10 ms·

Gabe Newell forced to testify in person in Steam antitrust case [pdf]

77 points by hotdogscout 3y ago

hotdogscout 3y ago
Valve is facing an antitrust lawsuit from two indie game developers who accuse it of abusing its market power by charging a 30% commission fee and preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms. The co-founder and president of Valve, Gabe Newell, has been ordered by a federal judge to give an in-person deposition in the case, despite his request to testify remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The judge ruled that Newell’s unique knowledge of Valve’s business strategies and policies was crucial for the plaintiffs’ case, and that a remote deposition would be unfair and inadequate. The deposition is scheduled to take place on December 15, 2023, in Seattle.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >accuse it of abusing its market power by charging a 30% commission fee and preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms. Sure, the plaintiff may not agree with Valve's 30% cut because they find it too steep, but unlike the iOS/Android marketplaces, Valves is not a monopoly marketplace in the PC space. There are other competing marketplaces they can go to like Epic, Windows store, GoG (which most likely also charge 30%) And plus, on PC you don't even need a marketplace to sell and run your game. Anyone can install software from whatever source. Heck, they can even host their games on google drive and share the link via e-mail to customers who buy their game off their website, or some ghetto solution like that if they wanna save a buck on distribution costs. Their livelihood is not being gatekept or threatened by Valve or any other marketplace like in the mobile space. So I still don't get their monopoly angle here.
  - paulryanrogers 3y ago
    Steam has an outsized share of the PC gaming market. They don't have to be the literal only option to violate the public trust.
  - nemomarx 3y ago
    The lower price part is probably more relevant? Honestly, I would pay 30% more for a game on steam than a download link on some website, but I definitely wouldn't use the website for the same price, right? The discount is the only way it could compete with steam at all.
  - kemayo 3y ago
    I think the argument is that Steam is sufficiently dominant in the PC-games marketplace that small publishers like this feel that they absolutely have to list their games there, and so have no option other than to accept Valve's terms. (With Valve's apparent "you can't sell your game cheaper anywhere else" term serving to lock in this state of affairs for Steam, by making it really hard for another store to compete on price.)
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
      Well, people want to be on the Steam store because many eyes look at it. That's what Valve built over time, their store has a lot of value even without selling the games.
      - paulryanrogers 3y ago
        > their store has a lot of value even without selling the game. Wait, what? If Steam doesn't sell games it has little value. So while Steam doesn't need some random indie game, singular. It does need games, plural. (Especially since being drunk on easy money, they haven't even managed to finish their founding game franchise.) Indies need Steam far more than Steam needs any one game. It's that power imbalance combined with Steam's terms (designed to entrench their market position) which are on trial.
        Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        Sorry I used confusing terminology. Steam provides a lot of value without selling the game, but just listing the game: their are extremely well known, have amazing systems for game discovery. That's why game devs feel compelled to list games on Steam.
    - happymellon 3y ago
      > With Valve's apparent "you can't sell your game cheaper anywhere else" term serving to lock in this state of affairs for Steam It is "you can't sell Steam keys elsewhere for less", not that you can't sell the game elsewhere for less. However I have bought Humble Bundles back in the day, and they gave me a steam key so there must be workarounds.
  - knome 3y ago
    >and preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms I think this is the crux of the matter, rather than the 30%. As much as I enjoy steam and don't care in the slightest that they charge a 30% fee for all they offer, I can't see any general benefit for any of the game companies to be able to dictate how game makers price their goods on other platforms or for direct sales. If Valve is making access contingent on competitor pricing, I could understand it being seen as anti-competitive behavior. It should be banned across all of the marketplaces if it somehow doesn't fall afoul of some consumer protection law already. edit: HideousKojima says below that the pricing only applies if they're selling steam keys. If that's the case, I can't see how this has merit. If you're selling Valve's support of your game to users, pay them what they ask. If you're selling elsewhere and Valve is uninvolved, then there would be an issue.
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
      I thought about that and realized they have a good reason. If they didn't do that, people would use Steam as a storefront to find games and then buy them on a different platform. So if this wasn't in place, Steam would be unable to make money. That being said, the indie developers could just set the game price to the same everywhere when they want to make a discount (which is what most do)
      - SXX 3y ago
