Steam being sued in UK.

[C1REX]

So Steam being sued in UK.

Two reasons:
- steam is accused that 30% cut is too high and unfair
- price parity rule. I personally wasn’t aware of that but steam apparently requires games to be sold at the same prices in other stores even if other stores have smaller cut.

Thoughts?

https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/valve-sued-for-allegedly-overcharging-14-million-uk-steam-players#

Sure, Steam has strong market domination but is it their fault that any other store/launcher suck so bad?

[Tito Shivan]

There's a couple threads about the subject around, if you want to read a bit more about it:
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/6725643618948286754/
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/4333106230733877950/

[Kargor]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

- price parity rule. I personally wasn’t aware of that but steam apparently requires games to be sold at the same prices in other stores even if other stores have smaller cut.

That price parity accusation is likely going down the drain right away -- to my knowledge, it only affects the sale of Steam keys, which in turn are actually given to publishers for FREE. Steam does not, for example, ask that your game sells for the same price on Epic, UPlay or Origin because there are no Steam keys involved.

And even then, it's about the base price: sale discounts can be better (and they actually are) in other stores compared to the Steam store.

- steam is accused that 30% cut is too high and unfair

And that's just an opinion with no legal significance at all.

"Who the hell" came up with these accusations? They should have talked to a lawyer first... if that's all they have, it will just be a whole lot of pointless expenses for them.

[RSebire]

Thx for the info

[RiO]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kargor:

"Who the hell" came up with these accusations? They should have talked to a lawyer first...

The fun thing is that actual lawyers came up with these accusations.
But as people have already figured out, the firm in question has somewhat of a sordid reputation.
Odds are high this is an intentional scam suit where their intent is to try to get together enough people for them to represent that they can use that as leverage to scare Valve into taking a settlement option.

[C1REX]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kargor:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

- price parity rule. I personally wasn’t aware of that but steam apparently requires games to be sold at the same prices in other stores even if other stores have smaller cut.

That price parity accusation is likely going down the drain right away -- to my knowledge, it only affects the sale of Steam keys, which in turn are actually given to publishers for FREE.

Quoting BBC:

“It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.”

So it seems Valve/Steam may somehow make publishers to sell their games at the same price on other shop/launchers even if that other shop has lower cut. Not just steam codes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo.amp

[Lithurge]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kargor:

That price parity accusation is likely going down the drain right away -- to my knowledge, it only affects the sale of Steam keys, which in turn are actually given to publishers for FREE.

Quoting BBC:

“It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.”

So it seems Valve/Steam may somehow make publishers to sell their games at the same price on other shop/launchers even if that other shop has lower cut. Not just steam codes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo.amp

And all the BBC has done is report what the lawyer claims, you can often buy the game cheaper, at launch, on the likes of Fanatical and Greenmangaming. Not to mention the regular sales on those platforms where they are cheaper than they are on Steam.

What's also true is that games that are solely launched on EGS (because that's the only one that offers a lower percentage cut) are not released at a cheaper price point than they would be on Steam because the publishers only care about making more money and not about the end customer.

[C1REX]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lithurge:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

Quoting BBC:

“It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.”

So it seems Valve/Steam may somehow make publishers to sell their games at the same price on other shop/launchers even if that other shop has lower cut. Not just steam codes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo.amp

And all the BBC has done is report what the lawyer claims, you can often buy the game cheaper, at launch, on the likes of Fanatical and Greenmangaming. Not to mention the regular sales on those platforms where they are cheaper than they are on Steam.

What's also true is that games that are solely launched on EGS (because that's the only one that offers a lower percentage cut) are not released at a cheaper price point than they would be on Steam because the publishers only care about making more money and not about the end customer.

From what I understand shops like GreenManGaming, Humble Bundle or Fanatical are more like partners than a competition as they sell steam keys.
Rival platforms are GOG, Epic, Orgin, Ubi Store, Microsoft Store/Xbox PC, etc.

[rawWwRrr]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Lithurge:

And all the BBC has done is report what the lawyer claims, you can often buy the game cheaper, at launch, on the likes of Fanatical and Greenmangaming. Not to mention the regular sales on those platforms where they are cheaper than they are on Steam.

What's also true is that games that are solely launched on EGS (because that's the only one that offers a lower percentage cut) are not released at a cheaper price point than they would be on Steam because the publishers only care about making more money and not about the end customer.

From what I understand shops like GreenManGaming, Humble Bundle or Fanatical are more like partners than a competition as they sell steam keys.
Rival platforms are GOG, Epic, Orgin, Ubi Store, Microsoft Store/Xbox PC, etc.

They aren't partners of Steam, if that's what you're alluding to.

Steam doesn't sell keys and they only provide them to the game publishers. Steam doesn't make any money on 3rd party key sales, which should be another counter argument to the lawsuit.

But that won't matter as there are a lot of good counter arguments that prove it wrong.

[C1REX]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย rawWwRrr:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

From what I understand shops like GreenManGaming, Humble Bundle or Fanatical are more like partners than a competition as they sell steam keys.
Rival platforms are GOG, Epic, Orgin, Ubi Store, Microsoft Store/Xbox PC, etc.

They aren't partners of Steam, if that's what you're alluding to.

Steam doesn't sell keys and they only provide them to the game publishers. Steam doesn't make any money on 3rd party key sales, which should be another counter argument to the lawsuit.

But that won't matter as there are a lot of good counter arguments that prove it wrong.

The only important thing is if Steam truly forbids selling games on competing launchers at lower prices.
If Valve/Steam truly does it and it’s not a BS then we can discuss if giving away steam keys is a good excuse.

