perks. Steam key or direct download from your own website without any involvement of Valve whatsoever - it doesn't matter.

Edit: It seems it was not explicit in the agreement regarding non-key sales, but allegedly threatened and possibly enforced in practice.

When new video game stores were opening that charged much lower commissions than Valve, I decided that I would provide my game "Overgrowth" at a lower price to take advantage of the lower commission rates. I intended to write a blog post about the results.

But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM. This would make it impossible for me, or any game developer, to determine whether or not Steam is earning their commission. I believe that other developers who charged lower prices on other stores have been contacted by Valve, telling them that their games will be removed from Steam if they did not raise their prices on competing stores.

https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Where did you get this information?

I have never seen and nobody has ever ~~provided~~ proven that Steam requires price parity for electronic game keys or physical copies that are not steam keys.

As far as I understand it, Steam only requires that you sell your game for the same price on other marketplaces if you're selling Steam keys. If you're selling a non-Steam license then you don't have to match prices at all and can sell for cheaper on Epic, Itch, GoG, etc.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys#3

I also want to point out that I believe if you sell steam keys anywhere else except the steam platform you get to keep 100% of those sales. Steam only takes a 30% cut from steam key sales sold on their own store front.

[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When new video game stores were opening that charged much lower commissions than Valve, I decided that I would provide my game "Overgrowth" at a lower price to take advantage of the lower commission rates. I intended to write a blog post about the results.

But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM. This would make it impossible for me, or any game developer, to determine whether or not Steam is earning their commission. I believe that other developers who charged lower prices on other stores have been contacted by Valve, telling them that their games will be removed from Steam if they did not raise their prices on competing stores.

https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/

It seems it was not explicit in the agreement regarding non-key sales, but allegedly threatened and possibly enforced in practice.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yep. I read the original statement from the original game dev that sued. Their lawsuit was unsuccessful and they decided to refile it as a class action as a result. Which is why in my original comment I said "This BS again", and "This has been alleged before".

Still it seems like no other devs are actually alleging this except 1-2 others. Out of thousands of game devs. Seems suspect.

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Plus all of those games are still on steam, so no actual action was taken against them, one support person possibly misunderstood the question thinking he was selling steam keys and answered with incorrect information. I would get it if the game had been removed and that's why they were suing, and in that case I would be with them, but that's not the case. And Overgrowth is an old enough game that they could realistically risk it since there's very likely not that many new sells happening.

[+] misk@piefed.social -22 points 1 week ago (3 children)

It’s anticompetitive when you have 90% market share and you do this. Monopolies are generally legal but can’t do certain things regular companies can.

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

How is it anticompetitive to regulate the price for items on their store? Valve doesn't dictate price on any other store unless they sell steam keys.

[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They have the highest market share because every other platform has been shit (until gog), and customers voted with their wallet. They aren't squeezing competition out, everyone else needs to suck less.

[+] misk@piefed.social -8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And Valve has to remove abusive clauses from their agreements with the devs so that it can actually happen, yes.

[–] Goodeye8@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you think removing those abusive clauses will have an impact on the market you're delusional.

Third party sellers have no reason to have a lower price on a different store, unless the store itself is paying them the offset of a lower price. That's only going to suffocate smaller stores that don't have money to burn.

And the stores with first party games can already create a bigger incentive for their store by keeping their games store exclusive because it would be the only place to play that particular game (it's why streaming services have gone down the route of exclusivity). Also having the game with a higher price point on Steam would just lead to a controversy which will hurts sales and damage the reputation of the company.

Removing the price parity clause will do nothing.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So sell epic keys or some other store fronts keys and move on with your life? There are other digital store keys they could sell at literally any price they want. And that's why this is bogus.

They don't have to sell their game digitally with steam keys. They can create keys on other platforms to sell their game.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. Market share has nothing to do with this.

[–] misk@piefed.social -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Allegedly they can’t because confidential agreement prevents them. And they won’t move away from Steam because it’s a monopoly. Which is why this is illegal.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

First filed back in 2024 by Vicki Shotbolt, the lawsuit claims that Valve charges “excessive commission charges” that lead to “an unfair price which is then passed on to consumers”.

These fees are 30% cut of profits per game key sold, not an extra fee on top of that. So selling the steam key costs the same amount and nets about the same profit as selling a PlayStation or Nintendo key.

Literally every other online store (Epic, GOG, Xbox, PlayStation, ...) does the exact same thing when it comes to both game keys and DLCs. Seems frivolous on that point at least.

This has been alleged before. And it was a nothing burger then. There's a whole pictograph floating around comparing the cut that other game sale platforms take and I think only like 2 of them take a smaller than 30% cut.

This compares physical games to electronic keys, and that's also a nothing burger. The cost will be higher with those on the manufacturing side because of the cost of materials to make the physical copies, the logistics of delivery to retailers, and the cost of manufacturing them.

Steam isn't a monopoly. You keep using that word but it has a very finite legal definition. That definition provides that through practices of the company that are anti-consumer or anti-competitve, or both, the company retains a significant majority of the market share.