        Valve dont actually demand of developers to run the same discounts everywhere at the same time. You can still for instance sell game cheaper on other store, but eventually you have to run the same discount on Steam.
      - nerdponx 3y ago
        > people would use Steam as a storefront to find games and then buy them on a different platform FWIW I do that anyway whenever I can find a platform that lets me buy and own the game outright, rather than depending on Valve having then good graces to continue allow me to log into Steam.
        3y ago
  - Probiotic6081 3y ago
    > Epic, Windows store, GoG VALVe has such strong network effects playing in their favour, nobody is gonna buy on those stores if it's also on Steam, except GoG maybe, as it lets you download the games DRM free IIRC
    - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
      I would buy on GoG, but after the steam deck, I buy again only on steam. They know their stuff at Valve.
      - smoldesu 3y ago
        If it's any consolation, Valve also makes it pretty easy to play GoG games on Deck. You can run GoG installers in Proton and set them up with their own virtualized C:/ drive like other Steam games. They do a good job ensuring that even if a competing store came out, users would have proper access to it. That's commitment to customer satisfaction worth supporting, but don't be afraid to support devs outside Steam either!
        Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        Kinda? You then have to figure out the correct graphic settings. I have BG3 on GoG (backed on kickstarter way back) and unfortunately it runs terribly on the Deck, to the point I'm not playing it right now
        argulane 3y ago
        tbh, Baldurs Gate 3 runs pretty terribly on my Ryzen desktop also.
        happymellon 3y ago
        The issue is that GoG does not support Linux. This is a GoG problem which could be solved, but they are uninterested in my money.
    - komali2 3y ago
  - gruez 3y ago
    >but unlike the iOS/Android marketplaces, Valves is not a monopoly marketplace in the PC space I don't see how the android marketplace is a monopoly, considering you can sideload downloaded apks with one toggle.
    - nindalf 3y ago
      One major difference - windows PCs don’t come with Steam pre-installed. Android phones do come with the Play Store. Defaults matter, because the vast majority of people don’t change defaults. That’s why Google pays Apple tens of billions to be the default search engine. Everyone who has steam installed on their PC made a conscious choice to do that. They went out of their way to store.Steampowered.com, downloaded and installed. Anti-trust regulators take a dim view of building market dominance by bundling. This is why Microsoft was forced to stop bundling some components with Windows back in the day.
      - gruez 3y ago
        >Anti-trust regulators take a dim view of building market dominance by bundling. This is why Microsoft was forced to stop bundling some components with Windows back in the day. except... internet explorer is still bundled with windows to this day?
        nindalf 3y ago
        Here’s what you could have googled, but didn’t - United States v. Microsoft Corp. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....) > The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java. Also of interest with respect to bundling - Microsoft Corp. v. Commission (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commissio...) > is a case brought by the European Commission of the European Union (EU) against Microsoft for abuse of its dominant position in the market (according to competition law). It started as a complaint from Sun Microsystems over Microsoft's licensing practices in 1993, and eventually resulted in the EU ordering Microsoft to divulge certain information about its server products and release a version of Microsoft Windows without Windows Media Player.
  - caslon 3y ago
    > Sure, the plaintiff may not agree with Valve's 30% cut berceuse they find it too steep, but unlike the iOS/Android marketplaces, Valves is not a monopoly marketplace in the PC space. There are other competing marketplaces they can go to like Epic, Windows store, GoG (which most likely also charge 30%) Epic charges 12%. Microsoft Store revenue split is, maximally, 100/0. For games, 88/12. Microsoft also, for years, paid you to make apps, even basic ones. Epic Store isn't profitable, billions of dollars burned since its creation. GOG split is actually worse in some cases. The 30% cut is great, in Steam's case. Like the Android and iOS marketplaces, there's sufficient value add and plenty of alternatives, so there's no reason an antitrust complaint really makes sense. In Android's case, there's the MIUI store, the Huawei store, Baidu's, Samsung's, Tencent's, and VIVO/OPPOs, and that's barely even getting into it. Since the start of the platform, manufacturers have been shipping alternative app stores. In Apple's case, there's Cydia, AltStore, and I've even seen a few Chinese sideloaded app stores that seem to be able to do some crazy things, like on-device IPA signing. That's not even getting into the most obvious option: PWAs. It's also not getting into the fact that Apple, as a minority vendor of smartphones in America, definitionally has no monopoly. Unless, that is, your definition of monopoly is ridiculously narrow.
    - nullwarp 3y ago
      Wow,that's a huge reach on the apple side of things.
      - caslon 3y ago
        Apple's market share in the US is 39%. Even if they were the primary source of applications for that 39%, 39% of a market does not a monopoly make.
        nullwarp 3y ago
