Even if the most favored nation clause does exist, all it takes is a quick look at https://isthereanydeal.com/ for nearly any game to confirm that it isn’t actually enforced. Games go on sale on platforms other than Steam all the time when they aren’t on sale on Steam.
It’s not sale prices, it’s the regular price which is required. Steam has to have the lowest available regular non sale price (can be tied). This means that even if you sell on a site with a lower store cut, your price still has to reflect Steam’s 30% cut.
This artificially drives up prices across the board.
That’s for other sites that sell Steam keys, which obviously use Steam infrastructure hence the limitation. If you sell your game on Steam and other real platforms, like GOG, Epic or Uplay (or whatever it’s called these days), you can set the price you want.
Of course Steam offers a lot more functionality, and many devs choose to tie their games to Steam because of that, not because Steam forces them to do it.
Already responded elsewhere in the thread but wanted to hop in and also say that no, this being about Steam keys alone is a myth. I compiled the information I found in a thread in regards to this. Some developers have confirmed it there as well.
A podcast with some quotes isn’t hard evidence. Hard evidence is what people are looking for (myself included).
Wolfire’s claims haven’t been proven in court and if they are, then there will be evidence in the public record. But people have been looking for hard proof of this for years. So right now your claim is also a “myth”.
If you make a claim on the internet it should be backed up by facts. I don’t care if Gaben is guilty or innocent. I am pointing out that we don’t have a credible source for the allegations up to this point (even a copy of a contract with the specific wording would suffice and likely would have been leaked at some point in the last 8 years).
Then it’s still the word of multiple developers publishing games on Steam reading the terms they have to sign versus… I guess random people on the internet? I suppose hard evidence will be difficult to come by because:
The lawsuit has taken ages and who knows when or if it will conclude with information
Developers probably don’t want to get on Valve’s bad side to prove it
Even if a game is taken off the store, it won’t be easy to prove it was due to this
I’ve seen conversations that mention threads on the Steam developer forums on this, but I’ve not been diligent enough to save this. Though I will try if I ever come across it again. It’s unfortunately difficult to search for information with my admittedly limited motivation. (If anyone can bring evidence either way, I’d be very happy.)
Eight whole years or more of allegations and not one singular leak? Nobody kept a record of their contract? Not one dev? Nobody heard the news about Wolfie and went “hey wait a minute” and went back and read their contracts?
I am taking these allegations with a grain of salt because the internet sometimes is very loud and very wrong and without a credible source of information (news outlets would love even a hint of proof of this), it’s a lawsuit that hasn’t been determined to be factually proven yet, and some rumors.
My problem isn’t that you’ve said Valve allegedly did this. My problem is that you posited your statement as if it was a proven fact and linked to “evidence” that a court of law might even consider hearsay.
I’m not trying to break your balls here. I’m just saying I clicked that link thinking there was something of substance in it.
However, Wolfire, the developer of Overgrowth tried to sell non Steam key versions on other store fronts at a lower price due to those stores having a lower. Valve told them Overgrowth would be removed from Steam if he proceeded in doing so.
They are involved in an ongoing class action suit against valve over this. If this were just a misreading of the terms, it would not have been an ongoing suit for the last couple of years.
This is a pretty common tactic in retail spaces. Walmart also won’t let you sell the same product that you’ve contracted to put on their shelves elsewhere for cheaper.
The general idea is that you are benefitting from Walmart’s market dominance for exposure and advertising. You can’t get that benefit and then encourage consumers to buy it elsewhere by listing it for cheaper than Walmart sells it for.
You can agree or disagree with that approach, but it’s not unique to Steam and it’s so far generally been held up as reasonable.
Except the stores are the ones who set the prices. The supplier can offer a suggested retail price, but stores are not usually beholden to those, if they are willing to cut into their own margin.
Let’s engage in a thought experiment. Let’s assume Steam were to offer 2 options:
30% cut of sales, all current services as they exist today.
