Steam distribution policy prohibits Epic Games / Tim Sweeney from exclusivizing any Steam-marketed games

[Drak3]

24 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Why the hell does Steam get to decide it has ownership and rights over your own property?

They don't. The developers and publishers made an agreement with Valve, and now Valve is enforcing that agreement so devs and publishers don't take advantage of them.

[JZStudios]

10 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

They don't. The developers and publishers made an agreement with Valve, and now Valve is enforcing that agreement so devs and publishers don't take advantage of them.

How do they take advantage? Steam isn't pushing their pages in most instances, unless it's a really big game. It's basically just a simple web page that isn't expected to be paid for. They could add a fee I guess, but that's still shitty and I wouldn't want to publish my game there. By enforcing you to sell on their platform, they're basically claiming they have rights over your IP, at the very least distribution rights. They don't. Valve doesn't and shouldn't own shit.

 

And how do they plan to enforce it without disgusting the developers and publishers, and potentially even consumers? I'll be pissed if Valve sues someone because they pulled their own fucking product from sale.

 

Ironically, in actual stores, unless there's an exclusivity agreement and deal in place, any company can pull it's products from store shelves at any time and sell them elsewhere.

Conversely, any store can stop selling certain products and switch to another one. Costco used to sell Coca-Cola drinks in the food court, but Coke raised the prices so Costco would have to change it's food pricing for the first time in like 20 years. They asked Coke to lower it, Coke said no, so overnight Costco switched every single store globally to Pepsi products.

[Thaldor]

2 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

-snip-

Well you are completely free to go and advertise your service/game/product to Walmart and test how fast you get escorted out. You could even start a test and try that in multiple different stores and rank them based on how fast security is called, how much force security uses and other nice stats. You could also take it a step forward and make some shady deal with stores so you get them to hype and advertise your product and just before the launch day pull it out and sell it elsewhere and see how fast that store is going to sue you and how much they are going to ask for "damages".

 

You know what EULA and TOS are? "End User License Agreement" and "Terms Of Use", even if in EU we can basicly pee all over them because they are not that legally binding for consumers but for companies they are still, even in here, 100% binding legal agreements (in the US they are that even for the consumers). Steam Distribution Agreement is completely binding legal agreement that publisher/developer signs when creating the Steam page and oh no, there are actually clauses in that agreement that the publisher/developer must follow, it's like someone would actually MAKE AN CONTRACT with Steam to publish their game on Steam. Like, where the hell the world is going when contracts might actually have binding clauses? It's like you really would need to read where you put your name on and that piece of thing would actually tell what the you CAN and CANNOT do.

 

With your logic can I just sign exclusivity deal with Epic, take the money and release the game also on Steam if the contracts aren't binding?

[Drak3]

20 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Steam isn't pushing their pages in most instances, unless it's a really big game.

Steam is hosting your page and running preorders or notifications. You signed a contract that says you'll sell on Steam in exchange for that service, prior to using it.

 

26 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

By enforcing you to sell on their platform, they're basically claiming they have rights over your IP, at the very least distribution rights.

No, they aren't. By enforcing the contract, Valve is rightfully claiming what they're entitled to, as Valve has upheld their end of the contract.

[ravenshrike]

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

5 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

 

So what happens when games get de-listed, or another crappy Kickstarter project falls through? This is a weird precedent where it seems like Valve is trying to take ownership over your product.

Nothing. If the game is not sold commercially, nothing happens. It is entirely predicated on the game itself being released.

 

3 hours ago, 79wjd said:

But as you pointed out, that point applies if they created a steam page; even then, it is still only a deterrence. The publisher can still decide that pulling the content is more beneficial than the punishment is hurtful.

 

Given that the courts would almost certainly award Valve either X% of profit based on install base size of EGS vs Steam or just the total monetary value of any signing bonus/advance offered by Epic Games, there would be little to no benefit.

 

 

 

As to why they're not enforcing it, that would be because there's no reason to do so against indie devs. The amount of money they would make would be marginal and they would almost certainly be seen as a bully, in the right or not. Unlike most companies, Valve at least marginally cares about such a thing. This means the only one who it would be worthwhile to go after at all would have been Metro:Exodus' publisher. However given that EGS was much more popular then regarding public image than it is now, it will be interesting to see if they go after Private Division after Outer Worlds is released.

