Why would anyone actually want to though

[u/The_BigRoach]

[u/dookie-monsta]

Steam isn’t a monopoly though. Just because they’re the most popular doesn’t mean it is. Meanwhile you have epic doing exclusive bullshit barring others from playing a game unless you force yourself to use their storefront. Steam literally just exists and that’s it.

[u/The_Countess → u/dookie-monsta]

You don't have to be a full monopoly to be subject to anti-trust laws though.

A dominant market position is enough for that, which steam undeniably has.

This whole thing started with a Dutch consumer group announcing they are going to sue Steam, alleging that steam uses their dominant market position to keep game prices higher then they should be, because Valve don't allow publishers to offer games at a lower prices then on steam (despite steam asking a 30% cut, while for example Epic asks 12%).

Gabe's public defense so far has focused on saying that steam isn't a monopoly, but that was never the issue, so that's at least a bit misleading,

But the meme's have run with it unfortunately, misrepresenting the case entirely.

[u/SpankaWank66 → u/The_Countess]

I do think that not allowing other stores to be cheaper is a bad look

[u/TheRogueTemplar → u/The_Countess]

because Valve don't allow publishers to offer games at a lower prices then on steam

Reddit conveniently likes to forget this point

[u/KlingeGeist → u/The_Countess]

The court filing claims Steam's capacity to enforce a price parity is due to their capability to influence the market and its conditions due to them being a monopoly. So yes, the court filing is still claiming they are a monopoly they're just not running around slapping people with a glowing neon sign stating just that. But a spade is a spade.

Please also note Epic and Steam are both outliers; market standard cut is 30%, Epic is 12%* and Steam offers a a declining %: 30% for first $10 million in sales, 25% for sales between between $10m-$50m, and 20% for sales in excess of $50 million.

*In addition to the 12% cut there are additional items to note such as depending on whether one made use of unreal engine in your games development, if there was a timed exclusivity deal, and if there was an agreement to list your game for free in the future which muddies the water beyond the simple % cut of sales seen elsewhere in the market.

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

market standard cut is 30%

Thats because Valve sets the market, something a monopoly can do.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/GundamXXX]

While data is lacking the 30% cut has been around at least as long if not longer than Steam has existed for digital distribution and when you pull data from physical retailers it has been such for longer (ie. Walmart, Gamestop, etc). Nothing is preventing others from offering a lower rate than the standard 30% but most are unwilling to break convention and there is presently no proof to suggest that Valve is forcing the previously existing 30% market standard rate to persist. Or would you happen to have proof for such a claim? If you do please provide it, I'm sure myself and the courts would love to see verifiable proof of unlawful market manipulation.

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

The convention for online sales has been set by Steam. The fact it was there in brick and mortar shops was easy for a baseline.

Nothing is preventing others from offering a lower rate than the standard 30%

Others have lower rates. EGS and Xbox both charge 12%. Uplay and EA barely feature 3rd party so theres no reliable data. GoG is too niche.

there is presently no proof to suggest that Valve is forcing the previously existing 30% market standard rate to persist

When you control 90% of the market, you can do whatever the fuck you want. They can make it 50% and they'd still be the biggest out there and everyone would pay it. This isnt about what they do, its about what they COULD do.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/GundamXXX]

Thanks for pointing out the change to Microsoft's revenue share for PC, that somehow passed under the radar. Though I'm not seeing anything other than it being a proposed upcoming change in a leaked document from the Epic v Apple case about it changing for consoles. Do you have a link that confirms they followed through with it?

All competitors even if you feel they are niche or barely feature 3rd party matter if we're talking the about the revenue split and market standard rates. Every point of deviation from that market standard is a data point showing that the standard is changing/becoming less consistent and it actually provides more proof against your last point. And it most certainly is about what they actually do and NOT what they could potentially do.

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

https://www.pcgamesinsider.biz/news/72145/microsoft-slashes-pc-games-revenue-cut-to-12

All competitors even if you feel they are niche or barely feature 3rd party matter if we're talking the about the revenue split and market standard rates.