So again I'm not even suggesting that these devs leave steam. But the crux of the matter is that they want to use steam keys on other store fronts etc and don't want to pay steam 30% for the use of those steam keys. They can use a different store front with a different store front's game keys and still provide steam keys through steam. They are not required to use steam keys on their own website or other digital store fronts.

You also aren't required to launch games from or use steam for anything except downloading the game. You can launch them, update them, modify them, etc without even having steam running.

As I said before, DLC being tied to the store front that supplied the key makes sense and is a normal standard business practice.

If what you allege is true then literally no exclusive games on the Epic store could every be made available on steam (after the exclusivity contracted time ends), because I think what you're trying to suggest is that Steam (through confidential agreement) is forcing these devs to only provide steam keys. Which is a pretty bogus claim.

[+] misk@piefed.social -7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

You’re missing the point.

Valve can’t enforce prices across other store by mandating they can’t be cheaper because they’re a monopolist. If this part of their agreement is true then they are out of the line, in breach of law, and should be punished. Being a monopoly isn’t illegal, how Valve got there doesn’t matter. Their behaviour as a monopolist matters. It’s literally the law in most civilised countries and those laws come from the times when people didn’t simp for monopolies.

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago

I think it's you who is missing the point everyone is trying to explain to you. Valve doesn't dictate the price on other stores, want proof? Epic gives free games regularly, those same games are sold on steam, for example currently you can get Definitely not fried chicken for free on Epic, but it has never been free on steam.

Valve only forbids you to sell Steam keys cheaper than on Steam. And even then they tend to turn a blind eye to stuff like humble bundle. They provide you with free Steam keys that you can sell and keep 100% of the value, but in exchange you can't sell them cheaper than on Steam, which just seems like common sense really. If that lawsuit goes somewhere what Valve will do is charge for extra steam keys, or stop providing them, both of which are bad for developers.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Valve can for the keys that they provide. The keys they provide are free. Their agreement only is valid for Steam Keys. Those are freely generated Steam licenses of the game for the game dev to sell on other store fronts. For which the developer gets 100% of profits.

And steam is not a monopoly. I will not continue to reiterate the legal definition of that.

[+] misk@piefed.social -7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Steam keys means everything still happens in their store, with users attached to the platform without a way out. This is not a serious answer.

Steam is a monopoly because of their massive market share, that’s all there is to it, having irrelevant competition doesn’t matter in this case. You think monopoly = bad and therefore Steam can’t be a monopoly. That’s not how it works.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So use other licenses not provided by steam (epic for instance). That's the point of what I said.

You think monopoly = illegal and what I'm saying is that it doesn't meet the legal requirement to be a monopoly. This was never about good or bad.

[–] misk@piefed.social -5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Circular logic, no? Devs have to kneecap themselves by limiting their reach to stores with 5% cumulative market share or accept everything Valve wants. Take a look at this and see what happens when a big publisher goes against them:

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/-i-crysis-2-i-removed-from-steam

EA has issued a response to the game's removal, saying that it was "not an EA decision or the result of any action by EA," saying instead that the game was removed because an agreement that developer Crytek made with "another download service" violates an unspecified rule Steam has for its distribution partners. Valve has not responded to requests by Gamasutra for clarification. An EA spokesperson provided this statement to Gamasutra: "It’s unfortunate that Steam has removed Crysis II from their service. This was not an EA decision or the result of any action by EA. Steam has imposed a set of business terms for developers hoping to sell content on that service – many of which are not imposed by other online game services. Unfortunately, Crytek has an agreement with another download service which violates the new rules from Steam and resulted in its expulsion of Crysis II from Steam. Crysis II continues to be available on several other download services including Amazon, GameStop and Origin.com."]

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They are not required to disseminate steam keys outside of steam. They do so because the generation of steam keys is free and they can keep 100% of the profits of using those steam keys. In exchange for the key being free they only ask that if the keys generated from steam are the same price both on steam's storefront and elsewhere.

If I am the manufacturer of a widget that you design, and I provide that widget to you to sell while footing the bill for the manufacturing of that product and only ask for 30% of the profits when I sell that widget in my store, but ask for none of the profits from selling the widget I manufactured when you sell it in other stores like Walmart, so long as the price of the widget remains the same on my store as it does in that other store, that's pretty much an industry standard.

If you as the designer wish to have someone else manufacturer your widget design and then sell that manufactured widget at other storefronts then I have no control over the price as well I shouldn't because that has nothing to do with me unless I specifically request exclusivity (which is similar to what epic does). <-- It has been alleged that Valve doesn't have or include this clause as part of their agreement, but they are trying to strong arm this developer into exclusivity in pricing anyway. There has as yet been no definitive proof that this is true and out of thousands of developers, literally like 3 are alleging this is true.

So there are two different things that are being alleged here and we don't have proof for either of them.

We have no definitive proof that they are strong arming any company/developer into price parity for game keys that Steam/Valve does not generate. If they were doing this, that would be an anti-competitve practice, but again , where's the proof?

