Gabe Newell says Steam doesn't pressure developers on pricing, emails suggest otherwise

[Axeia]

Dominant market position - yes. Monopoly no.

Depends on your definition.
By definition of law/regulations in most countries, yes.
In the US that's technically 70%+, but anything over 50% typically can expect a slap on the wrists.
In the EU they don't even name 'monopoly' but rather 'dominant' position.
Steam has a 75% market share, so they should expect by both of these important markets to be held to a higher standard.

By definition of the original meaning of the word, as in 100% - no. But words have their meaning changed all the time. You'd be hard pressed to find any company that completely 100% dominates in any market. I can't name any, ASML comes close but only once you start adding more and more restrictions to defining what this market is (e.g. litography machines capable of producing 'modern' chips, because China does make some that can't produce 'modern' chips)

 

[poshflamingos]

ahahah that answers everything. case closed.

Oh, does it now? Because to me, your ridiculous comment also told me everything I needed to know about you.

 

[Notmare]

No, The argument is that a flat fee for all devs being 30% makes no sense and that cost is pushed onto the consumer which it is. So obviously take the 30% away on your own store it will be cheaper. It aint rocket science.

It's not a flat fee, it scales down the more your game makes on their platform. That part of the Steam Distribution Agreement changed in 2018.

Also, I really don't see an issue with a store refusing to sell your product if you won't sell it for the same price you're selling it elsewhere. It's akin to reserving the right to refuse service to anyone. I'll remove it from my store based on those conditions, and it's your choice what you do next.

Like I pointed out earlier. If we assume that Steam will still receive a large portion of any game's sales figures, even with that higher price, then it only benefits Valve to let developers list the game for more on Steam. 30% of a higher price is more than 30% of a lower price, that is not rocket science. Will Valve see fewer sales because it's more expensive on Steam? The way some folks are talking here, I'd guess not. So it would be in Valves best interest, if they only wanted more money, to keep it at that higher price.

Question for you and others, to resolve this are companies relisting the game on Steam for the same lower price, or are they jacking up the price on all platforms to appease Valve?

 

[Notmare]

This is a slippery slope. If games cost more on Steam, but sales numbers don't decline, then everyone will start charging that higher amount everywhere else as well.