this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
160 points (84.5% liked)
Technology
85108 readers
4310 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But steam is taking an additional 30% for themselves. So the customer is always paying that premium.
Not exactly. If you buy a game on Steam, Valve takes a 30% cut of the first $10Mn in sales of that game and then lowers that cut as the game makes more sales.
BUT that 30% cut does not include Steam Keys. Steam Keys are free to generate and for use on non-Steam e-retailers. Valve do not make a 30% cut from Steam Keys.
Allegedly, WB and Ubisoft and Wolfire/Dark Catt have stated that they were told they can't sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than the same game is sold on Steam.
So the question is, do WB and Ubisoft and Dark Catt/Wolfire actually have proof that Valve is forcing them to sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than they do on Steam.
Or, do they specifically mean Steam Keys can't be sold for cheaper on other store fronts (which makes a whole lot of sense).
Steam isn't just the retailer in this scenario but the manufacturer. The companies/devs who own the game license Steam to produce their product at scale.
if prices are the same, then the publisher is the one paying the premium.
Not of the publisher is just pricing it 30% higher. Remember: they wanted to sell it for a lower price on their own stores and valve was against that.
So now the consumer has to pay more everywhere
the deal the publishers make with valve is that steam versions of games need to be priced the same everywhere. if they're not offering steam keys they're free to set any price.
also, if a publisher "wanted" to sell it for a lower price all they needed to do was lower the price everywhere. that's not what's happening.
It's insane how many people are spreading this bullshit. This is explicitly for stores not using Steam keys! You're right that they should be free to set their own prices. If you actually believe this, you need to be against Valve in this, assuming it proves to be true (which there is solid evidence already it is true).
Read the fucking article. They're being sued BECAUSE they threatened to remove a game because a different version that isn't on steam (no steam key) was being sold elsewhere for cheaper.
The thing you said isn't happening is EXACTLY THE THINGS THEY'RE BEING SUED FOR DOING.
Stop it
the starter pack was not available on steam. that means it's a collection of dlc. the online nature of the game means that dlc is also available on steam, it's just the package deal that isn't. that's textbook the thing they outline in their policy.
That is not what will happen in practice.
Yup. It would simply be more fair if this rule would be applied after distributors took their cut. Let devs make their games cheaper when platforms ask for a smaller share. That‘d only be reasonable.