this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
397 points (82.0% liked)
memes
21178 readers
1902 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do you have any examples? For reference, Steam does allow developers to list games on Steam and other platforms, and even to have lower prices on the other platforms. I haven't been able to find any true examples of anti-competitive practices by Steam.
I don't have a strong hate for Valve, but I'm fairly certain that they often DO have contracts that demand their store gets the lowest price available from at least some game developers. So if you offer a game for lower on Epic, you also have to drop your price to match it on Steam. There may be "sales" caveats in there, but I do think that's generally the rule in at least many cases.
In fact, I think they've been sued over that before. (Maybe they changed the policy after the lawsuit? I'm honestly not certain; sorry.) The argument went that if a developer could offer the game for $40 to everyone, then the storefronts could argue over their own markup, and maybe other storefronts would be willing to take less than Valve does. But as it is, Valve artificially keeps prices high on other storefronts with this approach to contracts.
If your experience is different I respect that, but I don't think that's universal.
Do you have something to show for it or not?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2g1md0l23o
Also
It was filed in 2024, and given approval to go to trial at the beginning of this year. It hasn't happened yet.
/Edit: The other person responding to this suggests that the "you can't charge lower elsewhere" clause exists when you use certain Steam features. (Selling Steam keys, using Steam's multiplayer backend.) And if that's the case that seems pretty reasonable to me. (I hear they're VERY kind about keys actually.) But I hope you'll understand that when articles I see why the case don't mention them, I don't know that's the case.
At the same time, I would almost understand outlets that don't cover digital goods like this may not understand this, or may not see the importance of them. So maybe they've dropped the ball here.
There is a paragraph in their store contract that specifically demands price matching with other stores, but only if you sell steam keys on other stores or use the valve infrastructure for multiplayer. How its enforced is another question, but the rule itself is fair.
Maybe big studios have different contracts, but I at least haven't heard anything contrary.
And you may well be completely on point. I don't recall hearing those specifics in articles I've read, but at the same time, some large outlets may not be familiar enough with the industry to recognize the importance of Steam keys to the argument.
Because I posted it elsewhere, in going to repost an example of the coverage of those lawsuits:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2g1md0l23o
Also
It was filed in 2024, and given approval to go to trial at the beginning of this year. It hasn't happened yet.