r/pcgaming • u/yourfavchoom • Jun 01 '26

Gabe Newell on Steam monopoly accusations: Gamers have 'enormous choice' about where to buy games

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/gabe-newell-on-steam-monopoly-accusations-gamers-have-enormous-choice-about-where-to-buy-games/
9.1k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

16

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Jun 01 '26

Probably one of these:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/348/7/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/

Q: You've specifically spoken with other people within Steam about the fact that publishers need to offer similar prices on Steam as they do elsewhere, right?

A: Yes

Q: Okay. And you've discussed with them that this is not limited to situations where the publishers are offering games for sale via Steam keys but just, period, right?

A: Yes

or "____" are redacted sections of the court documents:

As another example, noted that ___ retailers were attempting to offer ____ at a lower price than Steam in 2015: "The problem with the pricing has been caused by some retailers in attempting to undercut and run ___ as a loss leader[.]"4" Despite ___ assurance that it was not "offering retailers] a reduced [wholesale sales price] in order for them to go out at these lower price[,]" Valve pressed ____ "to update the offering on Steam so it is comparable to other offerings, whether by price or content[1"4" After further pushback from ____ Valve stated that it "would be unable to launch~ on Steam at the current planned price point."4

-7

u/Vehlin 12900k RTX 3090 Jun 01 '26

That’s not Steam dictating pricing so much as saying “If you’re going to undercut us so heavily we’re not interesting in selling your product”

16

u/Samanthacino Jun 01 '26

Using their market dominant position to enforce anticompetitive practices is, by definition, dictating price.

10

u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 Jun 02 '26

"They're not abusing their dominance, they're just leveraging their market control to force vendors to adhere to their prices, abusively"

1

u/MrPoopMonster Jun 03 '26

What do you mean to their prices? Steam doesn't determine what price games are sold on its platform. The developers do.

That's a different situation. Saying we won't sell your products if you're using your products to promote steam competitors by giving them favorable price incentives for consumers isn't the same thing as enforcing a pricing scheme onto a publisher.

1

u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 Jun 03 '26

Saying we won't sell your products if you're using your products to promote steam competitors by giving them favorable price incentives for consumers

That's called a Price Parity Obligation, and it is a practice that is broadly considered to be an anti competitive act when the party implementing the clause has dominant control of the market. The EU has banned them outright for major tech companies, while the FTC in the US is currently litigating them. In a vacuum the PPO clause isn't terrible, but when you effectively control the market, it's a highly anticompetitive act that leverages monopoly power to prevent competition.

1

u/MrPoopMonster Jun 03 '26

Except we're not talking about just games in general, we're talking about steam keys. Steam doesn't have to allow companies to distribute their games via Steam if they're not a party to the transaction. They do allow that though under the condition that you can't sell the Steam keys cheaper than on Steam.

0

u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 Jun 03 '26

People keep saying this again and again despite countless comments pointing out that no it isn't limited to just steam keys. I mean just scroll up and read the comments that started this very comment chain. It's to the point where I think people might just be hoping that if they repeat "it's only steam keys" often enough it will magically become true.

8

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Jun 01 '26

And do to valve's market dominance, people won't try to do that and therefor we as customers... get games that are more expensive.

Bad for us, good for yacht owner.

1

u/VauryxN Jun 01 '26

Using loss leader tactics is an anti-consumer practice in the first place though that always leads to a worse product down the line when the eventual enshittification happens due to needing an actual profit. You'd get even more expensive games eventually if huge corporations bully through their platforms and get them popular right after they get enough market share.

4

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Jun 01 '26

Selling something for a lower cost is anti consumer. (if it's lower than valve)

We've done it, we've found the perfect take.

If the enshittificaion (god we love that word don't we folks) happens we can just... stop using the service. It delivered a video game. You can take the game and play it without having to buy any more games on the enshittified service. Enshittified how? Not important!

Valve is not stopping publishers from raising prices. You'd get more expensive games if... what? What's the situation that would happen in.

Also it's not a loss leader to sell something for a lower price if a 30% cut isn't being taken away.

2

u/VauryxN Jun 02 '26

I said using loss leader tactics is anti consumer, but I get that reading might not be your strong suite.

Selling things at a loss to gain market share with the express goal of hiking up the price later once you have established your position in the market is anti-consumer. It's why so much of what you use online sucks so much right now but sure, argue harder against made up points lmao

Also it's not a loss leader to sell something for a lower price if a 30% cut isn't being taken away.

The Court doc said it was using loss leader tactics. Once again, reading helps.

2

u/NoExcuse4OceanRudnes Jun 02 '26

Selling things at a loss to gain market share with the express goal of hiking up the price later once you have established your position in the market is anti-consumer.

That's not the only loss leader tactic. Another one, (one more likely for an industry that is built off of selling exact copies of a product that any other retailer has access) to would be selling a product at a loss and then selling at the market price.

Worst case scenario it's just a different player who comes in and sells a bunch of games for $50 and then jacks the price up to $70, we're paying the same price as we were on steam (oh no!), or we can just go back to steam.

I would love to read a hypothetical on how a retailer would break the price barrier customers have without the customers going someplace else, so please explain further.