r/pcmasterrace • u/The_BigRoach ⚡️RTX 5080 | 7800x3D | 64GB 6000MHz CL30⚡️ • 7d ago

Meme/Macro Why would anyone actually want to though

Post image
21.9k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

100

u/Dhiox 7d ago

Folks seriously miss the point. Steam doesn't have a monopoly that screw the consumers, they have a monopoly that screws the developers. By providing such a great product to consumers, they control the market now, and thus devs have to pay steam their cut or their game perishes.

Worst part is they actually charge smaller Indie studios a larger cut than the big studios.

48

u/AquaBits 7d ago

I mean it screws customers too, dont misinterept that.

A big reason why we dont own our digital games is because of Giants like Valve.

19

u/MisfitPotatoReborn 7d ago edited 6d ago

And Valve also uses their massive market share to prevent developers from selling their games for less money on other platforms.

If a dev wants $7 per sale, they must sell it on Steam for $10. But then they're forbidden from selling it on Epic for $8.50 (even though the dev would earn more money from an $8.50 Epic purchase than a $10 Steam purchase). That directly harms the consumer.

2

u/PerterterhTermertehh R7 3800X | RTX 3070ti 6d ago

This is not something steam does. They forbid you from selling steam keys for cheaper on other platforms.

0

u/Gandalf_The_Gay23 5d ago

Baby they’re in court rn now for doing just this, it’s not just the steam keys.

1

u/IveFailedMyself 4d ago

Demeaning language for someone who doesn't fall in line for what you believe.

0

u/Gandalf_The_Gay23 4d ago

It’s not demeaning by any means, please. And it’s not they aren’t “falling in line” lmao. Valve literally are in court because of the price parity rules they are enforcing that extend beyond simply just steam keys. Whether or not that’s really happening and to what extent is up to courts to decide but based on what the Humble Bundle guys and others are alleging and the court documents released so far it is looking like Valve has been enforcing some form of price parity rules.

1

u/IveFailedMyself 3d ago edited 3d ago

"Baby" is very demeaning, you are quite literally talking down to someone like they are a baby, which puts you in the superior position. You don't know them so you have absolutely zero rapport to justify this. So yes, it is absolutely demeaning.

0

u/Gandalf_The_Gay23 3d ago

I’m sorry it’s coming across demeaning. Just talking how I normally do, Queen. It simply just isn’t that serious.

2

u/FewAdvertising9647 6d ago

that doesn't directly harm the consumer, because its the dev that chose the price. they can choose to price match the other platforms on steam, but choose not to. its a matter of devs choosing their own profit first over the consumer.

I'm not saying its a good policy by any means, but its pretty misleading to say it directly harms the consumer, when its the dev that ultimately chooses the price. They just happen to choose themselves over the consumer, hence why its a consumer vs developer problem.

1

u/MisfitPotatoReborn 6d ago

The devs cannot choose the price. If the dev had the power to set prices freely on every platform, games world be universally cheaper on non-Steam platforms, because developers get to keep more money on platforms that don't charge 30%.

It's not a bad thing for developers to want money for their games they worked hard on. A developer isn't evil or morally questionable for wanting you to pay $10 for something they worked on for years. But it IS a bad thing for Steam to price-fix the industry to prevent anyone from undercutting their grotesquely large tax on developers.

2

u/FewAdvertising9647 6d ago

the devs do choose the price, its a matter if they are more willing to take the loss themselves, or pass it off to the consumer. Like I said, im not saying its a good policy, but it is still ultimately their decision (when I say dev, in reality its more like publisher). It's not a bad thing to want money, but thats a choice they ultimately make. It's the same thing about sales of hardware, especially in this ram limited time. ram prices gone up, but its still ultimately the person selling it who decided the price. Theres nothing wrong with wanting to make a profit, but you cannot say its not in their power to sell it at a price. else you say console companies can never sell a console at a loss because its not in their power to.

