Check out our Monthly Survey Page to see what our users are running.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

Valve are in the legal spotlight again following the EU Commission Fine with a few more Steam troubles, as a new lawsuit has emerged with a claim about an "abuse" of their market power.

First picked up by the Hollywood Reporter, which has the full document showing the lawsuit was filed on January 28, was filed by 5 people together and doesn't appear to have any major companies backing it. The suit mentions how Valve require developers to sign an agreement that contains a "Most Favored Nations" provision to have developers keep the price of their games the same on Steam as other platforms. To be clear, they're talking about the Steam Distribution Agreement which isn't public and not what we can all see in the Steamworks documentation which talks about keys.

This means (if the claim is actually true) that developers cannot have their game on itch, GOG, Humble or anywhere else at a lower price, and so the lawsuit claims that other platforms are unable to compete on pricing "thereby insulating the Steam platform from competition" and that it "acts as an artificial barrier to entry by potential rival platforms and as higher prices lead to less sales of PC Games".

As part of the lawsuit it also names CD Projekt, Ubisoft, Devolver Digital and others.

It argues that if developers could legitimately set their own prices across different stores, they could lower their prices on stores that take a lower cut and "generate the same or even greater revenue per game as a result of the lower commissions, while lowering prices to consumers". They even directly bring up posts on Twitter from the Epic Games CEO, Tim Sweeney, like this one from 2019:

Steam has veto power over prices, so if a multi-store developer wishes to sell their game for a lower price on the Epic Games store than Steam, then: 1) Valve can simply say “no” 2) Pricing disparity would likely anger Steam users, leading to review bombing, etc

What are your thoughts on this? Should Valve be forced to allow developers to set their own prices, and not require their price to be the same as other stores?

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Misc, Steam, Valve
19 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. Find me on Mastodon.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
133 comments
Page: «9/14»
  Go to:

EagleDelta Feb 2, 2021
Quoting: Purple Library GuyHuh. Well, I guess if the allegation is true, that Valve's secret contracts involve making developers not sell their games cheaper anywhere else as a condition of being able to sell on Steam, that's kind of anti-competitive in that it stops other stores from trying to gain market share by underselling Steam. And if you foreclose on the whole concept of competition on price, that's likely to be bad for consumers.

Given the high hurdles in US antitrust law, even if the allegation is true that might well not be enough for Valve to actually lose the lawsuit, as noted by EagleDelta etc. But it's still a practice I'd find somewhat annoying--sure, you can understand why they'd want to do it, but then it's easy to understand why any company would do any anti-competitive practice . . . no company wants to be successfully competed against.

Of course if it ain't true then the filers are just assholes. And whether it's true or not, the filers could have questionable motivations and backing.

If you watch the video I linked, he talks about how MFNs are actually fairly standard across several industries. Additionally, without seeing the contracts, which I might add may require permission from the game developers to show, we only have the SteamWorks docs to go off. The video author noted that the contents there are not written in a way that constitutes an MFN. It's pretty much a "We don't know" right now.
TheSHEEEP Feb 2, 2021
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: x_wingOh, and I completely disagree on labeling people as you do. Buying a game on release date doesn't mean that you're an impulsive person, it just mean that you really enjoy a game. And that's what Epic exploits with their exclusivity.
So enjoy the game later, then! If not buying on Epic is so important to you. When I see that a game is on EGS that I know I'd really like to play, I simply wait. Is having to make that decision a disadvantage? Sure, but a very minor one. It's not like that is some herculean feat of willpower.

If making excuses for people not even able to deal with some irrational FOMO being suckered into buying from a store they don't actually want to buy from is what rocks your boat, have fun I guess.

If I get suckered into doing something I think I shouldn't do, it's my fault and nobody else's. Might even grant the other party some kudos as they got the better of me. What I won't do is blame them for something I did, as that would be pathetic.

Quoting: F.UltraTook me until I read the actual filing to realise that the 5 plaintiffs where all gamers, I for some reason thought that they where game developers.
Are you sure about this? That does make the whole thing indeed sound incredibly weird.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 2 February 2021 at 3:54 pm UTC
CatKiller Feb 2, 2021
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: TheSHEEEP
Quoting: F.UltraTook me until I read the actual filing to realise that the 5 plaintiffs where all gamers, I for some reason thought that they where game developers.
Are you sure about this? That does make the whole thing indeed sound incredibly weird.
It's 3 people that have bought games on Steam for themselves, and 2 people that have bought games on Steam for their children (which they think means they aren't themselves subject to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, despite them necessarily checking the box to say that they are). They aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.
TheSHEEEP Feb 2, 2021
View PC info
  • Supporter Plus
Quoting: CatKillerIt's 3 people that have bought games on Steam for themselves, and 2 people that have bought games on Steam for their children (which they think means they aren't themselves subject to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, despite them necessarily checking the box to say that they are). They aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.
How disappointing.
kuhpunkt Feb 2, 2021
Quoting: TheSHEEEP
Quoting: F.UltraTook me until I read the actual filing to realise that the 5 plaintiffs where all gamers, I for some reason thought that they where game developers.
Are you sure about this? That does make the whole thing indeed sound incredibly weird.

Yes, it's always on the very first page. Those are just five random people. The whole lawsuit is "Epic is better, Steam is bad."