        Yeah that's not the part I'm referring to. You compare alternative app stores on Android devices to apple alt stores requiring rooting an Apple device. Very different and not an equal comparison what so ever. Then referring to PWAs existence as an excuse for apple not having a monopoly to their device ignoring the fact apple has resisted PWAs in general and has taken a long time to even allow them to do something as basic as permit notifications. Your attempt at equating the two is very obviously flawed.
  - olliej 3y ago
    The problem is not the 30%, the problem is that you apparently can’t sell on steam for a higher price than you do on other market places (or directly): e.g steam is abusing its market position to get a higher royalty payment because from the end users point of view every other store costs the same, but they already have steam because it’s dominant in the market.
    - Tadpole9181 3y ago
      To be clear, this clause only applies to Steam Key sales. You can't sell keys to redeem on Steam for less than the Steam price, or Steam could get tricked into eating distribution service costs for nothing.
      - olliej 3y ago
        Yeah, I subsequently saw that restriction in other comments, and that seems to significantly impact how "reasonable" the complaint is. The problem is I'm unclear what part of steam "steam keys" are for - some comments imply it's the steam DRM mechanism? but you're implying there's ongoing operating costs so is it the cloud syncing or similar?
        HideousKojima 3y ago
        When you buy a Steam key for a game on a site other than Steam, you have to redeem it through Steam. The download of the game (and any future re-downloads, updates, and potentially multiplayer services) will be hosted by Steam.
        olliej 3y ago
        Ah so it’s the mechanism you’d use if you made a game and wanted to let people buy directly from your own site (say) without just saying “look for us on steam!”? If you sell the steam key yourself do you manually pay valve or is that “free” and they assume you’re managing the payment?
- samplatt 3y ago
  Wonder if the judge just wants to meet Gabe ...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- agbrrw 3y ago
  [flagged]
- HideousKojima 3y ago
  As far as I understand it, Steam only requires that you sell your game for the same price on other marketplaces if you're selling Steam keys. If you're selling a non-Steam license then you don't have to match prices at all and can sell for cheaper on Epic, Itch, GoG, etc. Can someone let me know if I'm misunderstanding? If that is actually the case then I don't see the devs' case having any merits whatsoever.
  - CodeWriter23 3y ago
    Can you actually sell a game on Steam without using Steam Keys? If so, what other knock-on effects (e.g., piracy) are the devs having to deal with?
    - kemayo 3y ago
      You don't have to use Steam keys to sell a game on Steam. Steam only issues those keys if you request them -- you only need them if you're selling your game somewhere other than Steam (or doing something like fulfilling Kickstarter preorders). If you don't request any keys, that just means that your game is only selling through the Steam store.
      - CodeWriter23 3y ago
        Thank you.
    - caslon 3y ago
      You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding, here. You can sell Steam keys on other platforms. Plenty of developers sell Steam keys on Itch, for example. You get to keep 100% of the revenue from an off-Steam Steam key sale. 100%! The only limitation is that they don't want you selling the keys for peanuts on other platforms. If your other platform is handling distribution, you can go nuts. Just don't charge 50% less on other platforms if you are depending on Steam for distribution.
      - CodeWriter23 3y ago
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  They can offer lower prices on other platforms. If I dual publish my game on the Epic Games Store and Steam, the pricing can be totally different. The rule is that I can't sell Steam Keys (basically a coupon redeemable for the game on Steam) for cheaper than I sell the game on Steam's marketplace. IMO, that's an important distinction. If they were demanding price parity with competing storefronts with their own launchers and DRM and whatnot, there would be a compelling argument for an antitrust case. The reality is not nearly that bad.
- ratg13 3y ago
  Gabe trying to leverage the non-emergency pandemic like a teenager that doesn’t want to go to school doesn’t start this off well for them.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    He could just be a hypochondriac afraid of catching COVID if he interacts with people.
ren_engineer 3y ago
how can Steam possibly get hit with antitrust when Apple and Google are allowed to do whatever they want with their app stores while controlling the hardware/OS?
- sushid 3y ago
  I mean the simple reply to that is: por que no los dos? Steam getting hit with an antitrust suit and losing could also pave the way for Apple and Google being forced to reduce their extortive rates.
- delecti 3y ago
  Because any given suit doesn't require bigger fish to be addressed first. Steam is in court because two indie devs decided to file suit. Those indie devs weren't required to wait their turn for worse examples of antitrust behavior to get dealt with first.
  - Pxtl 3y ago
    Yes, but Epic did battle Apple over the store thing. Epic lost on all fronts except the anti-steering rule: Epic is allowed to advertise their off-platform web store where they will sell you in-app-purchases for Fortnight without the Apple tax. Not sure if they offer higher-price versions of same purchases through Apple's store or you must do your shopping for skins and other silliness through Epic. However, AFAIK the final appeal battle at the US supreme court hasn't happened yet.