8% cut of sales, but your game will never be featured on the front page of the store, can’t participate in sales, cannot be wishlisted, won’t show up in recommendations or ‘similar to games you play’ lists, will not be promoted at all. Can’t participate in community features or use the workshop. It’s still on steam; anyone who searches for it can find it, you can freely advertise it yourself and list it elsewhere and all of that, and you’re free to sell it anywhere else at any price.
How do you think that second option would work out for developers? Anyone who wouldn’t take that option is admitting that the services Steam is offering are worth the price of admission. By your logic, it should result in a 22% reduction in the cost of games; I doubt that would be the case.
Every developer is paying the same cut regardless if their game gets featured or not. So that’s a disingenuous argument. Devs aren’t paying for a service. They’re having their revenue garnished in exchange for a marketing lottery ticket
Valve is already incentivized to make games with popularity potential more visible, because it makes THEM money. Like every store in existence does.
I know (think?) you’re arguing that Valve needs the large profit cut to develop features, but Gabe is absolutely a billionaire. You don’t reach yacht and submarine levels of money unless you’re exploiting someone.
I don’t think they’re arguing they need the large cut to develop features, I believe they’re arguing the large cut is reflective of the added value.
In a capitalist system there’s no transaction that can’t be traced back to some form of exploitation. Profit is someone making more money than they put in.
There’s no game marketplace that isn’t looking to exploit someone.
The question isn’t “is someone being exploited”, it’s “how severe is the exploitation” and “is the exploiter using unfair means to reduce choice”.
Because we don’t have a magic wand that lets us see the objective value of the services being offered we can only compare preferences and tolerable prices.
I believe their argument to be that the high margin taken by valve isn’t reflective of monopolistic market practices, but a reflection of the value added by their service, and that if you were to offer a lower rate that didn’t have the listed perks you would see developers showing a preference for the higher rate.
It’s not that they need it to develop features, it’s that if developers want to claim that Steam is overcharging, they need to be willing to give up access to the features Steam provides, because Steam is providing a service to developers through that promotion. As a personal anecdote, I’ve bought tons of games that I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere except on Steam, and would never have found at all if not for Steam promoting them to me.
The popular complaint is that if your game isn’t on Steam, it doesn’t sell on PC. The purpose of the thought experiment is to consider whether simply existing on Steam is all it takes, because if not, then Steam is clearly providing a service to them above and beyond simply having their game available to buy on its storefront.
Even if the most favored nation clause does exist, all it takes is a quick look at https://isthereanydeal.com/ for nearly any game to confirm that it isn’t actually enforced. Games go on sale on platforms other than Steam all the time when they aren’t on sale on Steam.
It’s not sale prices, it’s the regular price which is required. Steam has to have the lowest available regular non sale price (can be tied). This means that even if you sell on a site with a lower store cut, your price still has to reflect Steam’s 30% cut.
This artificially drives up prices across the board.
That’s for other sites that sell Steam keys, which obviously use Steam infrastructure hence the limitation. If you sell your game on Steam and other real platforms, like GOG, Epic or Uplay (or whatever it’s called these days), you can set the price you want.
Of course Steam offers a lot more functionality, and many devs choose to tie their games to Steam because of that, not because Steam forces them to do it.
Already responded elsewhere in the thread but wanted to hop in and also say that no, this being about Steam keys alone is a myth. I compiled the information I found in a thread in regards to this. Some developers have confirmed it there as well.
A podcast with some quotes isn’t hard evidence. Hard evidence is what people are looking for (myself included).
Wolfire’s claims haven’t been proven in court and if they are, then there will be evidence in the public record. But people have been looking for hard proof of this for years. So right now your claim is also a “myth”.
Do you even hear yourself talking like a conspiracy theorist while defending a billionaire’s innocence?
If you make a claim on the internet it should be backed up by facts. I don’t care if Gaben is guilty or innocent. I am pointing out that we don’t have a credible source for the allegations up to this point (even a copy of a contract with the specific wording would suffice and likely would have been leaked at some point in the last 8 years).
