this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2026
63 points (87.1% liked)
Games
23195 readers
82 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This BS again. "In exchange for selling Steam Keys of your game on the internet (using steam as the vendor for your game), you, the developer agree to sell those steam keys at the cheapest price you offer. Steam doesn't set the price, takes the same cut from each key sold as almost every other platform including Nintendo, Epic, PS, Xbox, and GOG.
So I am struggling to understand what is anti-competitve about this.
https://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2019/09/GameRetailerCuts_infographic-1.png
https://www.ign.com/articles/2019/10/07/report-steams-30-cut-is-actually-the-industry-standard
That is just blatantly wrong. Steam takes 30%, Epic takes 12% after the first $1M.
I just wanted to point out that from the article they linked Valves cut of profits also drop by a certain amount per game sold.
And Epic also notoriously reduced their cut of profits under 1 million just last year.
I agree with you though.
*"almost" *. missed a word. Will update the comment.
The practice I've found the most concerning is the alleged "most-favored nation" clause/provision in the Steam Distribution Agreement. I haven't been able to actually find the actual Steam Distribution Agreement anywhere, which itself is concerning. I just see it mentioned alongside an NDA that must be signed.
The MFN basically requires that Valve never be undercut in any way, whether or not the game is distributed elsewhere using a Steam Key or not.
No discount. No bonus content. No perks. Steam key or direct download from your own website without any involvement of Valve whatsoever - it doesn't matter.
Edit: It seems it was not explicit in the agreement regarding non-key sales, but allegedly threatened and possibly enforced in practice.
https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/
Where did you get this information?
I have never seen and nobody has ever ~~provided~~ proven that Steam requires price parity for electronic game keys or physical copies that are not steam keys.
As far as I understand it, Steam only requires that you sell your game for the same price on other marketplaces if you're selling Steam keys. If you're selling a non-Steam license then you don't have to match prices at all and can sell for cheaper on Epic, Itch, GoG, etc.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys#3
I also want to point out that I believe if you sell steam keys anywhere else except the steam platform you get to keep 100% of those sales. Steam only takes a 30% cut from steam key sales sold on their own store front.
https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/
It seems it was not explicit in the agreement regarding non-key sales, but allegedly threatened and possibly enforced in practice.
Yep. I read the original statement from the original game dev that sued. Their lawsuit was unsuccessful and they decided to refile it as a class action as a result. Which is why in my original comment I said "This BS again", and "This has been alleged before".
Still it seems like no other devs are actually alleging this except 1-2 others. Out of thousands of game devs. Seems suspect.
Plus all of those games are still on steam, so no actual action was taken against them, one support person possibly misunderstood the question thinking he was selling steam keys and answered with incorrect information. I would get it if the game had been removed and that's why they were suing, and in that case I would be with them, but that's not the case. And Overgrowth is an old enough game that they could realistically risk it since there's very likely not that many new sells happening.
It’s anticompetitive when you have 90% market share and you do this. Monopolies are generally legal but can’t do certain things regular companies can.
How is it anticompetitive to regulate the price for items on their store? Valve doesn't dictate price on any other store unless they sell steam keys.
They have the highest market share because every other platform has been shit (until gog), and customers voted with their wallet. They aren't squeezing competition out, everyone else needs to suck less.
And Valve has to remove abusive clauses from their agreements with the devs so that it can actually happen, yes.
If you think removing those abusive clauses will have an impact on the market you're delusional.
Third party sellers have no reason to have a lower price on a different store, unless the store itself is paying them the offset of a lower price. That's only going to suffocate smaller stores that don't have money to burn.
And the stores with first party games can already create a bigger incentive for their store by keeping their games store exclusive because it would be the only place to play that particular game (it's why streaming services have gone down the route of exclusivity). Also having the game with a higher price point on Steam would just lead to a controversy which will hurts sales and damage the reputation of the company.
Removing the price parity clause will do nothing.
You mean that people who came up with those laws, as a consequence of monopolies abusing their power, were delusional. Take a step back to think what’s more likely.
In case you were not paying attention you said Valve has to remove abusive clauses, which there is only one in question here and that's about price parity, so other stores could compete. At not point did you mention any actual laws and at no point did I mention anything remotely related to laws. I said you thinking that removing that one clause will make other stores competitive is delusional thinking.
EDIT: And I got blocked. I guess that says all there is to say about OP.
Go gaslight someone else.
So sell epic keys or some other store fronts keys and move on with your life? There are other digital store keys they could sell at literally any price they want. And that's why this is bogus.
They don't have to sell their game digitally with steam keys. They can create keys on other platforms to sell their game.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. Market share has nothing to do with this.
Allegedly they can’t because confidential agreement prevents them. And they won’t move away from Steam because it’s a monopoly. Which is why this is illegal.
These fees are 30% cut of profits per game key sold, not an extra fee on top of that. So selling the steam key costs the same amount and nets about the same profit as selling a PlayStation or Nintendo key.
Literally every other online store (Epic, GOG, Xbox, PlayStation, ...) does the exact same thing when it comes to both game keys and DLCs. Seems frivolous on that point at least.
This has been alleged before. And it was a nothing burger then. There's a whole pictograph floating around comparing the cut that other game sale platforms take and I think only like 2 of them take a smaller than 30% cut.
This compares physical games to electronic keys, and that's also a nothing burger. The cost will be higher with those on the manufacturing side because of the cost of materials to make the physical copies, the logistics of delivery to retailers, and the cost of manufacturing them.
Steam isn't a monopoly. You keep using that word but it has a very finite legal definition. That definition provides that through practices of the company that are anti-consumer or anti-competitve, or both, the company retains a significant majority of the market share.
