https://techraptor.net/gaming/news/humble-bundle-creator-suing-valve-anti-trust-suit

Again the lawsuit is about illegal monopoly and the 30% cut Valve takes causing inflation in game prices, however this isn't the first time (especially within the last 12 months) that Valve have been presented with this type of Anti-trust suit.

The suit also goes into restrictions that are imposed on other stores that sell steam keys claiming that these store are forced into a position where they do not constitute meaningful competition.

Very nice to see that they are finally waking up, Valve's practices are highly anti-competitive, and I suppose they were passively accepted by developers because it was in fact a monopoly and they didn't have much choice.

Now that real competition is emerging with EGS, developers have realized that it's time to rebel. I'm sure this will also benefit GOG in the long run.

As MS-Store have now gone down to 12% cut as well, it seems that the Epic store have indeed had some impact (Epic is taking 12%)

Ha! You're kidding yourself really think GOG is gonna go down to 12%. Even if all the stores did it, they'd cry poor and say they can't afford that lesser cut.

I'm not sure about this.
GOG takes benefits cause epic paid for none-steam game builds. That's why we had few AAA games lately.

I'm not sure if GOG can stay in business if it has to lower its commission.

[edit] I think it sounds almost english now.

gog already did give devs a bigger cut a few years ago. They might even be near the 88/12 % split.

Edit: I could be wrong about the actual percentage of the split though and gog might indeed not stay in business with the 88% and 12% split.
Edit 2: Tbh, they most likely won't be able to keep up with the other big stores.

Do people really think Valve's gonna lose this one?

There are already tons of competitors in the PC market space on Windows here - EA has Origin; Activision has Battle.Net; UbiSoft has UPlay / UbiSoft Connect; CDP / GOG has GOG Galaxy; Epic has Epic Game Store; Bethesda has Bethesda.Net; Microsoft has Windows Store / Xbox for PC App; etc etc.

There's more than ONE Store and game-client here on Windows.

A lot of the AAA dev's and pub's already have their own service and are trying to cut out Steam, pretty much. Other companies....can pretty much go there.

Maybe all of these companies need to offer better discounts; better and more features; more Community features (Screenshot taking & posting); better toolsets; etc etc - and then gamers will go elsewhere, other than Steam.

When services actually add more than the basics and just a DRM-set/account-based set here, more than the usual MP-support and Cloud Save support - maybe they can flourish like Steam did.

It's nice to see Epic and Microsoft taking only a 12% cut - but, their services are super bare-bones compared to Steam. They all lack stuff like Controller Support built into the client; Big Picture Mode; Screenshot-taking & Posting; Remote Play Together feature; and other things of that sort.

Epic's offline mode doesn't really work well and needs to be improved and actually supported by game dev's that want to use it (don't expect Shenmue 3 Epic version to work offline, but I would guess GOG's version might work well); and Microsoft got tons of annoyances w/ their system - WindowsApp folder is locked, which is not good for game-moving, preservation, modding, and/or the usual PC gaming stuff we're used to here.

Also, there's games on Epic that where the base-game works offline DRM-FREE style, but the DLC's just don't so that you need the client going to run the DLC's - see The Outer Worlds and WWZ. And having that offline-mode for the client would be much better, similar to what often Steam does - if it actually worked properly and was supported properly by Epic and 3rd party dev's/pub's.

I understand Humble wanted say keyless activation & integration to stick around and that Valve pulled it - namely, they (Humble) to make it easier for people to buy more keys from Humble than say go finding the gray market - but really, what do they expect players to do w/ extra keys for games they already own? Let them just rot? Players are likely going to either give them away or sell on the gray market.

It's something called dumping, they drop the price because they have an unlimited amount of resource to do it (Epic for Unreal Engine and Fortnite and Microsoft because they are close to buy the world) we already see that a company with 12% revenues produce big money losses (read Epic financial results) but they have a parachute that allow them to do that.
And fun fact, with the prices of Epic Games Store and the 12% revenue, a developer recive less money selling a game on Epic than on GOG, Steam or any other store that charge 30%.

Bingo.

Both Epic and Microsoft can afford to drop their cut to 12% b/c of the amount of money they are making and brand awareness they both have. I also doubt games on Epic are also moving mountains of games & units like they do on Steam. Epic also has become the store for those who tolerate the store, just to grab freebies on.