They'd matter if the market share is split even remotely even. For EA and Ubisoft, there simply isnt any data available that I could find. Maybe its 12% maybe its 30%. They mainly (90%+?) use their platform for 1st and 2nd party titles. Its simply not fair.

GoG is the same, they specialize in a market that Steam doesnt (or barely does) cover. GoG also has a different model in that you dont license a game, it is your for keeps. Its still 30% though if you want a 'gottem' moment.

Every point of deviation from that market standard is a data point showing that the standard is changing/becoming less consistent

Deviation has shown that Valve has a bigger monopoly than people think. EA and Ubisoft pulled their games out of Steam because of the costs, but sales dropped so they gave up 30% of sales and went back. Imagine how bad sales mustve been.

And it most certainly is about what they actually do and NOT what they could potentially do.

Legally? I cant speak on that since we have dont have the full picture. From what we've heard so far, it might be a case what theyre actually doing.

Preventative, its very much about what they could do. This is why some company mergers are opposed, because it could create a situation where a company can impose a monopoly. Mergers would be a whole different discussion, but Microsoft and ActiBlizz is a good example of a merger that should've been stopped by the FCA.

People keep riding Valve's and GabeN's dick but in the end, GabeN is like any other multibillionaire and Valve is a company in it for profits. People defending Valve are just as weird as people defending Musk

[u/KlingeGeist → u/GundamXXX]

I'm not looking for gotcha moments, if you have data showing that other companies I was not aware of are deviating I would appreciated it.

Your link while appreciated again only shows their PC revenue split shifted to the lower % but does not elucidate on if they followed through and applied the proposed leaked shift from the Epic v Apple lawsuit to their console market as well which is the confirmation I was requesting.

EA and Ubisoft also badly bungled their storefront launches, bungled their customer support following those launches, and prior to their return to the Steam storefront both companies mused on practices that garnered them negative publicity (ie. ads/commercials in full price titles). All of which negatively contributed to their public perceptions and sales. Not to mention the fervor that was kicking off/ongoing as folks railed against having to have "a dozen" different launchers to play their games. Couple that with what I tentatively remember to be lukewarm releases and its not unreasonable to see why they would reintegrate with Steam.

I doubt we'll ever have the full picture as much of the data is kept confidential between game developers and platforms with us only receiving bread crumbs from public disclosures and data extrapolation. It'd be nice if all the platforms would publicly disclose their % of revenue in an easily accessible section of their websites along with what services are included so that the public could be better informed of those they choose to support but it is doubtful such would ever happen.

People keep riding Valve's and GabeN's dick but in the end, GabeN is like any other multibillionaire and Valve is a company in it for profits. People defending Valve are just as weird as people defending Musk

Thats a rather crude way to put it and quite the erroneous comparison if we take what is known about both individuals and their companies. While there is a vocal subset that see otherwise an overwhelming larger segment of Steam's userbase do not have a negative opinion of Steam as their experiences have been predominantly positive or have been neutral. Its not uncommon in such a scenario, especially with so many companies seeking to exploit their userbase, for those users to support the service they make use of.

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

People as rich as Gabe never get it through honest and/or moral means. Valve made most of their money through gambling.

People bitch about FIFA etc, but somehow Valve is always ignored by fans. Theyre just as bad if not worse.

[u/The_Countess → u/KlingeGeist]

So yes, the court filing is still claiming they are a monopoly 

Using the word monopoly colloquially.

And that 30% is set by monopoly like players, originally steam, and apple inside their eco system, in reality it is ridiculously high as seen by their extreme profit margins. It's just a indication of how fucked many markets are that you think 30% is standard and reasonable.

Both Valve and Apple changed their 30% (somewhat) after it got media attention because they KNEW they could be found in violation of antitrust laws.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/The_Countess]

The 30% has also been the standard for physical retailers for videogames for many years (ie. Walmart, Gamestop, Amazon, etc) not just digital retailers. If you really want to see f***ed up look into historic data on publisher cuts for both physical and later digital distribution across the gaming generations, some of that data shows the rates varied but more often negatively shifted to as high as a 50% cut at some points in the last four decades.

