lol, no they don’t
Fuck this billionaire back to the stone age
The other capitalists have such a problem with Gabe treating customers with respect. “How do you not enshittify like the rest of us! Make Steam gradually worse!”
Gabe: “No”
While i would always like competition in a marketplace. Epic’s arguments are weak. From my understanding the only time a Dev can’t sell their game for less on another store is when they are using a steam key to redeem the game.
This means selling on epic or gog this policy doesn’t apply. It does apply on humble bundle but only when the Dev is giving out steam keys. Also Gabe is correct you can choose plenty of stores for the PC platform.
The fact steam let’s you add a non steam game to your library shows they are supportive of that when it comes to their customers. The fact that the other markets are not as good like the epic store. Just shows the point that the only reason they can’t compete fairly is due to them having public shareholders they can’t make a customer focused product and appease the shareholders at the same time. They just fallback on that chestnut of if you can’t compete litigate.
Also I would like to dispell some myths about steam
Myth 1 : Steam is always DRM False publishers can choose to DRM there game when hosted on steam. Try it after you install Grim Fandango as an example then close out steam and run the exe directly It will work.
So at the end of the day its the publishers are at fault if the game is DRMed or not and the DRM is a hold over from valve convincing publishers to to sell on steam. Kind of like apple did at the start of Itunes. But I do they should use their market share like apple to make it DRM free.
From my understanding the only time a Dev can’t sell their game for less on another store is when they are using a steam key to redeem the game.
Hey there. Actually, this isn’t true. This is the case regardless of whether a Steam key is involved. Games on Steam need to be the same price (or lower) as other stores. I’ve found this out a little while ago and compiled my findings in this thread (plus some helpful comments, including from developers confirming this).
Essentially, Valve does NOT allow the savings of putting your game up on a store with a lower fees to go towards the customers. They however don’t care if the developer or publisher pockets the difference… Something about “not putting Steam customers at a disadvantage”.
I ask you to please not repeat this misinformation, as I have in the past.
Thank you for posting and compiling this.
As someone who was using Steam 15 years ago, reading comments like this feels like entering the twilight zone.
Does no one remember Steam selling broken games you couldn’t return? Removing games from your library arbitrarily or any of the other shady shit they pulled before the EU and Australia rolled out regulations to stop them? The only reason Steam treats customers with a modicum of respect is that it is legally required to do so.
For a multi-billion dollar company with a somewhat-dominant market position, I’d say they’re pretty fucking good. They’re to PC gaming what Netflix did to broadcast TV, without the enshitification. Steam made games available globally, when it was a hard and expensive task to get the bloody originals on CD/DVD in many countries, which forced most people into piracy because it was the only way. Because of Steam I stopped pirating games, too. I say it’s fine.
My Steam profile is 22 years old and I’ve been gaming on PC since the early 80s.
I don’t remember. I have been using Steam for more than 10 years and I have 90 games in my library. I honestly don’t remember any bad experiences. I buy games, I play them, when I don’t like one I request a refund. I always got my money back.
10 years is riiiiight around when the regulations came out and you could return games.
The problem is not gamers but game developers/publishers.
I found myself a handful of times trying to get a game from GOG or Itch.io before realising I wasn’t writing the game’s name wrong, just that they didn’t bother publishing it in other platforms but Steam.
Yeah, seems like square enix also avoids the platform completely, which is a shame.
if steam goes to shit the games will go on these platforms. hopefully theyll survive til then if that happens and not turn to shit themselves.
PC gamers are generally much smarter than console gamers. If Valve falls to enshittification like every single one of their competitors, we’ll figure it out. I damn sure don’t want to see that happen and it doesn’t look likely any time soon. They’re the last company out there actually making pro-consumer decisions. Valve has built decades of trust and they know how valuable that is.
PC gamers and console gamers are one in the same now. There’s just as much blind consumerism on both platforms.
Except if you are a Linux user and lazy like I am. Then there basically is only 1 option.
I sometimes use GOG, but unfortunately WineHQ doesn’t work very well anymore, and it’s not always that something that works with proton also is easy to get to work with vanilla Wine.So for me I generally choose Steam, even if the game is available on GOG.
Try heroic launcher it works very well with GOG games even has sync saves now!
Valve also contributes resources to gaming on Linux. It wouldn’t be as accessible without their help.
For what it’s worth, you can add a non-Steam game in Steam and still access all of the compatibility options. I find this considerably easier than trying to get the game to work manually.
lazy like I am
Pretty sure he means that Steam sorts out the Linux compatibilities for you, while other options leave you mucking with alternatives, e.g. GOG doesn’t have a Linux storefront so if not steam, then Lutris etc. As you say non-Steam import is an option but not as lazy. Just Steam having better service…
Which brings us back to Steam providing services that others don’t. Assholes like Epic (just an exemplar) would rather spend money on lawyers and executives than developing good software, then wonder why they can’t compete.
heroic launcher is the goat. imo the best windows game launcher out there not counting steam.
Heroic is your hero. It isn’t as straight forward but works all the time, most of the time, eventually.
https://github.com/Heroic-Games-Launcher/HeroicGamesLauncher
I’ve been using Lutris for years. Does Heroic do the same? Iirc heroic was made as an epic games store launcher.
I’ll say it is mostly focus on very specific libraries (e.g. GOG) but it is easier to use than Lutris. My experience with it was some hit and miss. That said, Lutris has scripts for out of the box mods, which is often needed for some older games.
it supports gog and maybe another couple of stores. I play cyberpunk on it
Heroic games launcher can work with GOG library too. It’s not as polished and easy to use as Steam, but it works, most of the time.
What? Steam certainly has Monopoly, you can buy it for $50
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:
- 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.
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:
- 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 it is a monopoly, it’s not the one I would start with.
why is it in quotes? gamers do have enormous choice, developers have enormous choice. and competing store fronts also have the enormous choice of not sucking shit.
It’s in quotes because it’s a quote.
no, there is a difference in quoting him, which serves the purpose in telling the readers what he said about his position, dignified with (“) and surrounding his whole quote.
vs.
highlighting a single word of what was said as the focus with (‘) to imply the inverse or perversion of.
“i like playing with my new toy” he said
anon likes playing with his new ‘toy’.
This is a really common headline thing, when the editor tries to put the important part of the quote into the headline while adding their own context around it. The actual quote is “Customers have enormous choice”. It’s basically the same line, PCGamer just swapped Customers with Gamers.
So I see Gaben has switched from wizard to old sea captain.