If they sell well b/c it's exclusive on Epic for X amount of time - I'll still bet once the game launches on Steam (if it goes there after exclusive time-period's up), you'll have people like myself - who don't care for the Epic Store version for a certain game for some reason (i.e. Epic Store client issues w/ said game; lack of extras/features on that store; "-Target-line-"-EpicPortal" trick doesn't work on that game to get it to work DRM-FREE style; etc etc) - wind-up re-buying the game over on Steam (or GOG) when it gets cheap enough to suit them.

And people that didn't buy Epic version of a game b/c it was on that store exclusively for X amount of time - well, they'll likely buy it when it's on Steam, as that's the popular service for PC gaming these days.

As much as I think Steam's dominant market position does have some negative effects to PC gaming in general, I still hate bullshit lawsuits like this (which is what I thought also of Epic suing Apple and Google for not selling Fortnite for free on their stores). From that article: No they don't. Easy examples: Mojang, RedCandle Games and Knuckle Cracker ("Creeper World" games), along with lots of other publishers, sell their games just fine from their own web pages/stores.

However, many publishers choose to sell their games also on Steam as it really maximizes the number of potential customers, and because of all the nifty tools, multiplayer infrastructure etc. that Steam offers in their service for the developers.

Mojang didn't though as far as I know, the guy became insanely rich by just selling Minecraft from their own web page, and later even richer by selling the game to Microsoft. No Steam. The success of Steam kinda suppresses competition etc... but then what can you do, and can you blame Valve for being so successful? Other stores should just try to up their game, outdoing Steam in some way, in order to win the hearts of at least some customers.

Epic does that by offering free games (I just got Aliens: Isolation for free from there two days ago or so) and timed exclusives, GOG has its "old classic games" and "DRM-free" angles that lure at least some people to GOG, Microsoft hopes their store to become the default store for all Windows users by simply being there pre-installed on every Windows 10 PC, etc. etc. etc. And now both Epic and MS are trying to lure publishers by offering a bigger cut to the publishers, than what Steam and GOG apparently do. (That apparently doesn't make the Epic or MS versions of games cheaper than the Steam or GOG versions of games to the end customers, does it?) The other option would be that Valve wouldn't allow the selling of Steam keys outside their store at all, which is what most other stores are doing, GOG.com included (even if there may be a couple of GOG keys sold on HumbleStore). So again, I fail to see how this can be used against Steam. What is "justified", and how do they measure it? Have they given data how much does it cost to keep up all the services which allow people to download and update their games, cloud saves, multiplayer support etc.?

Is this again the leftist idea that any company should be making only minimum amount of profit, and anything over that is not justified and is exploitation of the customers (and/or the publishers)?

Could it be similarly argued that no game publisher/developer should be making much of any profit from their games? Otherwise they are exploiting us gamers, by selling their games in too high prices?

Someone: do these kind of bullshit lawsuits ever really fly? If I was the judge, I'd order a public execution of the plaintiff, right there and then. It would be televised and broadcast all over the world, 24/7 for the next five years non-stop. Just so that people learn their lesson: don't create bullshit lawsuits, they just make me angry. Frankly, I see that more as a sign of both Epic and MS struggling with the competition against Steam.

We'll see how GOG will react. Didn't they already get rid of "fair pricing" initiatives etc., saying it is because they have to react to Epic's increased competition (with their pricing), so GOG is expecting to have to lower their cut at some point as well?

@Tim

About Epic's lawsuit Apple - that was all about Epic not wanting to give Apple the percentage of MTX's off the store and them purposely getting kicked off the store, to try to prove a point...and which is also where Epic makes all their $. They didn't want to give apple 30% standard or so of MTX sales. Their point is: everything goes through the Apple store for their games via Apple's OS, as it's a closed system...unlike what Windows is like.

With Windows - well, EA got kicked off Steam for say Crysis 2 and Dragon Age 2 concerns w/ DLC's exclusive to Origin, back in the day. Well, EA didn't sue Valve, as they already had EADM/Origin for their games-to-download service. Nothing was stopping them to go to another store, either - just to make sure their games were on Windows, the "go to" platform/OS for PC gaming.

They (EA) just kept selling their games there (on EADM / Origin); and later decided that it was time to get all of the game and its DLC's back onto Steam, not too long ago...so they can move some units to those consumers who wanted the game on their preferred platform (Steam), that probably been waiting for an eternity for it to go back there.

Regardless - Valve, Epic, and Apple: they're all super-rich companies basically just trying to get even more filthy rich and come up w/ every tactic that they can do so.

EDIT:
Also, about Microsoft - I think they are trying to set the bar here for how to do Gaming Subscription Services with Game Pass....for the Xbox console, Xbox for PC, and/or Xbox Ultimate Game Pass.