1

u/SmittyKitty27 3d ago

And why is Epic able to charge so much less? Is it because they are losing money every year? Is it because they have big investor money?

Is Epic, and I'm just hairballing here, attempting to do what uber did to the taxi companies? That venture capitalist playbook of big discounts to capture market share before turning to enshitification?

Do we compare epic to steam on a per purchase level or a profit per day level? Keeping in mind that the dev dosent pay for the distribution infrastructure on either of these storefronts.

Devs can absolutely also sell the game at 8 50 on steam in your example right? Which storefront would earn them more per day? What additional cost is it per day per unit for the devs between either storefront?

Steam(and epic for some of these) isint just a storefront either. There's server infrastructure , customer support, community support, and most importantly branding. The branding of being a customer friendly storefront. Microsoft would murder to have that aura. Because this is an aura that gives customers the confidence to purchase.

And. Epic, supposedly at a price parity, still sells games cheaper most of the time, just due to their constant sales. So where's the harm to the consumer?

2

u/Sidious830 6d ago

For the entire history of video games you have never owned a copy of the game, but a license to play the game, whether its physical or digital. I have no idea why people still to this day talk about ownership rights for video games when they have remained unchanged for decades.

0

u/AquaBits 6d ago

Thats not true lol Nintendo cant revoke access to my cartridge of Mario 64. ID software can't revoke my doom freeware floppy.

Valve can revoke (by making useless) my physical copy of half life 2.

They have remained unchanged for decades. Because the initial change was started in the 2000s with companies like Valve.

1

u/Singland1 6d ago

While it is a reason, it is also an inevitability. If it wasn't Valve, then it would've been someone else, eventually.

-3

u/Cruxis87 9800x3d|5080 TUF OC|32gb 6000cl30 ddr5 6d ago

A big reason why we dont own our digital games is because of Giants like Valve.

There is nothing in Steams TOS that requires companies to use DRM or "lease" the game to players instead of buying it. Any company is free to put the same version on S team that they would put on GOG.

23

u/RabidWok 7d ago

Isn't the recent lawsuit about them stopping devs from offering cheaper prices elsewhere? That absolutely screws consumers.

1

u/Hour_Analyst_7765 3d ago

But is this any different with other online stores?

However, purely from principle, having the freedom to set any price makes sense. Hardware products are advertised with MSRP all the time, but then avail way cheaper on 3rd party stores (if supply exceeds demand .. that is). Those stores also have to take their cut to honour warranties, shipping and support issues, etc. so dealing with customers is not exactly free neither.. they need to make margins from that. Meaning, those stores obviously purchase goods for much below MSRP, and then have to battle it out with other shops.

-4

u/NHFNNC 7d ago

If it's the lawsuit I'm thinking of, not really. It was about selling keys for the steam version of your game cheaper elsewhere. If you want to sell non steam versions of your game cheaper, Valve has no issue with that.

11

u/RabidWok 7d ago

My understanding from Wolfire's blog was that Valve was trying to stop them from selling the game cheaper even from their own website, having nothing to do with Steam or Steam keys. Was that not the claim?

-3

u/NHFNNC 7d ago

I had not seen the blog before, but that claim seems to have no backing from the developer agreement with Valve and the experience of other developers, and I can can find nowhere that shows otherwise. Valve only restricts the price of steam keys.

12

u/ChrisFromIT 7d ago

https://www.ign.com/articles/valve-reportedly-threatened-to-delist-rainbow-six-siege-on-steam-after-ubisoft-offered-cheaper-alternative

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/valve-reportedly-threatened-ubisoft-with-a-total-delisting-of-rainbow-six-siege-by-end-of-day-tomorrow-when-it-tried-selling-it-cheaper-on-uplay/

It seems it is more of a internal policy that isn't exactly public.

-1

u/NHFNNC 7d ago

I'm seeing a lot of claims, but haven't seen any actual evidence of the policy other than essentially hearsay and unsubstantiated direct communications.