[Delicieuxz]

5 hours ago, PocketNerd said:

That clause (whether old or new) doesn't block exclusivity in any way, shape, or form. What it DOES do is ensure that developers and publishers actually commit to releasing on Steam once they make a page for their game.

Since it mandates that a game advertised on Steam be released on Steam no later than it releases on other platforms, that does purport to block exclusivity on other platforms of games with Steam store pages.

 

From the OP title:

Quote

Valve blocks Epic Games and Tim Sweeney from exclusivizing any more Steam games

 

From the OP:

21 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

The new stipulation in the Steam Distribution Agreement requires that products for which a publisher has created a Steam store page must be released on Steam no later than they are released on other PC platforms. Valve's new policy also mandates that any patches for Steam versions of games receive are delivered to Steam no later than they are to other PC platforms.

 

[poochyena]

21 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Valve blocks Epic Games and Tim Sweeney from exclusivizing any more Steam games - updated

You need to correct your false title. It does not stop Epic Games from "exclusivizing" steam games, and have literally nothing to do with it. It just prevents unfair treatment between store platforms, requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates. Epic games still has the ability to ask a publisher to take their steam game off steam and only sell on Epic.

[JZStudios]

3 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Well you are completely free to go and advertise your service/game/product to Walmart and test how fast you get escorted out. You could even start a test and try that in multiple different stores and rank them based on how fast security is called, how much force security uses and other nice stats. You could also take it a step forward and make some shady deal with stores so you get them to hype and advertise your product and just before the launch day pull it out and sell it elsewhere and see how fast that store is going to sue you and how much they are going to ask for "damages".

What? You don't advertise your products to Steam, I don't know what point this is supposed to make. And as far as I'm aware, I've not seen Wal-Mart advertise microwaves, much less for a specific one. They just have them in stock. Similarly, Steam doesn't advertise much unless there's a big sale or the publisher pays for it, in which case, there's no damages to Steam if they pull the plug.

3 hours ago, Thaldor said:

You know what EULA and TOS are? "End User License Agreement" and "Terms Of Use", even if in EU we can basicly pee all over them because they are not that legally binding for consumers but for companies they are still, even in here, 100% binding legal agreements (in the US they are that even for the consumers).

Exactly, EULA's and TOS's don't mean shit until they go through the legal system and then have the legality determined. I could put something in the small print saying that I own your house after you sign to sell a product on my store front, but it doesn't mean that'll actually happen. They aren't all that legally binding, especially when it's as flimsy a case as this. Also, my dads company literally just went through this. That "contract" doesn't mean shit until the judge decides what it actually means, or if it already has well established laws in place.

3 hours ago, Thaldor said:

With your logic can I just sign exclusivity deal with Epic, take the money and release the game also on Steam if the contracts aren't binding?

No, because that's based on pre-determined laws, not just some shit they made up. If you take Epic's money and run, at the very least they could sue to get back the money you stole.

No one is stealing money from Steam, but Steam is deciding it has distribution rights over your product, forever. Which is horseshit and I don't think has much legal precedence when they don't own anything about the IP or invest in it. Which also reminds me that Epic's money for exclusivity is supposed to be a small investment in return for a LIMITED exclusivity contract.

 

 

3 hours ago, Drak3 said:

Steam is hosting your page and running preorders or notifications. You signed a contract that says you'll sell on Steam in exchange for that service, prior to using it.

 

No, they aren't. By enforcing the contract, Valve is rightfully claiming what they're entitled to, as Valve has upheld their end of the contract.

Ehh, I guess. Even then it's pretty minor and Steam isn't actively advertising it.

Valve is deciding for itself what it's rightfully entitled to, being the distribution rights over IP they don't own.

 

 

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

Given that the courts would almost certainly award Valve either X% of profit based on install base size of EGS vs Steam or just the total monetary value of any signing bonus/advance offered by Epic Games, there would be little to no benefit.

I doubt that.

[Delicieuxz]

20 minutes ago, poochyena said:

You need to correct your false title. It does not stop Epic Games from "exclusivizing" steam games, and have literally nothing to do with it. It just prevents unfair treatment between store platforms, requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates. Epic games still has the ability to ask a publisher to take their steam game off steam and only sell on Epic.

The title isn't really false. If a publisher removes their game's store page from Steam, then it isn't a Steam game anymore. Whether Valve will actually enforce their policy is another thing.

