Read on Twitter
I'm surprised it took this long for someone to have a pop at this: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2021-01-30-new-lawsuit-accuses-valve-of-abusing-steam-market-power-to-prevent-price-competition
The clause is a bit of a bind because ~ostensibly~ a big part of the reason it was implemented was down to folks using Steam to deliver keys and downloads, skipping the paying Valve for it bit. Free keys! Free hosting! Free delivery!
[usual Twitter "this is not me defending it" nuance and context clause of my own]
Wasn't so much a problem when Valve were picking and choosing a small number of people to sell on their platform, once the brakes were off, any system that can be exploited etc...
Add to that, bundling saw a handful of firms taking the absolute piss. Giving away n thousand keys because "Steam keys are free" and folks were largely trained into not seeing keys as inventory when selling on Steam.
* I'm thinking bundle firms, other stores, here rather than publishers. Though also, some shadier publishers too.
So Valve are obviously inclined to try and address this and bingo, here we are.
I mean, it *was* getting well silly. 50,000 key giveaways and that. Smaller devs used to uplift the folks insisting on the giveaways with nothing reciprocal. May as well have had people pirate the games for the benefit these giveaways made.
Obv. the fundamental problems here are that Steam keys and Steam as DRM exist in the way they do at all. That devs were forced to acquiesce to "Steam or no sale" by a group of buyers, undermining direct sales entirely. That exploitative bundlers, stores, pubs exist.
The past decade has been an abject lesson in making a shit of things in exchange for bigger numbers for some people, bigger hopes for some people and a complete impossibility to deliver on those hopes for the bulk of people.
It's a lot more complex than "the clause keeps prices high" (I'd argue that's largely not the clause doing that *and* for most people selling games, wtf even are high prices?). HOWEVER.
Vastly more concerning to me is the power a clause like this holds over small developers.
Like, if I get a mail from a huge company that has the power to wipe out my entire business overnight saying they're upset at me breaking this, I have no power in this relationship at all.
Like, if I get a mail from a huge company that has the power to wipe out my entire business overnight saying they're upset at me breaking this, I have no power in this relationship at all.
I don't trust *any* company with that sort of reach, power, market position to not wield it as a threat, to not wield it incorrectly, at some point and there is no recourse when they do.
I have no clue whether Valve have or have not. Just generally, this is seriously asymmetrical stuff in the old power stakes.
For a smaller developer, what it provides in protection from predatory publishers isn't insubstantial. It does work to undercut a few nasty avenues.
Just, you know, we still have plenty of the same publishers still in business, using different avenues.
Just, you know, we still have plenty of the same publishers still in business, using different avenues.
**this is not an argument for the clause**
It's an argument that we have a lot of work to do to provide protections, safety nets and information to developers _as well as addressing the mess that clauses like this create_
It's an argument that we have a lot of work to do to provide protections, safety nets and information to developers _as well as addressing the mess that clauses like this create_
I also think replacing one huge company with another is the opposite of the answer, no matter how much they pull caring faces at us and posit themselves as sticking it to the man.
Sticking it to the man by *checks notes* having enough money to buy a gazillion yachts, every hour of every day, thanks to one all encompassing videogame.
Not convinced but nice try etc...
Not convinced but nice try etc...
Ok. So. Actually kind of weirded out by the response from some corners of gaming to the Valve lawsuit stuff.
Like, yes -- this is a thing. I'm sorry you logged in to Steam Direct and didn't find it but nobody is making up the stuff about Valve wanting best prices for Steam.
Like, yes -- this is a thing. I'm sorry you logged in to Steam Direct and didn't find it but nobody is making up the stuff about Valve wanting best prices for Steam.
It's not straightforward because the whole key ecosystem isn't straightforward. See above etc...
I think, from reading some comments about the place, there's maybe the idea that you pay £100 or whatever it is, set the price, pop your store up and go -- only hearing from Valve over sales and stuff.
Which, to be fair, absolutely is the bulk of folk's experience with Steam.
Which, to be fair, absolutely is the bulk of folk's experience with Steam.
Because:
Most folk aren't gaming the system in any way - they're just punting the game up and generally getting on with their existence so Valve have absolutely no reason to get involved.
Also:
Most folk aren't gaming the system in any way - they're just punting the game up and generally getting on with their existence so Valve have absolutely no reason to get involved.
Also:
Most folk aren't selling enough or have enough buzz around the work for Valve to be hands on with them in any way.
So, it's like being ignored to get on with stuff is normal right up until it isn't.
So, it's like being ignored to get on with stuff is normal right up until it isn't.
It doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen, it's just business shit that nobody really gets to see going on because why would they?
But the one that gets me the most is folks like "ah well, Tim Sweeney has no personal experience of publishing games himself on Steam he's making stuff up" and mates, people in games talk to each other. People at Epic publish on Steam. Rich people talk to other rich people.
The idea that Tim Sweeney doesn't, couldn't, know the ins and outs of a publishing agreement, terms, and if he wanted to *the entire process of publishing on Steam in the most granular detail possible* - is totally weird.
Yeah, random dude who paid £100 knows but prominent person in games doesn't?
How does this even make sense when it's said out loud?
How does this even make sense when it's said out loud?