Here's the lawyer that wrote this suit...

https://www.vorys.com/mccormick
randyl Feb 2, 2021
Quoting: CatKiller
Quoting: TheSHEEEP
Quoting: F.UltraTook me until I read the actual filing to realise that the 5 plaintiffs where all gamers, I for some reason thought that they where game developers.
Are you sure about this? That does make the whole thing indeed sound incredibly weird.
It's 3 people that have bought games on Steam for themselves, and 2 people that have bought games on Steam for their children (which they think means they aren't themselves subject to the Steam Subscriber Agreement, despite them necessarily checking the box to say that they are). They aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.
Just to clarify, as explained in the video above, the 2 adults are buying games for their minor children on the accounts of their children. The lawsuit doesn't stipulate the age of the children but Steam does not allow children 13 and under to have an account. That muddies the water a lot.

Quoting: EagleDelta
Quoting: Purple Library GuyHuh. Well, I guess if the allegation is true, that Valve's secret contracts involve making developers not sell their games cheaper anywhere else as a condition of being able to sell on Steam, that's kind of anti-competitive in that it stops other stores from trying to gain market share by underselling Steam. And if you foreclose on the whole concept of competition on price, that's likely to be bad for consumers.

Given the high hurdles in US antitrust law, even if the allegation is true that might well not be enough for Valve to actually lose the lawsuit, as noted by EagleDelta etc. But it's still a practice I'd find somewhat annoying--sure, you can understand why they'd want to do it, but then it's easy to understand why any company would do any anti-competitive practice . . . no company wants to be successfully competed against.

Of course if it ain't true then the filers are just assholes. And whether it's true or not, the filers could have questionable motivations and backing.

If you watch the video I linked, he talks about how MFNs are actually fairly standard across several industries. Additionally, without seeing the contracts, which I might add may require permission from the game developers to show, we only have the SteamWorks docs to go off. The video author noted that the contents there are not written in a way that constitutes an MFN. It's pretty much a "We don't know" right now.
Agreed! The video is very much worth a watch if anyone is truly interested in the legalities and details. There is is a strong legal argument for Valve having crossed some legal lines with their market share influence. But as the lawyer in the video explains that area in general is very gray.

The lawsuit further muddies the issue by naming several game publishers in the lawsuit including CD Projekt, Ubisoft, and several others. They claim these publishers have colluded with Valve while also being the victims of Valve which is an awkward position to sell.

There isn't much evidence actually presented by the case outside of economic theorizing and Tim Sweeney tweets. However the one part of the case, concerning Valve's market share influence, does have some evidence and statements by a Valve employee that support their claim that Valve is misusing its market dominance. Again, the problem being that there are many factors the claimants will need to clarify and solidly support in order for them to win unless they get a very sympathetic judge and jury.

TL;DR - watch the video because it is informative.


Last edited by randyl on 2 February 2021 at 5:24 pm UTC
BielFPs Feb 2, 2021
Personally I think Valve does this to prevent companies to sabotage steam by selling their games at higher price on purpose.

Imagine for ExamPle If a Competitor make a shady contract with the biggest dev companies, and the next hyped game would cost $40,00 in others stores and $65,00 on steam, where do you think most of the sales would happen?

If I'm not mistake, Valve also have a clause forbidding dlc to not be selling through steam if they're available in other stores , which was one of the reasons that made EA left Steam back then
kuhpunkt Feb 2, 2021
Quoting: BielFPsPersonally I think Valve does this to prevent companies to sabotage steam by selling their games at higher price on purpose.

You don't even know if Valve is actually doing this.

Quoting: BielFPsIf I'm not mistake, Valve also have a clause forbidding dlc to not be selling through steam if they're available in other stores , which was one of the reasons that made EA left Steam back then

EA sold Mass Effect through Steam, but they wanted to sell their DLC for those games with their own stuff, thus bypassing Steam. That's what Valve is not allowing.
Mal Feb 3, 2021
  • Supporter
Quoting: BielFPsImagine for ExamPle If a Competitor make a shady contract with the biggest dev companies, and the next hyped game would cost $40,00 in others stores and $65,00 on steam, where do you think most of the sales would happen?

Make it 60$ on other stores and 75$ on Steam and then we have something close to what would actually happen. Once people decided that the game is worth 60$ why would publishers decrease that price? Philantrophy? If anything they will increase it where they want to discourage the sells. In this case people would learn fo the game on Steam, get angry at the price, goodle and then learn that the desired price(sticky price) is available elsewhere.
Beamboom Feb 3, 2021
Quoting: TheSHEEEPI don't see any reason to expect that developers would suddenly raise their prices on one platform because they can lower their prices on another.

<...>

Most likely scenario is no price changes for the most part with a few devs or publishers lowering prices on platforms with a lower cut.

... Don't you see it's the exact same thing :)

- "Hi, I am developer X. My price on my game is $40 plus platform cut."

That means they set a higher price on Steam than those platforms with a lower cut. Whether you call this to raise the price on A or lower the price on B it's the exact same thing. And that is what Steam wants to avoid. They want their users to purchase the games at the same price on their platform as the other platforms, and avoid prices on Steam being higher.
And that may very likely - or at least quite possibly - *benefit* the Steam users.


Last edited by Beamboom on 3 February 2021 at 10:18 am UTC
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.