So again I'm not even suggesting that these devs leave steam. But the crux of the matter is that they want to use steam keys on other store fronts etc and don't want to pay steam 30% for the use of those steam keys. They can use a different store front with a different store front's game keys and still provide steam keys through steam. They are not required to use steam keys on their own website or other digital store fronts.
You also aren't required to launch games from or use steam for anything except downloading the game. You can launch them, update them, modify them, etc without even having steam running.
As I said before, DLC being tied to the store front that supplied the key makes sense and is a normal standard business practice.
If what you allege is true then literally no exclusive games on the Epic store could every be made available on steam (after the exclusivity contracted time ends), because I think what you're trying to suggest is that Steam (through confidential agreement) is forcing these devs to only provide steam keys. Which is a pretty bogus claim.
You’re missing the point.
Valve can’t enforce prices across other store by mandating they can’t be cheaper because they’re a monopolist. If this part of their agreement is true then they are out of the line, in breach of law, and should be punished. Being a monopoly isn’t illegal, how Valve got there doesn’t matter. Their behaviour as a monopolist matters. It’s literally the law in most civilised countries and those laws come from the times when people didn’t simp for monopolies.
I think it's you who is missing the point everyone is trying to explain to you. Valve doesn't dictate the price on other stores, want proof? Epic gives free games regularly, those same games are sold on steam, for example currently you can get Definitely not fried chicken for free on Epic, but it has never been free on steam.
Valve only forbids you to sell Steam keys cheaper than on Steam. And even then they tend to turn a blind eye to stuff like humble bundle. They provide you with free Steam keys that you can sell and keep 100% of the value, but in exchange you can't sell them cheaper than on Steam, which just seems like common sense really. If that lawsuit goes somewhere what Valve will do is charge for extra steam keys, or stop providing them, both of which are bad for developers.
Valve can for the keys that they provide. The keys they provide are free. Their agreement only is valid for Steam Keys. Those are freely generated Steam licenses of the game for the game dev to sell on other store fronts. For which the developer gets 100% of profits.
And steam is not a monopoly. I will not continue to reiterate the legal definition of that.
Steam keys means everything still happens in their store, with users attached to the platform without a way out. This is not a serious answer.
Steam is a monopoly because of their massive market share, that’s all there is to it, having irrelevant competition doesn’t matter in this case. You think monopoly = bad and therefore Steam can’t be a monopoly. That’s not how it works.
So use other licenses not provided by steam (epic for instance). That's the point of what I said.
You think monopoly = illegal and what I'm saying is that it doesn't meet the legal requirement to be a monopoly. This was never about good or bad.
Circular logic, no? Devs have to kneecap themselves by limiting their reach to stores with 5% cumulative market share or accept everything Valve wants. Take a look at this and see what happens when a big publisher goes against them:
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/-i-crysis-2-i-removed-from-steam
They are not required to disseminate steam keys outside of steam. They do so because the generation of steam keys is free and they can keep 100% of the profits of using those steam keys. In exchange for the key being free they only ask that if the keys generated from steam are the same price both on steam's storefront and elsewhere.
If I am the manufacturer of a widget that you design, and I provide that widget to you to sell while footing the bill for the manufacturing of that product and only ask for 30% of the profits when I sell that widget in my store, but ask for none of the profits from selling the widget I manufactured when you sell it in other stores like Walmart, so long as the price of the widget remains the same on my store as it does in that other store, that's pretty much an industry standard.
If you as the designer wish to have someone else manufacturer your widget design and then sell that manufactured widget at other storefronts then I have no control over the price as well I shouldn't because that has nothing to do with me unless I specifically request exclusivity (which is similar to what epic does). <-- It has been alleged that Valve doesn't have or include this clause as part of their agreement, but they are trying to strong arm this developer into exclusivity in pricing anyway. There has as yet been no definitive proof that this is true and out of thousands of developers, literally like 3 are alleging this is true.
So there are two different things that are being alleged here and we don't have proof for either of them.
We have no definitive proof that they are strong arming any company/developer into price parity for game keys that Steam/Valve does not generate. If they were doing this, that would be an anti-competitve practice, but again , where's the proof?
And we have no definitive proof that the 30% cut of sales that Valve/Steam take for games sold on their store front are an egregious cost considering the competition and how similar their service fees are. In fact, the fact that one or two other store fronts take a smaller commission of sales is notable here because if Valve were a legal monopoly this is shown to be competition forcing market correction. Except that it's not doing so because other companies have basically refused to lower their commission cut. There is no definitive proof that Valve is colluding with other companies in the industry to keep that cut high. That would be an anticompetitive practice. I am not arguing that it's not (just that we have nothing substantiate the claim).
Dude, you’re beyond help. Steam keys are a form of locking you in Steam. People are lazy, the main reason they don’t buy outside of Steam is because they like everything in one place. Valve knows this, hence their line „just resell keys” is plain malicious and you’re just doing free PR for Gabe.
Tell me what could be the precise reason for delisting Crysis 2 from Steam? Why is developers agreement with another party any consideration at all? If Apple delisted someone because their product was cheaper on an alternative to app store would that be ok? I’m sure it would cause an outrage and they’re not even a monopoly, unlike Valve.
I have not argued that steam keys don't lock you to the service. If that's all you have to say (and you trust EA, a corp known for bad consumer practices, instead treating the crysis 2 delisting as a he say she say event), you are beyond help and I don't see why you keep replying to me.
So you don’t see a problem with Valve’s solution not being a solution to everyone being locked in their platform. Valve monopoly is based on their gatekeeper status to the defacto industry standard game ownership ledger.
You must have loved Internet Explorer.