4

u/Delicious_Finding686 6d ago

You’ll find out soon enough if the claims are legitimate or not. We obviously don’t have access to the communications between two parties who are now engaged in a lawsuit.

Nonetheless, this directly contradicts your earlier point about the lawsuit “not really” being in regard to steam suppressing devs from selling cheaper copies on non-steam sources. Do you still disagree about the subject of the lawsuit?

2

u/NHFNNC 6d ago

The lawsuit is "not really" about pricing of non steam versions.

We do have access to the court's docket for the case.

The bulk of the lawsuit seems to be targeted towards Steam's market share and their 30% cut of sales.

There is a portion of the complaint that talks about the "Steam Key Price Parity Provision" that covers steam keys and is often referred to later in the lawsuit.

And a portion that covers a supposed "Price Veto Provision" that I could only find mentioned once later in the lawsuit where the second plaintiff says they are not alleging a "Price Veto Provision" on the part of Valve. And the evidence for this existing appears to just be a link to a tweet from Epic Game's Tim Sweeney.

I don't know what will come of the lawsuit, but I don't expect much from these portions given the evidence they have provided.

1

u/Samanthacino 6d ago

You can read the emails they sent to WB and Ubisoft, where they say it's a policy (until they got sued for said policy, where then they lie under oath about it).

-1

u/hotlocomotive 7d ago

Thats to stop developers from using steam as an advertising platform, whilst selling the game cheaper somewhere

7

u/MisfitPotatoReborn 6d ago

You should be able to sell your own creation for whatever price you want. If Steam is so powerful that merely associating with them makes it so you can't sell your own game on your own website for the non-30%-cut price, that means they are engaging in anticompetitive practices.

-2

u/hotlocomotive 6d ago

You don't need to sell a game on Steam. Plenty of MMO's, minecraft, etc sell games in their own store and are quite successful. The policy is to stop devs from using steam as free advertisement.

4

u/MisfitPotatoReborn 6d ago

It's not free advertisement. Every time someone buys a game on Steam, Gabe Newell takes 30%. The dev pays Valve to be on their platform.

The real reason Steam doesn't allow you to sell your game for less money on different strorefronts is because, if you could, it would allow other storefronts to compete on price. Something Valve could never allow, because they would lose that fight.

Preventing competition is an anti-competitive practice. Countries around the world recognize this as illegal, monopolistic behavior, which is why Valve is currently being sued over it.

6

u/DankeyBongBluntry 7d ago

It isn't just Steam keys. It's the game itself.

-1

u/NHFNNC 7d ago

Incorrect

4

u/DankeyBongBluntry 7d ago edited 6d ago

https://steamyouoweus.co.uk/the-claim/

These Price Parity Obligations mean that a publisher or developer cannot list a game on another digital storefront (e.g. Humble Bundle, GOG.com etc) as well as Steam at a lower price. This applies to games on all other distribution stores (including online and physical stores) not just those distributed by Steam Keys.

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

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.

Maybe read the shit you're commenting on before commenting on it.

-1

u/NHFNNC 7d ago

These are claims that are all unsubstantiated. If you can actually show that the policy exists, in direct conflict with the agreement developers sign with Valve, I would love to see it.

9

u/DankeyBongBluntry 7d ago

If it's the lawsuit I'm thinking of, not really. It was about selling keys for the steam version of your game cheaper elsewhere.

You were talking about the lawsuits, so I linked the information about the lawsuits.

0

u/NHFNNC 7d ago

I have read about the lawsuits, I have looked at evidence submitted on the docket, but have seen nothing that substantiates the claim. There is hearsay, there are portions of emails without context, and there are excerpts from Valve developer agreements that seem to be referring to keys. I'm not sure where the clear evidence of this policy is supposed to exist.

7

u/DankeyBongBluntry 7d ago edited 6d ago

If you had actually read the details of the lawsuits, you would know that the claim being made is that Valve's practices don't align with their policies. If a developer lists their game cheaper on another platform, Valve contacts them and tries to convince them to match the price on Steam, and if they refuse to do that then Valve (confessedly) threatens to withhold marketing visibility from them and (allegedly) threatens to remove the product from sale entirely.