Is this really a good thing? Shouldn't valve have the power to dictate matters when it comes to steamkeys? Ie what can Humble claim? That valve isn't allowing them to let steam users bypass their(ie valve's) own prices? I don't think a steam key reseller can ever be considered meaningful competition to steam in the first place, let alone have legal grounds to sue valve over anti-competitive practices.

And if valve or steam were to ever go under, unlikely as it is, all stores currently selling games(maybe with the exception of GOG and the libre-minded ones) will switch to subscription only. Its like the case with Adobe with Photoshop and Lightroom; in the absence of competition and the need to compete in prices, switching to a subscription based model is the next step to maximize profits.
EA is 60% of the way there, with their pricing already discouraging buying and ''owning''(in quotes because Origin) their games and their subscription offering much more value while not giving ownership.

Not to mention that besides itch.io, which has fewer curation tools than old steam, steam is the platform with the lowest barrier to entry for indie developers, and a step towards a publisher free world. All other stores are ''curated'' quite snobbishly (in degrees, with EGS interested only in big ones / moneymakers while GOG, while much better, still being prone to randomness) while valve is the only one that has the stand of allowing almost anything and letting the user decide.

"Game price inflation"? My ass!

I remember new games regularly going for 120 DM in the early 90s. With inflation that would be equivalent to over 90 Euros or $110 today. And you would sometimes have to wait for years before prices dropped into the 50-75% discount range which is still a far cry from todays sales prices. Not to speak of the fact that today seemingly everything is on sale all the time.

Some of those people didn't live through the earlier days of computer gaming and it shows...

Seems a bit far fetched. I'm not a Steam user but if a company does not like their practices they could go to other routes like itch.io and the like that take less than 30%. Also as MS and Epic sell things other than games they can take the hit when it comes how much % they take. Also why not bring this issue up sooner? Why now?

I have no dogs in this fight but I'm just not feeling the vibe of this at all but I'm also not a legal and business minded person so...

I am all for game devs making money, but I don't exactly understand the rage against the 30% cut specifically. What people seem to forget is that there are ALSO devs that work for the stores. We're talking about individuals who work as web developers, IT, QA, tech support, etc, etc. and ALSO have to make a living. And then there are associated costs of running the stores like electricity, hosting costs, office space rent, and such. So there is a physical cost associated running a digital store and paying their employees.

This is why I really don't understand the complaints about stores charging a cut - particularly Sweeney's complaints against Apple. Does he think that Apple's devs who maintain the App Store should not be paid for their work? By extension, should the web hosts and utility companies that support the App Store be forced to work for free? Because if every dev decided to side-step the App Store's cut/commission then that is what would effectively be happening. It would be the equivalent of me setting up my own sales booth in the local brick and mortar store because I don't want to pay to rent the storefront next door, hire staff, and cover utility costs to keep the lights on. It just makes no sense. Sure we could discuss whether Apple's closed ecosystem is fair (which would then necessitate discussion on whether closed-ecosystem consoles are fair), but that's a totally different topic than whether a dev is obligated to pay their agreed sales commission to a distributor.

Regarding 30% vs. 12% vs. [whatever the favorite number of the day is]. What I will say is that 30% appears to be an industry standard for everyone for digital games - consoles included. So it's not just one company driving that trend...it's all of them. If anything needs to be looked into in this regard, it would be collusion and price fixing across the entire gaming industry. However, if any particular company wants to lower their cut, they are apparently welcome to do so and some companies have chosen to do just that. Though keep in mind that Epic and Microsoft have recurring-revenue services like Fortnite and XBL/GamePass so they can afford to shift some of their costs around when it comes to one-off store purchases. If other storefronts started charging a monthly fee for some of their services then they could probably afford to shift their costs around too. At the end of the day though, it is up to the storefront to decide what cut makes the most sense for their business model, and it looks like a 30% cut is far lower than the cut taken by selling physical copies in a brick and mortar store.

Also, I have read many places now that Steam allows devs to generate Steam keys for free. As far as I know Steam keys being sold by stores like Humble Bundle have a 0% cut from Valve. Because of this I get really confused by the hate specifically against Valve and I am really confused about a former Humble founder hating on Valve over their 30% cut because Humble has probably reaped more benefits than anyone because of Steam's 0% cut on keys. So this news is surprising. I see the comments on the price parity rules, but I don't see a particular downside there. Any reseller appears to be more than welcome to sell for full price and still offer a larger cut to the devs. The only snag would be if they wanted to "pass the savings along to the customers" by offering a lower retail price, but I don't believe for a second that this is the goal of any reseller or game dev - it hasn't happened yet and never will.