  - jowea 3y ago
    True, but if the Play Store and the iOS App Store are still going, what hope do these indie devs have?
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Apple lets you price differently elsewhere
  - Pxtl 3y ago
ufo 3y ago
Does anyone know why the order does not allow Gabe to wear a N95 mask while responding to questions?
wackget 3y ago
Random questions about US courts: 1. If someone files a suit, is a basic level of sense-checking done before the defendant is served and issued a summons? Basically I'm asking if someone could just file a lawsuit with absolutely no reason just to inconvenience someone else. 2. Can a court summon anyone to appear at any court anywhere in the country, or can the defendant choose to travel to their closest/most convenient court? (If the former, can the defendant claim travel expenses or similar?) 3. Is there a specific reason that in-person depositions are mandated in civil suits like this? It seems you could communicate everything you need to over video conferencing without having to be physically present, regardless of any COVID-type excuses. Gabe probably just can't be bothered travelling and I don't blame him.
- brokenodo 3y ago
  1. If filed by a lawyer, no. The clerk will just issue a summons. 2. In order to compel a person to appear a proceeding, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the person as a defendant, or if the person is a witness and not a defendant, they must be within the subpoena power of the court. 3. The order explains the court’s reasoning on this.
  - opello 3y ago
    It seems bizarre to me that an assessment of credibility requires in-person contact or that the indie developers could demonstrate the required prejudice that "remote" participation would provide. Or that "remote" means pre-recorded and not real time interactive?
afruitpie 3y ago
How would an in-person deposition be better than a remote one?
- pests 3y ago
  Vibe check.
gumballindie 3y ago
Corruption is truly fascinating. Gabe Newell of Steam is forced to testify, while the CEO of Microsoft is not. Guess who has more people involved in influencing politics? We can certainly debate steam’s fees but what steam does is a far cry from microsoft’s market dominance.
komali2 3y ago
Someone got nuked for asking why the court is explicitly not allowing Gabe to wear an n95 mask. I think it's a legit question. Weirdly , it seems to come down to some belief in the courts that lawyers can determine credibility through some combination of face and body language? I didn't realize courts still believed in that kind of thing, but then again, the notoriously mutable eyewitness testimony is still considered a gold standard for evidence apparently. So first of all, they reject remote because they can't determine credibility over a camera: > While other courts conclude that a deponent’s credibility can be comparably assessed through remote means, see, e.g., Henry v. Tacoma Police Dept., 2023 WL 5530201, slip op. at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2023), this Court is not of that opinion. And in that case, it was believed you can determine credibility better over camera with someone not wearing a mask, than you can with in person but wearing a mask: > attorneys have a better opportunity to observe and assess witnesses who are deposed in person as compared to video depositions—particularly where the witness’ [sic] credibility is an issue.” Dkt. No. 71 at 5. To the extent that statement i s intended to demonstrate prejudice, it fails. To the contrary, “it may be easier for [Defendants] to evaluate the credibility of [a] witness who appears via video conference without a mask than it is to evaluate the credibility of a witness who wears a mask while testifying in person This court decided no to both, they want the lawyers to be able to exercise their superhuman facial tic analysis skills in person and uninhibited apparently.
- avar 3y ago
  It's an interesting question in general, in particular since there's little distinction between an N95 and Gabe's beard in terms of how much of the underlying face you'd see. But you're leaving out this part, which is quite critical: > In hopes of alleviating Mr. Newell’s health concerns, the Court mandates the following additional health measures: all participants (including questioning counsel) must wear a tightly fitting certified N95, KF94, or KN95 face mask throughout the deposition. At his discretion, Mr. Newell may provide those certified masks to participants. But Mr. Newell shall remove his mask when responding to questions from Plaintiffs’ counsel. I.e. everyone else nearby will be required to wear a mask, and will presumably be far enough away to make COVID-19 transmission unlikely.
doublerabbit 3y ago
who are the indie companies? I want to ensure I never buy their games.
ewy1 3y ago
The amount of service developers receive for hosting their game on Steam seems underappreciated. For their 30% cut they provide content delivery, news publication, networking services (for multiplayer), forums, Steam Workshop (for hosting and sharing mods and addons), and management and trading of in-game items. Is it worth the 30% cut? That's not up to me, but at least they're not just hosting your 25mb .apk file like the Play store et al.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >Is it worth the 30% cut? That's not up to me In a similar vein, I feel it should be up to the dev if they want to charge more for that or not.

