FYI, you're on a Beehaw community right now. This type of needless aggression may be acceptable elsewhere, but not on Beehaw.

Ah yes, because rich == bad

It's possible to be successful and have a good influence on the industry. Valve is the perfect example of that.

Uhm, I'm Not against your argument, but have you informed yourself in any manner before making this Statement.

We'll have to see what evidence they submit. I'm skeptical given that this lawsuit is funded by Epic. I have other skepticisms, but learning that Epic is the root of the lawsuit is what makes me doubt any legitimacy the claimants have. I posted a very long series of thoughts just elsewhere in the thread that goes into more detail. It's mostly nothing though since it's just my thoughts and we can't truly know until the case is settled or releases details.

My opinion, it comes down to Steam's ToS is regarding Steam Keys. Steam Keys sold not on Steam do not get 30% taken by Valve, but Valve still provides its services - cloud saves, forums, per game notes, complete controller remapping support and more. So, for example: A developer sells a game on Epic and generates 1,000 Steam keys - has 500 on Steam and 500 on a 3rd party site. The developer can sell the game on Epic for whatever price they want. $5. $20. $50. Whatever. Steam asks that whatever Steam Key is being sold is priced the same on every store front. No matter what they sell for though, none of that 30% is taken by Valve from the 3rd party sale. The Epic storefront in unaffiliated to the developer since they are not Steam Keys.

500 of those keys are now utilizing Steam's services without any of that sale revenue going to Valve. I have 20gb of Cloud Storage, if every user has that much and there are how many users on Steam... (120 million active users turns into 2 billion 400 million gigabytes, or far over two hundred thousand Terabytes. I think I mathed it right). They must have some serious cloud storage.

With that in mind, it seems reasonable to me that Valve not want developers to advertise other storefronts, nor does it seem unreasonable that they ask to have equitable pricing between store fronts i.e. if it's $5 on Itch then at some point it should go on sale for $5 on Steam.

Out of curiosity, what do you think Wolfire is in the right about? From my understanding, Humble Bundle can do whatever they want within the developers wishes regarding sales, and if they want to continue to sell games then they don't have to sell Steam keys to do it? It seems to me that Humble Bundle is trying to sell games for even cheaper on their storefront, while providing Steam keys which would be actively be putting strain on Valve, while Humble Bundle gets to benefit from the services being provided. What exactly is the issue here? Is it just that Valve is so large? So then at what point have they used their size to prevent games from being sold? I didn't see them during Control, Metro Exodus, Chiv 2, or Kenna or Mechwarriors 5 or really any of the other ~100+ games this has happened to. Or what about when Epic bought Rocket League or Fall Guys and removed it from Steam's storefront? Hm. I guess the video game giant that literally makes the Unreal engines doing far more egregious business is exempt from the same critiques.

I see a lot of instances of $$$ gating games, specifically away from Steam, but I feel like I've yet to see an example where Valve actively restricted the sale of a game from itch.io or Fanatical or quite literally any kind of exclusive whatsoever? So I'm just really curious what merit someone thinks that this suit actually has? It's just that none of what I've seen anywhere puts Valve in a bad light. Funny, the only actual bad court case I can think of was against AUS and resulted in worldwide refunds across the entire platform. Looking at Apple in the EU, I doubt U.S. will have any of those changes come our way. The other lawsuit I'm familiar with Valve is how Corsair is suing them for the bumpers on the Steam Controller. Patent trolls.

Basically, I see nothing to suggest that Steam is using their size to inhibit the sales of games on other platforms, only that they ask that it be equal. I saved the closest I ever came to seeing "some merit" and of course the info is from a now deleted user, so I can't even say what that was anymore. Though I'm sure it will be the evidence provided in court. For posterity, here is what Wolffire has to say about it.

Anyway, like I said I am curious if there is any legitimacy surrounding it, or if there's an aspect that I've been missing. However, I am very skeptical simply because it's being spearheaded by Epic. He straight up is saying in the blog post that "no cheaper game anywhere, not even if they're not Steam keys!" Overgrowth is not some hugely popular game, he was literally doing this move to try and sell more copies of the game. I highly doubt that Valve as a company threw their weight against this guy over this. Especially to the extent of which he claims "it's why all other storefronts have failed*.

I will say, I could understand more an employee mis-speaking or a miscommunication, but then to take what a random employee person allegedly said to court... Furthermore it goes onto say that developers are afraid if they don't sell on Steam then they will lose a majority of revenue... It has no acknowledgement of why that may be, like say the value of services that are provided by Steam? That whole cabal of devs could happily go to Epic or Itch or the Nintendo Switch. Only a fear of losing revenue for not supporting a platform because of the immense value it provides.

Literally, if it were any other series of storefronts - like if Fanatical, GMG, Itch.io all came together with a civil suit then I'd hear the fuck out of that antitrust case.

But... Humble Bundle complaining and Epic funding it? Hard pass, pass so hard I didn't even hit it pass. If Humble Bundle has an issue they are in a fine position to no longer sell Steam keys and that solves their problem. I don't think there is much merit in "I lose revenue because I chose not to sell my game on Steam.". About as much merit as making that argument for any console.

I mean, seriously! Just think of how many sales were lost by Wolffire just because they chose not to port the game to Switch PS4 and XBOX!

I don't really see a difference between the two, and I definitely do not see a monopoly or antitrust where Valve meddling in store sale pricing affects the success of competing stores. For one, price parity is standard everywhere - whether that's wrong or not is irrelevant, it's the reality that the case is ignoring. For two, as I said it completely ignores the services Steam provides which in my opinion are far more likely reasons for why people continue to use Steam. Steam gets us with the extreme sales and keeps us with the stellar services. Other store fronts are free to have those sales, but if they do not succeed I doubt it's due to price meddling and has far more to do with the services that are missing.

sigh sorry, I didn't mean for it to get this long. Especially since I just posted another comment about this length. However, I do feel this one does a better job explaining my understanding of the situation so... lol

I see, thanks for the clarification. That does sound a bit shitty on their part, especially because when most people are asked "gaming on PC?" they answer "Steam". Lower prices elsewhere might have given a better chance to other storefronts, although I don't think that would have made a huge difference, since Steam is THE storefront