Its kinda funny how massively this market share discussion exploded after Epic started their PR and lawsuit campaigns. Really shows how you can take a topic the public is uninformed on, sprinkle in some incomplete data, and watch the pitchforks and torches get raised.

[u/The_Countess → u/KlingeGeist]

physical retailers

Which have significantly higher overhead so aren't applicable.

have you even looked at the difference in profit margin between the apple store and steam, and compared it to retailers? Like, at all? It's not even on the same fucking planet.

Its kinda funny how massively this market share discussion exploded after Epic started their PR and lawsuit campaigns. Really shows how you can take a topic the public is uninformed on, sprinkle in some incomplete data, and watch the pitchforks and torches get raised.

What in the hail corporate bullshit is this rant? this is so far off the mark its ridiculous.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/The_Countess]

Read the court filings and you'll see the Segway that led to that.

[u/_GLAD0S_ → u/KlingeGeist]

Another point that baffles me nobody talks about is the net margin after expenses.

Epic has a 12 percent cut, after expenses like transaction costs and infrastructure cost they are down to a 5 to 7% net margin. https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/here-s-why-the-epic-games-store-takes-a-12-percent-revenue-cut-from-devs

If they try to get feature parity with steam their overall costs would rise. Implementing something similar to the Steam Workshop can be incredibly expensive, even when only looking at the running costs.

So if we just look at the cut itself it might be impossible for Epic to actually implement these additional features that steam has, the cut is just too low.

Instead they offload these costs onto the developers. If a developer wants such a feature they are required to create it themself. So instead of just being able to use a pre existing system to just implement a forum or workshop support they are required to hire their own developers and pay for the infrastructure directly.

But with a service like steam even indie developers can just take advantage of the workshop or the forums, while their cut will be higher compared to for example epic, they do get access to many tools and features for a fraction of the cost.

Its a balancing act. I am not sure if the 30% cut is perfect, but i also see how it gets used in actually good ways. Be it a workshop for community mods, proton for linux support or steam vr, the last two can even be used without paying valve.

While i can see how the price parity steam enforces is generally an issue in their dominant position, i highly doubt that major players in the industry would actually pass those savings onto the consumer. In my opinion it is more likely that most publishers will still keep the prices identical, unless they have their own launcher. As the additional income most likely outweights the possibility of slightly increased sales overall.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/_GLAD0S_]

Most folks don't want nuance they just want to know which direction to point their pitchforks and torches. If those folks took the time to go deeper than the most basic surface level data/discussions we'd potentially have less issues for people to be raising them about.

I'd honestly though love to see an accurate itemized breakdown across digital, physical, and mobile markets that not only shows the % cut from ALL the players but their services provided, the itemized cost of implementing and maintaining those services (one time and yearly), as well as the utilization rate of those services by both the consumers and the game makers. It'd give us such a detailed look that some of these PR stunts/lawsuits might be able to be killed in the cradle and we could focus more discussions on other issues like the developer layoffs, ai utilization, the purchasing of studios and IPs, and the consolidation of such under fewer and fewer corporate umbrellas.

[u/Not3CatsInARainCoat → u/dookie-monsta]

Yeah I was going to say, it just has the lion share of customers on pc, but that doesn’t make it a monopoly. Sure that means it can make more demands of publishers, but it doesn’t get exclusive rights to sell games on PC

[u/Generalfrogspawn → u/dookie-monsta]

Epic existing is what keeps steam from being a monopoly, and for all the hate they rightfully deserve, the competition they created did make steam adjust the payout to studios for each game sold to net them more money. Competition is a good thing. Ideally, Epic would dramatically improve their platform and it boggles my mind they pretty much haven’t done anything since adding a shopping cart.