77 points by hotdogscout 3y ago

Valve is facing an antitrust lawsuit from two indie game developers who accuse it of abusing its market power by charging a 30% commission fee and preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms. The co-founder and president of Valve, Gabe Newell, has been ordered by a federal judge to give an in-person deposition in the case, despite his request to testify remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The judge ruled that Newell’s unique knowledge of Valve’s business strategies and policies was crucial for the plaintiffs’ case, and that a remote deposition would be unfair and inadequate. The deposition is scheduled to take place on December 15, 2023, in Seattle.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>accuse it of abusing its market power by charging a 30% commission fee and preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms. Sure, the plaintiff may not agree with Valve's 30% cut because they find it too steep, but unlike the iOS/Android marketplaces, Valves is not a monopoly marketplace in the PC space. There are other competing marketplaces they can go to like Epic, Windows store, GoG (which most likely also charge 30%) And plus, on PC you don't even need a marketplace to sell and run your game. Anyone can install software from whatever source. Heck, they can even host their games on google drive and share the link via e-mail to customers who buy their game off their website, or some ghetto solution like that if they wanna save a buck on distribution costs. Their livelihood is not being gatekept or threatened by Valve or any other marketplace like in the mobile space. So I still don't get their monopoly angle here.
- paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Steam has an outsized share of the PC gaming market. They don't have to be the literal only option to violate the public trust.
- nemomarx 3y ago
  The lower price part is probably more relevant? Honestly, I would pay 30% more for a game on steam than a download link on some website, but I definitely wouldn't use the website for the same price, right? The discount is the only way it could compete with steam at all.
- kemayo 3y ago
  I think the argument is that Steam is sufficiently dominant in the PC-games marketplace that small publishers like this feel that they absolutely have to list their games there, and so have no option other than to accept Valve's terms. (With Valve's apparent "you can't sell your game cheaper anywhere else" term serving to lock in this state of affairs for Steam, by making it really hard for another store to compete on price.)
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    Well, people want to be on the Steam store because many eyes look at it. That's what Valve built over time, their store has a lot of value even without selling the games.
    - paulryanrogers 3y ago
      > their store has a lot of value even without selling the game. Wait, what? If Steam doesn't sell games it has little value. So while Steam doesn't need some random indie game, singular. It does need games, plural. (Especially since being drunk on easy money, they haven't even managed to finish their founding game franchise.) Indies need Steam far more than Steam needs any one game. It's that power imbalance combined with Steam's terms (designed to entrench their market position) which are on trial.
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        Sorry I used confusing terminology. Steam provides a lot of value without selling the game, but just listing the game: their are extremely well known, have amazing systems for game discovery. That's why game devs feel compelled to list games on Steam.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    > With Valve's apparent "you can't sell your game cheaper anywhere else" term serving to lock in this state of affairs for Steam It is "you can't sell Steam keys elsewhere for less", not that you can't sell the game elsewhere for less. However I have bought Humble Bundles back in the day, and they gave me a steam key so there must be workarounds.
- knome 3y ago
  >and preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms I think this is the crux of the matter, rather than the 30%. As much as I enjoy steam and don't care in the slightest that they charge a 30% fee for all they offer, I can't see any general benefit for any of the game companies to be able to dictate how game makers price their goods on other platforms or for direct sales. If Valve is making access contingent on competitor pricing, I could understand it being seen as anti-competitive behavior. It should be banned across all of the marketplaces if it somehow doesn't fall afoul of some consumer protection law already. edit: HideousKojima says below that the pricing only applies if they're selling steam keys. If that's the case, I can't see how this has merit. If you're selling Valve's support of your game to users, pay them what they ask. If you're selling elsewhere and Valve is uninvolved, then there would be an issue.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    I thought about that and realized they have a good reason. If they didn't do that, people would use Steam as a storefront to find games and then buy them on a different platform. So if this wasn't in place, Steam would be unable to make money. That being said, the indie developers could just set the game price to the same everywhere when they want to make a discount (which is what most do)
    - SXX 3y ago
      Valve dont actually demand of developers to run the same discounts everywhere at the same time. You can still for instance sell game cheaper on other store, but eventually you have to run the same discount on Steam.
    - nerdponx 3y ago
      > people would use Steam as a storefront to find games and then buy them on a different platform FWIW I do that anyway whenever I can find a platform that lets me buy and own the game outright, rather than depending on Valve having then good graces to continue allow me to log into Steam.
      - 3y ago
- Probiotic6081 3y ago
  > Epic, Windows store, GoG VALVe has such strong network effects playing in their favour, nobody is gonna buy on those stores if it's also on Steam, except GoG maybe, as it lets you download the games DRM free IIRC
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
    I would buy on GoG, but after the steam deck, I buy again only on steam. They know their stuff at Valve.
    - smoldesu 3y ago
      If it's any consolation, Valve also makes it pretty easy to play GoG games on Deck. You can run GoG installers in Proton and set them up with their own virtualized C:/ drive like other Steam games. They do a good job ensuring that even if a competing store came out, users would have proper access to it. That's commitment to customer satisfaction worth supporting, but don't be afraid to support devs outside Steam either!
      - Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
        Kinda? You then have to figure out the correct graphic settings. I have BG3 on GoG (backed on kickstarter way back) and unfortunately it runs terribly on the Deck, to the point I'm not playing it right now
        argulane 3y ago
        tbh, Baldurs Gate 3 runs pretty terribly on my Ryzen desktop also.
        happymellon 3y ago
        The issue is that GoG does not support Linux. This is a GoG problem which could be solved, but they are uninterested in my money.
  - komali2 3y ago
- gruez 3y ago
  >but unlike the iOS/Android marketplaces, Valves is not a monopoly marketplace in the PC space I don't see how the android marketplace is a monopoly, considering you can sideload downloaded apks with one toggle.
  - nindalf 3y ago
    One major difference - windows PCs don’t come with Steam pre-installed. Android phones do come with the Play Store. Defaults matter, because the vast majority of people don’t change defaults. That’s why Google pays Apple tens of billions to be the default search engine. Everyone who has steam installed on their PC made a conscious choice to do that. They went out of their way to store.Steampowered.com, downloaded and installed. Anti-trust regulators take a dim view of building market dominance by bundling. This is why Microsoft was forced to stop bundling some components with Windows back in the day.
