Valve gives you free steam keys for your game on request, which you can sell off steam, without paying Valve a cut. This has a specific rule that disallows selling those keys for a lower price. However, not sure if it's this case, there was an email from a Valve employee submitted as evidence telling a game developer that selling their game for less in general would be undercutting steam, and something they wouldn't want. If the email is real and not a misinterpretation, Valve indeed was/is pressuring developers to not sell games cheaper elsewhere.

Also, sales and giveaways are exempt from the steam key price parity rule, which I would assume epic's free games would fall under, if you applied the rule to that despite not involving steam keys.

That doesn't conclude anything.

Are these the same games that are part of this lawsuit? If they are not, then what does Epic giving away different games conclude that this is a false premise for the lawsuit?

Critically think about that statement, it's not logical.

Valve forces price parity with all platforms. So if they have lower charges, that saving cannot be passed on to the customer and so stops price competition.

I don't think the example at the end of your comment is relevant, since to my knowledge it's the publisher deciding on pricing and doing sales, and steam is still taking the same cut.

I also think it's generally not a great thing, since it basically puts the value of the game at $5, making it not worth getting off-sale, while also creating urgency to do so during a sale. I respect Factorio developers' choice to just not do sales at all, and state so, so that buyers know exactly what the price is.

the main reason this lawsuit is even moving is that leaked emails that indicate valve has a price parity policy even for non steamkeys, I really doubt those leaked emails since I have seen first hand plenty of cases of games having different prices, sometimes even extreme differemce in pricing, for example, mindustry is paid ln steam but free on itch.io, google play store and fdroid

even if those emails are true, that only is proof of one case not a proof that there is systemic policy of doing that

many other, even more questionable claims are raised withour evidence or drawn very dubiosly in the law suit

this lawsuit is pure theatre

beyond this, plenty of companies have even more and clearly anti competitive with their practices extending beyond game selling and distribution, namely apple and google, who control respectively iOS' (very genericly poorly named) apps store and play store who clearly display anti competive behaviour and are clear monopolies

Plenty of great games are not immune to failing even when they're on Steam. The market is tough. But at the same time, it makes perfect sense that Steam has a rule preventing you from taking advantage of their infrastructure for marketing and communicating with customers while you make it available on Epic first for less money.

It's more nuanced than that.

Choosing not to release on Steam isn't easy because it's not a balanced market, at all. It's trying to release a Disney-style animated movie, but only in adult theatres.

Steam is the 900-pound gorilla. Yes, they have a good interface, but they take a ludicrous portion of game revenue. Epic has a shit interface, but they take well-under half of the fees Steammdoes for the same game.

Gabe is not your friend. He's a billionaire yacht-collector. Half-Life 2 wasn't designed to be a great game. It was designed to launch a digital storefront that allowed Valve to rake in 30% of all revenue for games sold on the platform - which is often a larger percentage than is paid to the actual people making the games.

Why are we defending a system where the fucking checkout system is valued as much as the people making the games?

And to add to this, allowing a lower price on a different storefront isn't going to make the game cheaper to purchase. Either it's not going to have any impact on pricing, unless a competing store has money to burn and will pay the publisher extra to sell the game for cheaper (which will actually hurt only the smaller storefronts), or it will lead to games being overpriced on Steam which is a near guaranteed controversy to any publisher pulling this stunt, at which point it would be cheaper to not change pricing or just go full exclusivity.

It's an argument on paper but in practicality it's bullshit. If Steam removed this clause or wouldn't be a net positive for the consumer and worst case would be a net negative.

Every other storefront that has attempted to compete seems to either trip over itself by trying some anti-consumer behavior to increase short term profit(EGS, Uplay), lack discoverability features(itch), or not offer enough benefit to endure cost of change(GoG)

I'd argue that GoG also falls into the lack of discovery catagory.

That said, I'd argue that the lack of discovery isn't just a player issue, but ties back into the other side: publishers and devs. These storefronts/launchers are unessisary middle men. A software company can run its own store, and make its own launcher. Just look at so many of the big titles over the last two decades: Minecraft, League, Tarkov, War Thunder, Roblox, and more recently Hytale. Looking at players is only half the puzzle, the other half is how these storefronts compete against each other, and even agaist direct-to-customer sales for publishers.

So, for publishers/devs, what does Steam offer?

• Payment processing
• Distribution
• A very robust support system
• Discoverability
• Tools for online play and social features
• Lightweight DRM for those who want it
• Modding tools
• A community forum
• Tools to add compatibility to your games
• A plethora of extra features that improve your product for the players

And at what cost?

• 30% cut
• Tied to a forum, whether you want to be or not

Now to compare to, lets say, GOG:

Offers:

• Payment processing
• Distribution
• Some user support

Costs:

• 30% cut
• DRM is banned

Because of this, its no wonder that they can't get more of the market. Why would someone choose to sell there over Steam, or even over direct-to-consumer?

I'll be that guy and say that I do prefer buying from GOG, going as far as paying more money in doing so, so the issue isn't really 'friction' but 'mfs don't bother offering on GOG'.

My hate for drm has only grown over the last two decades, and so I'll get stuff wherever I can that isn't plastered with it. But it's not even a rounding error in comparing the number of games available of steam vs GOG. You'd have to go so far out with zeros that you fall off the page before encountering a positive value (0.00000[...]00001%). Which is upsetting and frustrating, since the other option is steam or piracy. And I do like rewarding developers for their work, so that leaves one option basically all the time.