From the opinion piece:
Last year, I pointed out how many big publishers came crawlin’ back to Steam after trying their own things: EA, Activision, Microsoft. This year, for the first time ever, two Blizzard games released on Steam: Overwatch and Diablo 4.
I’m glad steam and gog exist. Both provide an amazing service.
Hard ask for a Linux client when the Windows client is barely functional.
I’m fine with them existing, but if there are clauses preventing publishers from proposing their games both on steam and elsewhere while they can’t make it cheaper elsewhere, I would like these clauses to stop. I read somewhere there are such clauses and these kind of clauses seem very uncompetitive to me and I wonder why they are legal (if they are).
I don’t see a problem with it. Steam provides a ton of service as a marketplace and distributor. The social aspect of steam friends seeing what games you’re playing translates into advertising for your game. They allow for regional pricing adjustments so it’s not about blocking players from poorer countries from affording the game. And they have huge frameworks for digital item trading, achievement management, community discussion, modding and more. Their 30% cut of each sale policy is unilaterally enforced and in line with the fees charged by the VAST majority of other distributors. They don’t make exclusivity deals in exchange for taking a smaller cut, unlike some much less consumer-friendly markets. Their market is completely fair across the board. I think it’s also pretty fair to ask publishers not to push that 30% fee onto the consumer, by requiring the price on Steam to not exceed the price on any other marketplace.
That policy is to the benefit of steam customers, because they can be reasonably sure the steam price is the best price (currently) available. It’s not about exclusivity, it’s about protecting the value that Steam offers to the consumer.
I don’t see how any of that justifies that valve prohibits publishers from selling their games for cheaper on a platform other than steam.
If anything, the 30% cut is significant and if a developer finds a cheaper platform elsewhere, why wouldn’t he also be allowed to sell his game for cheaper there too?
It’s really dubious to see valve try to control developers market strategies on platforms other than steam.
Has that lawsuit gone anywhere? I’ve seen games published on origin and GoG for cheaper then they are on Steam. And Steam will honor developer provided game keys (hence why places like Humble and Green Man can sell games so cheaply). And after trying to research the claims, all I found was reports about the lawsuit existing. It seems like if that was real, there would be more than reports of a lawsuit and contradictory evidence by way of literally being able to buy games for cheaper on other platforms.
Not saying it’s total bullshit, just seems kind of suspect all things considered.
I wish someone would actually link that clause because I’ve searched and I didn’t find it.
I don’t have any, but I see the following: Cyperpunk 2077, which is available on steam, is cheaper than on the developer’s own platform (gog.com), despite both being at 50% off. Is there any incentive for CDPR to sell it more expensive on their platform?