    - gruez 3y ago
      >Anti-trust regulators take a dim view of building market dominance by bundling. This is why Microsoft was forced to stop bundling some components with Windows back in the day. except... internet explorer is still bundled with windows to this day?
      - nindalf 3y ago
        Here’s what you could have googled, but didn’t - United States v. Microsoft Corp. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....) > The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally maintaining its monopoly position in the personal computer (PC) market, primarily through the legal and technical restrictions it put on the abilities of PC manufacturers (OEMs) and users to uninstall Internet Explorer and use other programs such as Netscape and Java. Also of interest with respect to bundling - Microsoft Corp. v. Commission (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commissio...) > is a case brought by the European Commission of the European Union (EU) against Microsoft for abuse of its dominant position in the market (according to competition law). It started as a complaint from Sun Microsystems over Microsoft's licensing practices in 1993, and eventually resulted in the EU ordering Microsoft to divulge certain information about its server products and release a version of Microsoft Windows without Windows Media Player.
- caslon 3y ago
  > Sure, the plaintiff may not agree with Valve's 30% cut berceuse they find it too steep, but unlike the iOS/Android marketplaces, Valves is not a monopoly marketplace in the PC space. There are other competing marketplaces they can go to like Epic, Windows store, GoG (which most likely also charge 30%) Epic charges 12%. Microsoft Store revenue split is, maximally, 100/0. For games, 88/12. Microsoft also, for years, paid you to make apps, even basic ones. Epic Store isn't profitable, billions of dollars burned since its creation. GOG split is actually worse in some cases. The 30% cut is great, in Steam's case. Like the Android and iOS marketplaces, there's sufficient value add and plenty of alternatives, so there's no reason an antitrust complaint really makes sense. In Android's case, there's the MIUI store, the Huawei store, Baidu's, Samsung's, Tencent's, and VIVO/OPPOs, and that's barely even getting into it. Since the start of the platform, manufacturers have been shipping alternative app stores. In Apple's case, there's Cydia, AltStore, and I've even seen a few Chinese sideloaded app stores that seem to be able to do some crazy things, like on-device IPA signing. That's not even getting into the most obvious option: PWAs. It's also not getting into the fact that Apple, as a minority vendor of smartphones in America, definitionally has no monopoly. Unless, that is, your definition of monopoly is ridiculously narrow.
  - nullwarp 3y ago
    Wow,that's a huge reach on the apple side of things.
    - caslon 3y ago
      Apple's market share in the US is 39%. Even if they were the primary source of applications for that 39%, 39% of a market does not a monopoly make.
      - nullwarp 3y ago
        Yeah that's not the part I'm referring to. You compare alternative app stores on Android devices to apple alt stores requiring rooting an Apple device. Very different and not an equal comparison what so ever. Then referring to PWAs existence as an excuse for apple not having a monopoly to their device ignoring the fact apple has resisted PWAs in general and has taken a long time to even allow them to do something as basic as permit notifications. Your attempt at equating the two is very obviously flawed.
- olliej 3y ago
  The problem is not the 30%, the problem is that you apparently can’t sell on steam for a higher price than you do on other market places (or directly): e.g steam is abusing its market position to get a higher royalty payment because from the end users point of view every other store costs the same, but they already have steam because it’s dominant in the market.
  - Tadpole9181 3y ago
    To be clear, this clause only applies to Steam Key sales. You can't sell keys to redeem on Steam for less than the Steam price, or Steam could get tricked into eating distribution service costs for nothing.
    - olliej 3y ago
      Yeah, I subsequently saw that restriction in other comments, and that seems to significantly impact how "reasonable" the complaint is. The problem is I'm unclear what part of steam "steam keys" are for - some comments imply it's the steam DRM mechanism? but you're implying there's ongoing operating costs so is it the cloud syncing or similar?
      - HideousKojima 3y ago
        When you buy a Steam key for a game on a site other than Steam, you have to redeem it through Steam. The download of the game (and any future re-downloads, updates, and potentially multiplayer services) will be hosted by Steam.
        olliej 3y ago
        Ah so it’s the mechanism you’d use if you made a game and wanted to let people buy directly from your own site (say) without just saying “look for us on steam!”? If you sell the steam key yourself do you manually pay valve or is that “free” and they assume you’re managing the payment?
samplatt 3y ago
Wonder if the judge just wants to meet Gabe ...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
agbrrw 3y ago
[flagged]
HideousKojima 3y ago
As far as I understand it, Steam only requires that you sell your game for the same price on other marketplaces if you're selling Steam keys. If you're selling a non-Steam license then you don't have to match prices at all and can sell for cheaper on Epic, Itch, GoG, etc. Can someone let me know if I'm misunderstanding? If that is actually the case then I don't see the devs' case having any merits whatsoever.
- CodeWriter23 3y ago
  Can you actually sell a game on Steam without using Steam Keys? If so, what other knock-on effects (e.g., piracy) are the devs having to deal with?
  - kemayo 3y ago
    You don't have to use Steam keys to sell a game on Steam. Steam only issues those keys if you request them -- you only need them if you're selling your game somewhere other than Steam (or doing something like fulfilling Kickstarter preorders). If you don't request any keys, that just means that your game is only selling through the Steam store.
    - CodeWriter23 3y ago
      Thank you.
  - caslon 3y ago
    You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding, here. You can sell Steam keys on other platforms. Plenty of developers sell Steam keys on Itch, for example. You get to keep 100% of the revenue from an off-Steam Steam key sale. 100%! The only limitation is that they don't want you selling the keys for peanuts on other platforms. If your other platform is handling distribution, you can go nuts. Just don't charge 50% less on other platforms if you are depending on Steam for distribution.
    - CodeWriter23 3y ago
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
They can offer lower prices on other platforms. If I dual publish my game on the Epic Games Store and Steam, the pricing can be totally different. The rule is that I can't sell Steam Keys (basically a coupon redeemable for the game on Steam) for cheaper than I sell the game on Steam's marketplace. IMO, that's an important distinction. If they were demanding price parity with competing storefronts with their own launchers and DRM and whatnot, there would be a compelling argument for an antitrust case. The reality is not nearly that bad.
ratg13 3y ago
Gabe trying to leverage the non-emergency pandemic like a teenager that doesn’t want to go to school doesn’t start this off well for them.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  He could just be a hypochondriac afraid of catching COVID if he interacts with people.

