this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
78 points (91.5% liked)
Games
20669 readers
339 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. That's not true. You're spreading misinformation. Read the fucking lawsuit.
It is true. Valve does not enforce price parity for non Steam keys. Here is an example where the dev says that they are offering a better price on EGS because of the better cut:
https://twitter.com/HeardOfTheStory/status/1700066610302603405
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/heard-of-the-story-ff3758
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1881940/Heard_of_the_Story/
Pretty clear example of the same game having a lower base price on Epic than on Steam.
Wolfire claiming Valve does this is something different from Valve actually doing it, and that's where the dispute lies. According to Valve, Wolfire's explanation of the price parity policy is incorrect.
Here's the policy itself: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys#3
The policy is pretty leanient regarding the "worse deal" aspect. You're allowed to have a sale on one platform but not on Steam, as long as you offer "something similar" at a different moment to Steam users too.
Even if you violate this policy, Valve will still sell your game, they may just stop providing you with Steam keys to sell.
I don't see Wolfire winning this tbh.
So can developers just 'create' steam keys out of thin air that can be used to activate their game on steam? Does Valve get paid when the keys are created or activated? Or not at all?
Seems fair maybe if it's using all of Steams infrastructure, considering developers can distribute the game themselves without steam keys.
Yes, that is the big thing many people are missing. Valve takes a 0% cut from Steam keys sold outside of their platform. The 30% does not apply.
The only rule Valve sets out here is that you don't sell those Steam keys for less on other storefronts. Which imo seems fair enough if Valve is doing the distribution and asking for nothing in return.
The big sticking point is whether the 30% cut isn't too high in the first place.
Yeah that's a pretty important distinction. I can buy Rimworld from the Steam store, or I can buy a Rimworld Steam key straight from the Ludeon website for the same price or I can buy a DRM copy for less I just won't get Steam features like automatic updates, cloud saves, or the mod workshop.
Seems reasonable they don't want you using the platform for distribution while undercutting the storefront price.
Yes, Valve enforcing price parity only when it's convenient for them is also addressed in the lawsuit.
The rest of your comment refers to Steam Keys. That's literally not what we're talking about.
But that is what the policy is about. Steam doesn't have a price parity policy regarding general game sales.
No, it's not. That's an entirely different policy that you keep bringing up for no reason. That policy is also anti-consumer bullshit but I digress. What I'm referring to is the following shady wording:
What? That wording isn't even relevant to the case. That's just Valve saying they will do a review of the price changes on Steam. They set out no specific requirements (other than a minimum price of $0.99, but will try to catch errors based on their pricing recommendations). It's similar to how Valve reviews new store pages and provides recommendations to devs on how to improve them. They do have rules against games set up for card farming scams, but that makes sense.
Wolfire's case is about how Valve as an extremely large player is impossible to go around, so game devs have no choice but to accept their 30% fee if they want to reach most of the market out there. Valve then uses these fees to entrench this supposed monopoly position (Wolfire specifically cites the acquisition of WON back in the day, which Valve eventually shut down and merged with Steam).
Wolfire argues that a fair price is much lower than 30%, and that Valve should lower the fee and therefore have less funds to fight their competitors, creating a more competitive environment.
They wording is specifically outlined on the lawsuit along with how it impacts competition. Read the damn thing.
Until the case is concluded, all we have to go on is what Wolfire says. And considering who the head of that developer is, I would not take their word for anything.
Yay. An argument from character. What did the head developer of Wolfire did that hurts its credibility more than... checks notes running an illegal casino for minors?
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
That's the policy on steam keys. If you are not using their steam keys it's not covered by their contract agreement at least.
The lawsuit is not yet finished and while we can take their complaints into account we can't take them for fact.
The case was already dismissed once because they argued the 30% was controlling the market but it's been there since day 1 of their storefront and has not changed to force game price changes. Beyond that they argue that Valve bought servers to take them offline to push players to them but... That's not really on this point of price controlling or the ability sell non steam keys.
Literally RuneScape does this by offering memberships not available on steam.
If you see something I am missing from the lawsuit please let me know, preferably without the hostility if you can manage.
Again, this is not about Steam Keys, it's about Steam using shady contracts to bully developers into price parity on completely unrelated stores. Yes, runescape is cheaper on Epic, the incredibly broad nature of these rules that allows for selective wishy-washy enforcing is also part of the lawsuit.
The whole thing because you didn't read it and, given that you keep bringing up Steam Keys, which is not what we're talking about, I'm skeptical that you can read at all.
So, you think a good way to correct someone is to directly insult them because you find their points unrelated but yours perfect? Rude. And the only thing steam controls via contract is the ability to sell your games via steam keys for price parity.
And you misunderstood my point. RuneScape isn't even on the epic game store so you aren't reading my words carefully. You are projecting your own hypocrisy.
No, I think you deserve to be insulted because you are talking out of your ass about something you didn't read. Again, this is about the price veto policy. This is not about Steam Keys (here's me hoping italics help with your dyslexia).
And yeah, I thought you meant runescape on the EGS not on their site. It doesn't matter because it has zero bearing on the discussion, I only addressed it because you didn't read the thing you're talking about.
You started in with being extremely rude so I'm just gonna move to ignoring your other commentary now.
Shocking I know.
Sorry that my mean words hurt you more than Valve abusing you.
You are not the hero here. Just another jerk.
Is that supposed to mean something?