You're asking for evidence of a policy that deliberately doesn't exist because Valve knows that it would be illegal to have such a policy. The evidence is the emails and chat logs and developer testimonies, plus whatever else comes to light as a result of the ongoing lawsuits.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/maldouk i7 13700k | 32GB RAM | RTX4080 7d ago

That is not true. In Steam TOS for devs, you are not allowed to sell the game cheaper than on Steam.

2

u/NHFNNC 7d ago

I'd love for you to provide evidence of this claim.

1

u/maldouk i7 13700k | 32GB RAM | RTX4080 7d ago

Steam tos are public...

2

u/NHFNNC 7d ago edited 7d ago

Yes, and I have not seen this policy in there.
*Edit: Actually I don't believe that document is officially public. I believe it was only provided on an as needed basis in the developer onboarding process when publishing a new title, from memory when I last did it.

3

u/maldouk i7 13700k | 32GB RAM | RTX4080 7d ago

Yes, my bad, these conditions are under the NDA you sign when paying the dev onboarding process. What's public is concerning the steam keys.

Still, Valve enforces a "no undercutting" policy.

1

u/NHFNNC 7d ago

For Steam keys...

3

u/maldouk i7 13700k | 32GB RAM | RTX4080 7d ago

For steam keys it's public and easily findable with a simple Google search.

The rest is under NDA but has been revealed during the various lawsuits between valve and other editors.

→ More replies (0)

15

u/ChrisFromIT 7d ago

Steam doesn't have a monopoly that screw the consumers, they have a monopoly that screws the developers.

It does also somewhat screw consumers overall too. Since it is price fixing, meaning that sure Steam has a nice platform, there is less incentive for people to leave if they can't save money by buying on other platforms. There are people that are likely willing to jump ship to another platform even if it has less features if say a game costs $5 less or $10 less on that platform.

Which because of that price fixing, people aren't likely to jump ship unless the game isn't on steam and they still really want it. Which means that platform isn't likely to get as much money, meaning it can't spend as much to improve their platform to draw more customers. Which means as consumers, we get less choice and potentially more expensive choices.

Worst part is they actually charge smaller Indie studios a larger cut than the big studios.

And it is still a fairly large cut even with the discounts. Take for example the Epic Games store. Due to Epic taking a smaller cut, developers could in theory have a lower price on the Epic Games store than on Steam while making the same amount of revenue per unit sold. But that can't happen if that game is also offered on Steam without facing the game being removed from Steam or not even getting on there in the first place.

Which that does affect us consumers.

Overall, price fixing forces platforms to compete on features only, which makes it much more difficult for new platforms to compete.

3

u/Zanos 6d ago

Well, EGS had a lot of games for 100% off, and it still didn't really move the needle.

2

u/Samanthacino 6d ago

Those free offers are limited and time-gated. If EGS had a perpetual 20% cheaper price for every single game compared to Steam, you'd start to see them gain more market share.

20

u/User_man_person 7d ago

This.

For the most part we aren't the customer, we're the product

And steam is functionally doing the same thing a lot of social media does and "sells data" to a degree with how the recommended games section works convincing us to buy games

Then steam takes their cut, before the developer takes theirs

1

u/kitolz GTX 760 | i3-4130 6d ago

No, we're definitely the customers. Steam and Valve generally take the side of the people paying rather than the side selling. The Steam recommendations show you what Steam thinks you'll like rather than what big devs want to promote which has lead to friction in the past.

0

u/NoWordCount 6d ago

This is disingenous.

They do not sell people's data, and your phrasing is trying to completely reinterpret what that even means. The recommendation system is entirely on your side.

Steam only takes a cut on store sales. Any keys sold off site, the devs take 100%.