ren_engineer 3y ago

how can Steam possibly get hit with antitrust when Apple and Google are allowed to do whatever they want with their app stores while controlling the hardware/OS?

sushid 3y ago
I mean the simple reply to that is: por que no los dos? Steam getting hit with an antitrust suit and losing could also pave the way for Apple and Google being forced to reduce their extortive rates.
delecti 3y ago
Because any given suit doesn't require bigger fish to be addressed first. Steam is in court because two indie devs decided to file suit. Those indie devs weren't required to wait their turn for worse examples of antitrust behavior to get dealt with first.
- Pxtl 3y ago
  Yes, but Epic did battle Apple over the store thing. Epic lost on all fronts except the anti-steering rule: Epic is allowed to advertise their off-platform web store where they will sell you in-app-purchases for Fortnight without the Apple tax. Not sure if they offer higher-price versions of same purchases through Apple's store or you must do your shopping for skins and other silliness through Epic. However, AFAIK the final appeal battle at the US supreme court hasn't happened yet.
- jowea 3y ago
  True, but if the Play Store and the iOS App Store are still going, what hope do these indie devs have?
wahnfrieden 3y ago
Apple lets you price differently elsewhere
- Pxtl 3y ago

ufo 3y ago

Does anyone know why the order does not allow Gabe to wear a N95 mask while responding to questions?