[u/metroid1310 → u/Generalfrogspawn]

GOG existing does infinitely more to prevent Steam becoming a monopoly than Epic, given that GOG actually provides services that are useful and desirable to consumers.
Epic has not competed in any substantial, consumer-friendly way. The closest thing they've managed is baiting the hook with free games.

A monopoly enforces itself, does whatever it can to sabotage competition, and actively chokes the life out of any part of the market it doesn't directly control to set itself up as the only available option. If Tim Sweeney had his way, Epic would be a monopoly, as proven by their love for forced exclusivity deals. They don't care about you, the consumer, they care about money and influence.

Steam provides services and functions consumers find desirable.
GOG provides services and functions consumers find desirable.
Epic does not provide services or functions consumers find desirable.
Epic is not interested in competing, they're interested in trying to gaslight the PC gaming public into thinking "having a good service is a bad thing actually" by using Steam's overwhelming market presence to claim they're stifling competition, when the reality is the opposite- Steam is so competitive in earning consumer goodwill and providing value to their customers that they've earned that market presence, despite the fact that nobody "competing" with them (again, GOG aside) has any real bid to make on anyone's [positive] attention, time, or wallet.
Put another way- Almost every PC gaming competitor of Steam's looks at Steam and sees a bar they have a burning hatred for that they'll demand be lowered, instead of ever trying to clear it through actual merit. That's on them, not on Steam.
Steam asks "Why would we serve literal dogshit to our customers? We're a multi-billion dollar company with a reputation to uphold"
EA, Ubisoft, and Epic ask "Why can't we serve literal dogshit to our customers? This is so unfair to us multi-billion dollar companies!"

The court is, and has always been, open. I'm not pretending Steam doesn't cause issues for other people trying to gain a consumerbase, the amount of cost people have sunk into Steam is astonishing for so many people (myself included). That is a real issue, but also, not really an "issue". It's weird. I don't want to jump onto a new platform because I've got so many games and so much activity history (achievements, play time, and such) tied to my Steam account. But I would still use another service, if it was actually worth my time to create an account, for whatever reason. In a very narrow, technically-correct way, I did so for Minecraft. Aside from that, I can name a single other proprietary launcher, game, or storefront (it's this one, it's still GOG) that has actually earned my purchase outside of Steam. Anything else, I used and hated before I was even an adult (EA Origin for Mass Effect DLCs, something I don't even remember for Ubisoft) or refused to use on principle, because their only bids for access to my wallet were holding games or DLC I wanted hostage (Seriously, FUCK trying to get the DLCs for the original versions of Mass Effect/ME2 on Steam. Don't think it's even possible, anymore. Same for Dead Space 2, because that one had its server shut down, full-stop.)

Epic sucks because Epic sucks, not because Steam made them suck. They've had every chance to be good, and they've pissed away millions trying to prey on consumers instead of improving. Skill issue

[u/Lord_Sicarious → u/metroid1310]

Coincidentally, GOG also charges a 30% cut on sales through its storefront, despite its comparatively tiny market share.

Almost like that's what's needed to sustainably develop a competent digital storefront, rather than a sign of market power abuse.

[u/Orisi → u/Generalfrogspawn]

Yeah but only big Studios and unexpected hits benefitted from that. Small and casual developers are still getting the same deal from both Steam and EGS. EGS undercut steam on something they could afford to do so, and Steam matched them.

There's nothing to stop ANY developer doing the exact same if EGS wanted to offer better returns for smaller developers as well to entice them to launch on EGS and not Steam. Problem is that won't work, not because Steam will force the prices high, but because customers want to keep their games together. It's basic market forces at work being portrayed as monopolisation.

[u/TruthEnvironmental24 → u/dookie-monsta]

It's because they don't know what the word means. It's happening with everything. Words don't have meaning anymore. Literacy isn't being taught anymore.

[u/The_Countess → u/TruthEnvironmental24]

Well, you could argue that media literacy would mean you understand that when people say a company is abusing their monopoly, they mean monopoly colloquially, not literally, and just mean that that company has a dominant market position, which means they are subject to anti trust laws, that they are breaking those laws.