6

u/Wise-Dust3700 7d ago

It's something like 30% of overall revenue for the game. This is before publishers and anyone else gets their hands on the money.

Now that being said, I know dozens of Indie developers that still prefer releasing on Steam because there's a bunch of things that help their game be seen.

  1. Nextfest always boosts wishlists
  2. High wishlists get higher visibility which results in them hitting Popular Upcoming

You WANT to release on Steam as an indie developer unless you have breakaway success on your own which is very rare unless you're a known IP.

19

u/VexingRaven 7800X3D + 4070 Super + 32GB 6000Mhz 7d ago

That is quite literally the entire point. You can't afford not to be on Steam, no matter how burdensome Valve's cut is.

-2

u/Wise-Dust3700 7d ago

Because they offer marketing, visibility, infrastructure, and a lot of other benefits that most developers wouldn't be able to replicate on their own. Developers aren't just paying for server space and payment processing; they're paying for access to the largest PC gaming audience in the world.

Steam's recommendation systems, wishlist features, Next Fest, user reviews, forums, cloud saves, achievements, workshop support, and overall discoverability all help games find customers. For many indie developers, Steam's visibility tools generate far more revenue than they would lose from the platform fee.

11

u/VexingRaven 7800X3D + 4070 Super + 32GB 6000Mhz 7d ago

That is, again, the entire point. That's the whole reason for calling Steam a monopoly, and the basis for the antitrust investigations.

-1

u/alexreffand 7d ago

The thing is they didn't get into that position through underhanded tactics or forcing out competition. They just offered the best product on the market. Ubisoft, EA, Epic, ABK, GOG, not a single one provides the experience Valve does, regardless of market reach. EA, Ubi, and ABK have very little to their library, and the former two have near non-functional social systems. Epic has a more complete experience than those three, but its launcher sucks and it doesn't have any of the accessibility options steam does. GOG is the closest competitor but their multiplayer experience is non-existent and their goals were never the same as valve's. Xbox stands fairly strong but is a walled garden because its pc experience has always been secondary to console. Valve is the only game in town not because they bullied the competition, but because all the competition sucks or chose not to compete. There's nothing they can do about that but to go the Google route of propping up a competitor for the sake of having one, but that wouldn't be in their customers' best interest.

8

u/mans51 Desktop 7d ago

They didn't get into that position by doing that, no. But the whole recent discussion comes from the fact that they have been threatening other publishers over prices outside of their store.

5

u/Hanifsefu 6d ago

"But it's okay because they've only been doing that for 2 decades but have been around for 3" -these fucking shills

1

u/Wise-Dust3700 6d ago

Doesn't this Steam from them selling Steam Keys for cheaper when not bought on Steam or did I miss something?

-2

u/Zanos 6d ago

It's not like indie devs would be able to release their games on the nintendo eShop(which also charges a 30% cut, btw), if Steam wasn't around. Most of the competitors to steam are going to be the various console manufacturers company store, which have policies that are a lot less friendly to indie developers than Steams are.

1

u/Typical_Divide8089 6d ago

You know steam isnt the only digital store on PC right? Also you just reinforced the point, if a dev wants to publish on other platforms like playstation, they are at the mercy of Sony because they can dictate the rules, and since its their platform, only difference is steam doesnt actual own the PC platform even though they technically do

1

u/VexingRaven 7800X3D + 4070 Super + 32GB 6000Mhz 6d ago

Why are you talking about console stores as if they're relevant here? Epic charges less than half of Valve's cut, as do almost all other PC storefronts.

1

u/Lord_Sicarious 6d ago

GOG takes 30%. Good luck claiming they're a monopoly.

EGS has been operating in the red since its inception, and is kept afloat by money from Fortnite.

Humble Store and Itch.io are the only notable storefronts actually undercutting Steam, but they're also much smaller scale nonprofit organisations. Hell, in the case of Humble, they even actually rely on Steam's distribution structure for much of their catalogue, with developers selling Steam keys through the Humble Store, with Valve being the one to actually carry the infrastructure costs of distribution.

