Quoting: x_wingWell, in the moment you accept that devs following other anti-consumer practices it's okay because they need the extra money you're minimizing those practices.

There is a VERY large difference between selling your game on a store that everyone can use (hell, even we can by now via some frontends) with the only inconvenience being that you have to use something other than Steam for up to one year if you really want that game right now on one hand.
And on the other hand you have the practice of forcing developers to ask the same prices everywhere, even on places where you could ask for less due to a lower cut (or maybe because you want to push that other platform).

One is a minor to medium inconvenience for customers (and not even illegal), the other (again, if true) a serious misuse of market power that could prevent a gain of profit especially for smaller developers.
As well as artificially trying to uphold a monopoly-like market position - which is almost certainly illegal in itself.

Apples and oranges.

Quoting: BeamboomOr the opposite - that it ensures that Steam users are getting a lower price than they would if not.
I mean, it could easily go both ways, that devs would be adding the Valve cut on Steam (40% isn't it?), while operating with a different price elsewhere.

That's a very far-fetched theory. I 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.

It's not like Valve increases their cut - if they did, that would lead to higher prices on Steam.

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wing

Quoting: TheSHEEEPWho is doing what for the customers? Selling on Steam? Not selling on Steam?
Either way, of course not!
You don't develop games "for the customers", you do it either for yourself and/or because you want to make a profit with it - that's just a necessity of living in a world that requires money.
Some are nice enough to put extra effort in "for the customers" or because they feel like it's the right thing to do and those are generally favored by customers.
But when you get the option to earn 20% more just by selling somewhere else, on top of a fixed pile of cash by Epic (if this is what that was about) - you take it if you can. After all, you'll still be able to sell on Steam later. It's just a sound business decision. Wouldn't blame anyone for it, except if they promised not to beforehand.

I don't get your point. You seem to minimize other practices because "business" but also get mad at Steam with this practice because affects customers (which is debatable as there are examples of lower prices in other platforms).

I don't see how I minimize other practices. I just explained how as a developer, you do what you have to in order to stay afloat.

The practice of Steam of not allowing lower prices on other stores, if true, is what I criticize.

What examples of lower prices are you talking about?
If it is about Steam keys, those are excempt from the contract if I understood that correctly.
If there are more than those, then it is quite possible Steam didn't "catch" those (not all contractually "illegal" things are brought to court, after all) or the claim is indeed baseless - which I still think is unlikely because why make an entirely baseless claim to waste your time and money (lawyers, etc.) with?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Mohandevir

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: MohandevirReally not sure about this one... Nothing forces them to sell on Steam, anyway.

This is not how the PC gaming industry works, unfortunately.
You either sell on Steam or you can't sell your game because you don't got a large enough audience anywhere else.

It's either that or hoping for some kind of deal with Epic, Stadia, etc.

Sure, there are a handful of devs who managed to make some small profit without Steam, but those are so few and far between, they can be considered the exception that proves the rule.
EA tried to do that - as everyone knows, they failed and came crawling back to Steam.

Maybe, but my main point is that they are not doing this for the customers. This is just a false excuse. This one makes me really cynical.

This said... Blizzard is not on Steam, as far as I know? Overwatch? COD Warzone? WoW? Anybody?

Xbox, Playstation or Switch markets are not dictated by Steam either. Many developers are not publishing their games on PC at all.

Who is doing what for the customers? Selling on Steam? Not selling on Steam?
Either way, of course not!
You don't develop games "for the customers", you do it either for yourself and/or because you want to make a profit with it - that's just a necessity of living in a world that requires money.
Some are nice enough to put extra effort in "for the customers" or because they feel like it's the right thing to do and those are generally favored by customers.
But when you get the option to earn 20% more just by selling somewhere else, on top of a fixed pile of cash by Epic (if this is what that was about) - you take it if you can. After all, you'll still be able to sell on Steam later. It's just a sound business decision. Wouldn't blame anyone for it, except if they promised not to beforehand.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunktAnd you really think the lawsuit would never have happened? Do you know how many dumb lawsuits are filed all the time?

Liam linked the Tweet from Sweeney (which is what the lawsuit refers to, not the contract!) and people called him out already back in 2019.