wackget 3y ago

Random questions about US courts: 1. If someone files a suit, is a basic level of sense-checking done before the defendant is served and issued a summons? Basically I'm asking if someone could just file a lawsuit with absolutely no reason just to inconvenience someone else. 2. Can a court summon anyone to appear at any court anywhere in the country, or can the defendant choose to travel to their closest/most convenient court? (If the former, can the defendant claim travel expenses or similar?) 3. Is there a specific reason that in-person depositions are mandated in civil suits like this? It seems you could communicate everything you need to over video conferencing without having to be physically present, regardless of any COVID-type excuses. Gabe probably just can't be bothered travelling and I don't blame him.

brokenodo 3y ago
1. If filed by a lawyer, no. The clerk will just issue a summons. 2. In order to compel a person to appear a proceeding, the court must have personal jurisdiction over the person as a defendant, or if the person is a witness and not a defendant, they must be within the subpoena power of the court. 3. The order explains the court’s reasoning on this.
- opello 3y ago
  It seems bizarre to me that an assessment of credibility requires in-person contact or that the indie developers could demonstrate the required prejudice that "remote" participation would provide. Or that "remote" means pre-recorded and not real time interactive?

afruitpie 3y ago

How would an in-person deposition be better than a remote one?

pests 3y ago
Vibe check.

gumballindie 3y ago

Corruption is truly fascinating. Gabe Newell of Steam is forced to testify, while the CEO of Microsoft is not. Guess who has more people involved in influencing politics? We can certainly debate steam’s fees but what steam does is a far cry from microsoft’s market dominance.

komali2 3y ago

Someone got nuked for asking why the court is explicitly not allowing Gabe to wear an n95 mask. I think it's a legit question. Weirdly , it seems to come down to some belief in the courts that lawyers can determine credibility through some combination of face and body language? I didn't realize courts still believed in that kind of thing, but then again, the notoriously mutable eyewitness testimony is still considered a gold standard for evidence apparently. So first of all, they reject remote because they can't determine credibility over a camera: > While other courts conclude that a deponent’s credibility can be comparably assessed through remote means, see, e.g., Henry v. Tacoma Police Dept., 2023 WL 5530201, slip op. at 3 (W.D. Wash. 2023), this Court is not of that opinion. And in that case, it was believed you can determine credibility better over camera with someone not wearing a mask, than you can with in person but wearing a mask: > attorneys have a better opportunity to observe and assess witnesses who are deposed in person as compared to video depositions—particularly where the witness’ [sic] credibility is an issue.” Dkt. No. 71 at 5. To the extent that statement i s intended to demonstrate prejudice, it fails. To the contrary, “it may be easier for [Defendants] to evaluate the credibility of [a] witness who appears via video conference without a mask than it is to evaluate the credibility of a witness who wears a mask while testifying in person This court decided no to both, they want the lawyers to be able to exercise their superhuman facial tic analysis skills in person and uninhibited apparently.

avar 3y ago
It's an interesting question in general, in particular since there's little distinction between an N95 and Gabe's beard in terms of how much of the underlying face you'd see. But you're leaving out this part, which is quite critical: > In hopes of alleviating Mr. Newell’s health concerns, the Court mandates the following additional health measures: all participants (including questioning counsel) must wear a tightly fitting certified N95, KF94, or KN95 face mask throughout the deposition. At his discretion, Mr. Newell may provide those certified masks to participants. But Mr. Newell shall remove his mask when responding to questions from Plaintiffs’ counsel. I.e. everyone else nearby will be required to wear a mask, and will presumably be far enough away to make COVID-19 transmission unlikely.

doublerabbit 3y ago

who are the indie companies? I want to ensure I never buy their games.

ewy1 3y ago

The amount of service developers receive for hosting their game on Steam seems underappreciated. For their 30% cut they provide content delivery, news publication, networking services (for multiplayer), forums, Steam Workshop (for hosting and sharing mods and addons), and management and trading of in-game items. Is it worth the 30% cut? That's not up to me, but at least they're not just hosting your 25mb .apk file like the Play store et al.

johnnyanmac 3y ago
>Is it worth the 30% cut? That's not up to me In a similar vein, I feel it should be up to the dev if they want to charge more for that or not.