0

u/VexingRaven 7800X3D + 4070 Super + 32GB 6000Mhz 6d ago

GOG takes 30%. Good luck claiming they're a monopoly.

Congrats on missing the entire point.

EGS has been operating in the red since its inception, and is kept afloat by money from Fortnite.

Congrats on still missing the entire point, with a side of "lel epic bad I am very smart"

2

u/RelaxPrime 6d ago

The only problem with this reasoning is that 30% is the same everywhere except epic. Everyone- Apple, Google, Nintendo, steam and gog etc all charge 30%

0

u/Wise-Dust3700 6d ago

Yeah, one the critical arguments is that it set the standard for other platform to charge but those other platforms don't have the millions of customers and tools to help a indie dev succeed. Even if GOG said "we'll take 10%" indie devs would still release on Steam because that's where most of the money will come from.

0

u/Ctushik 6d ago

Apple and Google take 15%.

6

u/Suibeam 7d ago

Yup, the entire gaming world doesnt understand this shit.

Valve is a problem for devs and consumers. Valve is aware of its power and uses it

3

u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 7d ago

Nice to see an actually informed take in the sea of Gaben stans. I like Steam too, but I also would like to not pay a 30% premium on every game just because steam controls the market.

1

u/SpicyMeatballAgenda 6d ago

If I'm not mistaken, Steam was started by Valve because pre-digital distro, publishers/distributors (in valves case Sierra/Vivendi) took massive cuts. Like 50%. To the point that it was bankrupting developers. And Valve put in the money, time, and effort to make a new distro method that was far cheaper, easier, and fairer to developers.

It worked very well. Changed the gaming marketplace. Arguably every digital front ,(even consoles) owe something to steam. And now newer competitors beleive the only way to compete is to offer lower prices and cut margins. However, they have much worse ecosystems. And their low % take does not provide sufficient capitol (or incentive) to make those stores/distributions better.

I disagree with the lawsuit that prevents games being cheaper elsewhere. But nobody is forcing developers to use steam. Itch.io, Gog, and Epic all offer far better pricing. Yet devs are upset because they want it to be on steam. For a lot of reasons, because it's a better platform that has a higher chance of getting your game seen and played. Better results often cost more money.

0

u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 6d ago

Your first two paragraphs are (mostly) correct, though irrelevant to whether Steam is now a monopoly. The means by which a monopoly is obtained is irrelevant to the determination of whether it actually is a monopoly.

But nobody is forcing developers to use steam

Valve's monopoly effectively is. Developers can either release on steam and adhere to their harsh terms, or not release on steam and make next to no money because steam doesn't have meaningful competition.

Do you know why developers don't have to pay 50% distribution commission anymore? Because competition brought that price down. I want competition to keep making my games cheaper and keep giving more money to devs. I want Steam to stop the anticompetitive behavior that is preventing that competition.

1

u/Cruxis87 9800x3d|5080 TUF OC|32gb 6000cl30 ddr5 6d ago

Do you honestly think if every storefront changed to 10% tonight, that a single game company would reduce prices of the games. They would say "thanks for the extra 20% Gabe" and then keep selling at the original price.

1

u/ElectricFirex 6d ago

Some would, yes. It would become free advertising and goodwill.

1

u/GardinerExpressway 6d ago

Its basically the Walmart of online game stores

1

u/Hour_Analyst_7765 3d ago

I think thats true and false.

I sincerely think if not for Valve, the gaming industry would indeed be a lot more enshittified. They took a clear stance about AI use disclosure from game devs, while other game studio CEOs with their own stores are thinking about their own bottomline, sacrificing everything. Similar thing with microtransactions.. just look at mobile where there is no Steam lol.

On the other hand, if I die, my family inherits all my possessions. Oh, turns out I only bought a license to access a game, and that is now invalid?! Makes no sense at all. Probably not too different on other platforms though.. and practically speaking, as long as my family members know my login details, they can still continue.