Then it’s still the word of multiple developers publishing games on Steam reading the terms they have to sign versus… I guess random people on the internet? I suppose hard evidence will be difficult to come by because:
I’ve seen conversations that mention threads on the Steam developer forums on this, but I’ve not been diligent enough to save this. Though I will try if I ever come across it again. It’s unfortunately difficult to search for information with my admittedly limited motivation. (If anyone can bring evidence either way, I’d be very happy.)
Eight whole years or more of allegations and not one singular leak? Nobody kept a record of their contract? Not one dev? Nobody heard the news about Wolfie and went “hey wait a minute” and went back and read their contracts?
I am taking these allegations with a grain of salt because the internet sometimes is very loud and very wrong and without a credible source of information (news outlets would love even a hint of proof of this), it’s a lawsuit that hasn’t been determined to be factually proven yet, and some rumors.
My problem isn’t that you’ve said Valve allegedly did this. My problem is that you posited your statement as if it was a proven fact and linked to “evidence” that a court of law might even consider hearsay.
I’m not trying to break your balls here. I’m just saying I clicked that link thinking there was something of substance in it.
The steam key part is what is publicly available.
However, Wolfire, the developer of Overgrowth tried to sell non Steam key versions on other store fronts at a lower price due to those stores having a lower. Valve told them Overgrowth would be removed from Steam if he proceeded in doing so.
They are involved in an ongoing class action suit against valve over this. If this were just a misreading of the terms, it would not have been an ongoing suit for the last couple of years.
This is a pretty common tactic in retail spaces. Walmart also won’t let you sell the same product that you’ve contracted to put on their shelves elsewhere for cheaper.
The general idea is that you are benefitting from Walmart’s market dominance for exposure and advertising. You can’t get that benefit and then encourage consumers to buy it elsewhere by listing it for cheaper than Walmart sells it for.
You can agree or disagree with that approach, but it’s not unique to Steam and it’s so far generally been held up as reasonable.
Except the stores are the ones who set the prices. The supplier can offer a suggested retail price, but stores are not usually beholden to those, if they are willing to cut into their own margin.
Let’s engage in a thought experiment. Let’s assume Steam were to offer 2 options:
How do you think that second option would work out for developers? Anyone who wouldn’t take that option is admitting that the services Steam is offering are worth the price of admission. By your logic, it should result in a 22% reduction in the cost of games; I doubt that would be the case.
Every developer is paying the same cut regardless if their game gets featured or not. So that’s a disingenuous argument. Devs aren’t paying for a service. They’re having their revenue garnished in exchange for a marketing lottery ticket
Valve is already incentivized to make games with popularity potential more visible, because it makes THEM money. Like every store in existence does.
I know (think?) you’re arguing that Valve needs the large profit cut to develop features, but Gabe is absolutely a billionaire. You don’t reach yacht and submarine levels of money unless you’re exploiting someone.
I don’t think they’re arguing they need the large cut to develop features, I believe they’re arguing the large cut is reflective of the added value.
In a capitalist system there’s no transaction that can’t be traced back to some form of exploitation. Profit is someone making more money than they put in.
There’s no game marketplace that isn’t looking to exploit someone.
The question isn’t “is someone being exploited”, it’s “how severe is the exploitation” and “is the exploiter using unfair means to reduce choice”.
Because we don’t have a magic wand that lets us see the objective value of the services being offered we can only compare preferences and tolerable prices.
I believe their argument to be that the high margin taken by valve isn’t reflective of monopolistic market practices, but a reflection of the value added by their service, and that if you were to offer a lower rate that didn’t have the listed perks you would see developers showing a preference for the higher rate.
It’s not that they need it to develop features, it’s that if developers want to claim that Steam is overcharging, they need to be willing to give up access to the features Steam provides, because Steam is providing a service to developers through that promotion. As a personal anecdote, I’ve bought tons of games that I’ve never seen mentioned anywhere except on Steam, and would never have found at all if not for Steam promoting them to me.
The popular complaint is that if your game isn’t on Steam, it doesn’t sell on PC. The purpose of the thought experiment is to consider whether simply existing on Steam is all it takes, because if not, then Steam is clearly providing a service to them above and beyond simply having their game available to buy on its storefront.