Enlarge
Getty / Aurich Lawson
reader comments
99
with 69 posters participating
Share this story
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Reddit
Further Reading
Humble Bundle creator brings antitrust lawsuit against Valve over Steam
Valve has issued a scathing response to
Wolfire's April lawsuit alleging anticompetitive monopoly practices on the Steam storefront
. In that response, Valve argues that the suit should be dismissed because it "fails to allege the most basic elements of an antitrust case."
There’s no right to free Steam keys
Wolfire's case centers in part on the fact that Valve requires
free Steam Keys
generated by developers using Valve's platform to be sold on other platforms at prices no lower than those offered on Steam. But Valve argues multiple times
in its filing
that it has "no obligation to distribute Steam Keys, let alone to allow developers to use Steam Keys to undercut their Steam prices in other stores."
The free key system, Valve says, is intended as a way to "[give] developers a free way to sell (or give away) a reasonable number of copies of their Steam-enabled games." With that in mind, restrictions on off-Steam pricing for those keys "prevents developers from free-riding on Valve’s investment in Steam." The pricing and quantity guidelines "prevent developers from eroding large quantities of sales on Steam, which Valve bears 100% of the expense of creating and maintaining, yet provides to users for free."
Valve goes on to say that the antitrust laws impose "no obligation on Valve to facilitate competition with itself" and points to supporting case-law to that effect. "Nor does Valve have a duty to continue offering [free keys], to grant them in unlimited numbers, or allow developers to use them to sell Steam-enabled games in other stores cheaper than on Steam," Valve argues.
Wolfire's lawsuit also alleges that Valve tries to enforce pricing parity not just for generated Steam keys but for non-Steam versions sold on other platforms. Valve, in its response, is not impressed with the factual basis for this allegation, which it says is tied to "a single anecdote of Valve allegedly telling one unnamed developer it shouldn’t give a non-Steam-enabled game free on Discord’s competing platform if it charges Steam users $5 for the Steam-enabled version of that game on Steam." That narrow anecdote, Valve argues, "fails to allege market-wide enforcement or plausibly lead to any effect on competition."
Advertisement
Further Reading
Steam’s “price parity rule” isn’t wreaking havoc on game prices
Wolfire's suit does present evidence that many games are priced at the same level on Steam and other storefronts that charge lower fees. But Valve argues that
this kind of pricing parity across storefronts is commonplace
. Even if it wasn't, Valve says, the lawsuit is missing "any factual allegation that Valve... did anything at all to affect, let alone coerce, the developers to sell at the same prices in two stores."
Competitive rates
Valve also takes Wolfire to task for not presenting any facts to back up its assertion that Steam's 30 percent base cut for game sales is higher than what would be available in a more "competitive" market. Instead, Valve says, "Plaintiffs can muster only a generalization that economics predicts Valve’s 30 percent commission should have decreased over time."
How big is Steam, really?
Wolfire's suit argues that Steam's alleged 75 percent marketshare in PC gaming (seemingly derived from a 2013 IHS Screen Digest estimate
cited here
) means that most PC game publishers have little choice but to sell their games there. But Valve says the suit "lack[s] any factual allegations" to support that number.
Valve goes on to argue that even measuring Steam's marketshare in the first place is not "intuitive" in a market that also includes "game storage, social networking, and an 'achievement system' and game-modification community" in addition to basic sales and distribution.
Valve points out that it hasn't increased its base fee since "Steam’s beginning when it had zero market share, and hence no power to charge anything but a competitive price." On the contrary, in 2018, Steam
reduced its fees for high-earning games
, a move the company suggests "lay[s] out the opposite of a supracompetitive commission."
Here, Valve points to
a 2008 antitrust case against Apple
and its iPod/iTunes markets for music. In that case, Apple successfully pointed out that it had maintained the same 99 cent cost per song "both before and after it obtained a monopoly—and never changed that price, even after a large seller (Amazon) entered the market."
The fact that Steam's 30 percent fee is higher than that of competitors like the Epic Games Store is a reflection that "the market allegedly regards Steam as superior... which is consistent with Valve’s ability to fairly command higher prices," Valve says. In support of this, Valve cites lines from Wolfire's own suit describing
consumer backlash when
Borderlands 3
was not available on Steam
.
"The Steam platform is far more than a middleman but offers real value to gamers and developers," Valve writes. "Indeed, gamers allegedly prize Steam so much that Epic’s offering popular games exclusively on its Epic Games Store platform 'caused backlash' and 'calls for boycotts' from gamers forced to 'wait for a Steam-enabled release or use a PC Desktop Gaming Platform they do not prefer.'"