And we have no definitive proof that the 30% cut of sales that Valve/Steam take for games sold on their store front are an egregious cost considering the competition and how similar their service fees are. In fact, the fact that one or two other store fronts take a smaller commission of sales is notable here because if Valve were a legal monopoly this is shown to be competition forcing market correction. Except that it's not doing so because other companies have basically refused to lower their commission cut. There is no definitive proof that Valve is colluding with other companies in the industry to keep that cut high. That would be an anticompetitive practice. I am not arguing that it's not (just that we have nothing substantiate the claim).

[–] misk@piefed.social -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Dude, you’re beyond help. Steam keys are a form of locking you in Steam. People are lazy, the main reason they don’t buy outside of Steam is because they like everything in one place. Valve knows this, hence their line „just resell keys” is plain malicious and you’re just doing free PR for Gabe.

Tell me what could be the precise reason for delisting Crysis 2 from Steam? Why is developers agreement with another party any consideration at all? If Apple delisted someone because their product was cheaper on an alternative to app store would that be ok? I’m sure it would cause an outrage and they’re not even a monopoly, unlike Valve.

[–] deliriousdreams@fedia.io 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

I have not argued that steam keys don't lock you to the service. If that's all you have to say (and you trust EA, a corp known for bad consumer practices, instead treating the crysis 2 delisting as a he say she say event), you are beyond help and I don't see why you keep replying to me.

[–] misk@piefed.social 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

So you don’t see a problem with Valve’s solution not being a solution to everyone being locked in their platform. Valve monopoly is based on their gatekeeper status to the defacto industry standard game ownership ledger.

You must have loved Internet Explorer.

[–] joelfromaus@aussie.zone 35 points 1 week ago

If you told me that my games could be slightly cheaper if only I use a platform like EGS I’d still happily pay the extra bit.

The much more likely scenario is that larger publishers like EA would charge the same amount and pocket the profits while I’d deal with a shit store in return.

Further to that; EGS is essentially just a store. A really shitty store. Meanwhile Steam is a feature rich platform with a bunch of features that regular C-suite types would never green light because they don’t have a direct ROI. E.g. Steam link is an absolutely amazing system for playing games on the lounge room big screen without buying a console. You know how much Steam Link costs? Is it a subscription? Maybe a limited time trial after game purchases? Nope. Completely free. Along with a shitload of other systems that cost money to maintain which are funded by that 30%.

[–] artwork@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago

To be frank, I don't know any case when Valve forced these rules, and even when someone reported such cases to Steam support directly. The response was just - "Thank you. We will check it out.", and that's it.

Self-published developers I am aware of have been considering these "rules" as fair suggestion from Valve who point out that it's important to Valve stay afloat in competition, where many developers will just follow these getting the point, which is straightforward.

A few developers I know do find following this "rule" a respect towards the platform in general even.

[–] THE_GR8_MIKE@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago

First filed back in 2024 by Vicki Shotbolt, the lawsuit claims that Valve charges “excessive commission charges” that lead to “an unfair price which is then passed on to consumers”.

Don't they just take the same commission as everyone except for Epic?

Not to mention PC is where I save the most money, and it's solely thanks to Steam and the free Epic games.

Idk, this seems kind of weird when Steam has been seemingly one of the more user-friendly marketplaces, compared to other ones. Remember Uplay and Origin? Lol

[–] StitchInTime@piefed.social 8 points 1 week ago

Does discovery in the UK work like it does in the US. I don’t have an opinion on this, but I’m interested in what we might learn about Valve from the discovery process.

[–] eleijeep@piefed.social 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No new yacht for Gabe this year :(

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Isn't at least one of them actually a marine research vessel, run by a group he founded/funds?

I get that he's not our friend like a lot of people think just because his company is less shit, but he seems to have at least a crumb of his soul left.

[–] bonenode@piefed.social -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

At least one yacht out of how many does maybe some research, sorry dude, but that is a long stretch.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Maybe spend a few minutes searching before throwing shade. Cynicism's easy. Here's what I found in about 3 minutes:

He founded the marine research non-profit Inkfish, and a custom yacht building company OceanCo that builds ships for it.

Depending on the source I'm finding that they have 3 ships/yachts in their fleet with a new one under construction, and the Leviathan has most or all of the normal luxury features swapped out for additional lab space, hospital, 3d printing and fabrication workshops. One of the ships carries a crew of 75 scientists.

Their mission statement includes the intent to share all their discoveries freely.

You can look up images of the ships. They look like what I'd expect of research vessels, not billionaire pleasure ships.

Additionally, I'm seeing that he also co-founded the "Heart of Racing" race team that raises money for childrens charities, he's donated significant money to pediatric ICU in New Zealand (where he lives), and also co-founded foundry10 which is "a education research organization that funds and develops programs to improve youth learning."

Again, I'm not saying the man's a saint or our friend. Steam has a very positive track record, he is putting more resources into philanthropic endeavours than many others in his position, and he's not crowing about it so much that everyone knows he's doing the philanthropic shit.

[–] AntiBullyRanger@ani.social 5 points 1 week ago

2hours of penalty, btw

Games