Well, I'm not going to dig through a 27-page long lawsuit to see if their claim is really based on only a tweet.
That would be totally dumb indeed - so dumb that I simply refuse to believe someone wasted lawyer time on this.

Quoting: kuhpunktEpic said: lowers shares will lead to lower prices! Still costs $60.

That was a pretty silly claim on Epic's part.
I could see a few devs lowering their prices somewhat over at Epic, but certainly not all.

The lower shares are a very much required boon for small devs, though - AAA devs are fine anyway, as they usually get a better share on Steam as well and even if they didn't get a better cut, the sheer number of sales is generally enough.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MohandevirReally not sure about this one... Nothing forces them to sell on Steam, anyway.

This is not how the PC gaming industry works, unfortunately.
You either sell on Steam or you can't sell your game because you don't got a large enough audience anywhere else.

It's either that or hoping for some kind of deal with Epic, Stadia, etc.

Sure, there are a handful of devs who managed to make some small profit without Steam, but those are so few and far between, they can be considered the exception that proves the rule.
EA tried to do that - as everyone knows, they failed and came crawling back to Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunktThen please show the clause in the contract that dictates this.

From the article:

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.

This means that developers cannot have their game on itch, GOG, Humble or anywhere else at a lower price

Seems self-explanatory to me, I don't need to show you anything.

If this wasn't in the contract with Valve, the lawsuit would indeed be absurd.
But if this wasn't in the contract with Valve, the lawsuit would never have happened as it wasn't necessary to begin with.

You come off like a very aggressive fanboy here.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: SuppenSounds like a well deserved lawsuit

Absolutely.
That's an abuse of market power if I ever saw one.

And nobody profits - except Valve.
Customers get screwed, devs get screwed.

The equivalent would be Amazon not allowing sellers lower prices outside of Amazon's marketplace.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Liam goes brrr

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Basiani

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: slaapliedjeSure, maybe the gameplay didn't change, but what if they dropped Linux support because they couldn't figure out how to install a rootkit, but they did on the Windows version?

An online game needs good anti-cheat software, that's an unfortunate truth.
If rootkits are truly necessary or not is certainly up for debate (I'd say no), but it doesn't really matter for this point.
If an online game does not have good anti-cheat, then the quality of the game would definitely suffer.

I just don't see what the connection between dropping a platform and a game's quality has to do with this?

Two possilbe reasons:
1) Their rootkits doesn't work same way in Linux as on Windows, so it can't do anything against Linux cheaters.
2) Their rootkits can't be hidden from advanced Linux researchers and of caurse they not want that.

That's all correct, and it might be possible explanations of why a platform is dropped - security concerns.
But still nothing of that has anything to do with the quality of the game. I'm really not getting the connection here.

Quoting: areamanplaysgameI can link to Wikipedia, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tencent#Government_partnerships [External Link]

1.) Wikipedia as the arbiter of truth - come on :grin: It's good for anything historical or scientific, including IT, but as soon as politics are involved, I wouldn't trust Wikipedia more than the next best tabloid journalist...
2.) So, what? You think only the Chinese government has games made on behalf of them? Seriously?
3.) The post you quoted didn't quote Wikipedia to begin with ??

Quoting: areamanplaysgameYou should assume that big multinational corporations based in China are more or less directly controlled by the CCP

Except for the tiny part where this is simply untrue and typical western China bashing.
Even Chinese SOEs have a lot of leeway in how they run their businesses - privately owned companies even more so. And Tencent is not an SOE.
Are large companies monitored by the CCP? Of course - but as long as they don't take action against the government or get too uppity, they can do whatever they want.

Quoting: areamanplaysgameThey don't need your help.

Indeed they don't. And I don't think anyone here is defeding Tencents actions in anything.
What does need some help in the face of your blatant conspiracy of "they control everything!" is the truth, though.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedjeSure, maybe the gameplay didn't change, but what if they dropped Linux support because they couldn't figure out how to install a rootkit, but they did on the Windows version?

An online game needs good anti-cheat software, that's an unfortunate truth.
If rootkits are truly necessary or not is certainly up for debate (I'd say no), but it doesn't really matter for this point.
If an online game does not have good anti-cheat, then the quality of the game would definitely suffer.

I just don't see what the connection between dropping a platform and a game's quality has to do with this?

View this comment - View article - View full comments