[J4MESOX4D]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Kargor:

That price parity accusation is likely going down the drain right away -- to my knowledge, it only affects the sale of Steam keys, which in turn are actually given to publishers for FREE.

Quoting BBC:

“It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.”

So it seems Valve/Steam may somehow make publishers to sell their games at the same price on other shop/launchers even if that other shop has lower cut. Not just steam codes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo.amp

Valve don't force anything - publishers and developers willingly self-publish their game on this platform by choice and happily pay the low fee to do so. They are free to publish anywhere else they wish and that includes Epic. They choose not to because Steam has the biggest customer base and a platform laden with developer-friendly tools. Valve also provides key generation for free so the pubs/devs can distribute their game through any retailers they wish in which Valve does not receive a cut and that includes users being able to access content services that go through Steam even if they didn't buy on this platform.

Talk about biting the hands that feed you. Steam cannot help being successful especially when other platforms offer very little in terms of features and competition. It's not like this platform has paid exclusives either. Epic on the other hand have tried absolutely everything with money to turn the tide and they've failed miserably.

[C1REX]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย J4MESOX4D:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

Quoting BBC:

“It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.”

So it seems Valve/Steam may somehow make publishers to sell their games at the same price on other shop/launchers even if that other shop has lower cut. Not just steam codes.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo.amp

Valve don't force anything - publishers and developers willingly self-publish their game on this platform by choice and happily pay the low fee to do so. They are free to publish anywhere else they wish and that includes Epic. They choose not to because Steam has the biggest customer base and a platform laden with developer-friendly tools. Valve also provides key generation for free so the pubs/devs can distribute their game through any retailers they wish in which Valve does not receive a cut and that includes users being able to access content services that go through Steam even if they didn't buy on this platform.

Talk about biting the hands that feed you. Steam cannot help being successful especially when other platforms offer very little in terms of features and competition. It's not like this platform has paid exclusives either. Epic on the other hand have tried absolutely everything with money to turn the tide and they've failed miserably.

I don’t dispute that steam is the best and by a very long shot.
I only wonder if it’s true or not that steam forbids selling games cheaper on competing PC launchers.

[Mad Scientist]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

I don’t dispute that steam is the best and by a very long shot.
I only wonder if it’s true or not that steam forbids selling games cheaper on competing PC launchers.

You should read the threads linked by Tito. It answers a lot, including the part where the uk is obviously completely unaware how costly the cut is for Retail, let alone associated retail costs.

Here's the threads so we don't have a 3rd recent thread about it;

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

There's a couple threads about the subject around, if you want to read a bit more about it:
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/6725643618948286754/
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/4333106230733877950/

[Kargor]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย rawWwRrr:

Steam doesn't sell keys and they only provide them to the game publishers. Steam doesn't make any money on 3rd party key sales, which should be another counter argument to the lawsuit.

Which would in fact be THE reason to entirely change the key system that they have, or remove it entirely, or make it a lot more restrictive -- they are literally handing out these keys to publishers for free, publishers can use them to make money on other stores, and Steam provides the FULL service package beyond that point anyway. No support for the sales themselves, but downloads, forums, cloud storage, account support etc. are available just the same.

I believe that was originally introduced to make publishers actually use Steam keys for their retail packages (which is why the license overview still calls them "Retail") instead of their home-made "CD keys", and thus bring Steam to more customers. Believe it or not, there were times when Steam was nobody, and they tried to come up with ideas to become somebody.

Nowadays, Steam is definitely somebody, not just any somebody but THE somebody, and to my knowledge the PC games market has mostly moved away from "retail boxes" as well. Few publishers still try to sell these, and they might just be a printed key in a DVD-box without even containing a DVD as well. As such, Steam could have retired the keys, or redesign the system for whatever use-cases they want to support.

Yet, Steam still keeps it up, funneling thousands of purchases to competing stores for licenses that are activated on the Steam platform, without Steam seeing a single cent from these purchases. I suspect the percentage going into actual "retail-boxes" is very small, compared to the keys just going to another online store to be sold without a plastic box wrapped around it.
If anything, that's a HUGE present to those other stores. They may be small, likely not getting rich in the process, but it's still a business that can only exist because Steam allows them to exist.

[C1REX]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Mad Scientist:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

I don’t dispute that steam is the best and by a very long shot.
I only wonder if it’s true or not that steam forbids selling games cheaper on competing PC launchers.

You should read the threads linked by Tito. It answers a lot, including the part where the uk is obviously completely unaware how costly the cut is for Retail, let alone associated retail costs.

Here's the threads so we don't have a 3rd recent thread about it;

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tito Shivan:

There's a couple threads about the subject around, if you want to read a bit more about it:
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/6725643618948286754/
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/4333106230733877950/

From what I’ve heard 30% is justified considering how much steam offers.
That’s not the point.

The point is if steam really forbids selling for less on Epic or GOG. It can be illegal in some countries if true.

[J4MESOX4D]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย C1REX:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Mad Scientist:

You should read the threads linked by Tito. It answers a lot, including the part where the uk is obviously completely unaware how costly the cut is for Retail, let alone associated retail costs.

Here's the threads so we don't have a 3rd recent thread about it;

From what I’ve heard 30% is justified considering how much steam offers.
That’s not the point.

The point is if steam really forbids selling for less on Epic or GOG. It can be illegal in some countries if true.

Let's say Steam does 'forbid' it - that doesn't mean developers/publishers and other platforms would have to abide by this. There is nothing in the SteamWorks contract and if Valve did have such demands then it would've already become public knowledge among the thousands of developers and hundreds of retailers.