PCGaming

Wait, you're telling me that reinvesting in the business instead of increasing dividends and executive pay increases profits in the long term?

Preposterous!

Yeah, I don't think they realise Steam is itself a product to pay for. Sure, someone could come up with a free game manager, but that's only a part of Steam's services. There's all the licencing, marketing, communities, features, connecting to other platforms, a console mode, remote play, ongoing security, support for external titles, the workshop, great refund policies, all this stuff and Valve doesn't ask for a sub, pays all the staff involved, and stays on top of it all with premium quality.

No shit they take some off the top. How else could the Steam we love and know exist if they didn't?

The irony of this lawsuit trying to ruin things gamers cherish.

The cut they take is just one of the claims they have against Valve. Some of the other ones which another comment mentioned seem like fair arguments against Valve. The whole forcing pricing parity so game devs can't offer the games for cheaper somewhere else and DLC from other platforms isn't compatible with the Steam game and vice versa. And again you can say other platforms are doing that and worse too but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also go after Valve for it. Just cause they're a private company and because of that aren't as profit driven as other companies doesn't mean they still are gonna do things like this to increase their profits and maintain their majority market share on PC games.

Exactly. Epic's complaint is that steam has such a large user base that they can get away with the percentage they charge, but nothing is stopping people from having every game selling storefront at the same time. Steam doesn't do crappy stuff like exclusive deals with other companies to draw people in.

Now I only used Epic for a couple years, but I don't remember them doing sales. They did the free stuff which was mostly shovel ware crap, and their games stayed full price. I get games regularly at a discount on steam, which is a better deal as a user.

Epic is just whining that their terrible approach isn't as good as steam's.

They can and had done it before, see the link at the bottom of the article. Basically, game devs are forced to sell the game at the same retail price in all platforms regardless of the commission cut of the platform according to Steam license. BUT as a customer, usually other platforms are more expensive, so mileage may vary. I like Steam a lot and support it whenever I can but if there is evidence of wrongdoing I would change my mind, however, the complaint from the article smells strongly to cashgrab.

Except steam doesnt abuse their monopoly.

If they did, Epic wouldn't be allowed to use Fortnite and CCP blood money to bribe games to their shit store.

One leads to the other.

I literally just bought 3 games for $30 this morning.

in fact Steam requires developers to price the same if am not mistaken.

That practice is the whole point of the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims they're Anti-Competitive because of that.

And it doesn't sound too far fetched imo. They're stiffling other platforms by this.

But then, Sony and Epic and Microsoft have to pay as well because of exclusive deals.

This case might be good for customers .

The part about another platform charging less and they passing the savings on to the consumer... Yea I'll believe it when I see it. All these "pro consumer" arguments are usually just a masked way to keep more profits.

Now, a middleman keeping 30% or even 20% seems high to me all over so it will be interesting to see it play out.

The part about dlc purchased from competitors being incompatible is definitely anti consumer and should be challenged.

All of these same points can be made about microsoft, sony, nintendo. I agree that all these things could change and be better for the consumer but they should have gone after the mega corporation who lock content not only behind a platform but also a special computer you have to buy.