 

20 minutes ago, poochyena said:

It does not stop Epic Games from "exclusivizing" steam games, and have literally nothing to do with it. It just prevents unfair treatment between store platforms, requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates. Epic games still has the ability to ask a publisher to take their steam game off steam and only sell on Epic.

The clause does more than prevent "unfair treatment between store platforms, requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates", as it also requires that games have their initial release-date on Steam be no later than what it is on other platforms, such as EGS.

 

Saying that a Steam-marketed game must release on Steam no later than it releases on other platforms is very much prohibiting the exclusivizing of Steam games by EGS or another company.

[poochyena]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

If a publisher removes their game's store page from Steam, then it isn't a Steam game anymore.

right. Not sure why you felt the need to point that out because it doesn't change anything. Your title implies that they can no longer take steam games and make then not steam games and instead Epic games.

 

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

as it also requires that games have their initial release-date on Steam be no later than what it is on other platforms, such as EGS.

Do you not consider that an "unfair treatment between store platforms "? If not, then what do you?

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, poochyena said:

You need to correct your false title. It does not stop Epic Games from "exclusivizing" steam games, and have literally nothing to do with it. It just prevents unfair treatment between store platforms, requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates. Epic games still has the ability to ask a publisher to take their steam game off steam and only sell on Epic.

I'm going to limit my comments to new games developed coming in to the pipeline that the publisher is planning a release of. The publisher could:

• List game on non Steam platform until X date, then list on Steam at Y date
• List game only on non Steam platform forever (Blizzard)
• List game on Steam and other non Steam platforms in compliance with terms

This also does not prevent the Publisher from stating a game will come to Steam while not yet listing it on Steam due to the terms, exclusivity deal with EGS may prevent that sort of statement, if I were EGS I would. Exclusivity deals come with financial benefits and usually guarantees of number of sales so it's not like a Publisher is going to lose out by not listing on Steam until the deal runs out. I as a Steam user may not be able to put it on my favorite list and get notified when it's available, or may not know of the game at all, but when it comes on Steam it'll come up on the new games list and probably in the announcements/news dialogue you get when you login to Steam.

 

These are all choices the Publisher makes, if you want to back an exclusivity deal with someone other than Steam then you understand what you are doing. What this does for Steam users is protected them from being unfairly impacted by the practices of a competing service or neglect from a Publisher. Games can't be put on to Steam, sales collected, pulled from Steam, patches no longer supplied or done so in different time frames. This can be looked at badly but fairness on competitors is actually being enforced here, everyone is equal or don't come on Steam.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

right. Not sure why you felt the need to point that out because it doesn't change anything.

 

Your title implies that they can no longer take steam games and make then not steam games and instead Epic games.

That might be your reading of it, but I see it as nit-picking.

 

The title was: "Valve blocks Epic Games and Tim Sweeney from exclusivizing any more Steam games"

 

My meaning of that is that a game which isn't listed on Steam isn't a Steam game. I added the word "Steam" before "game" to impart the game being on Steam as a qualifier, being aware that withdrawing the game from Steam obviously means that Valve's distribution policies no longer apply to it.

 

1 hour ago, poochyena said:

Do you not consider that an "unfair treatment between store platforms "? If not, then what do you?

What I don't hold as accurate is that "requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates" represents the scope of Valve's policy. Your claim that the policy "just prevents unfair treatment between store platforms" defined that as "requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates".

 

What's also unfair treatment between stores, or between a publisher and stores, is the publisher and a store exploiting another store for marketing and then making the game exclusive to another, regardless of whether the publisher removes the former store page after going exclusive. They still capitalized on an exploitable situation to the disadvantage of one store and its userbase, and it turns out that the situation they capitalized on is in violation of Valve and the publisher's contractual agreements.

[laminutederire]

5 hours ago, poochyena said:

You need to correct your false title. It does not stop Epic Games from "exclusivizing" steam games, and have literally nothing to do with it. It just prevents unfair treatment between store platforms, requiring all versions of the games to receive the same updates. Epic games still has the ability to ask a publisher to take their steam game off steam and only sell on Epic.

Epic can do whatever they want, that doesn't mean devs break their contract with steam by doing so...

[mr moose]

I am not too sure I understand why people are confused by this, it's simply a new term in the steam agreement that says (paraphrased) if you want an exclusive deal with epic don't use our resources and don't sign up to our platform.   It's just steam (rightfully) protecting their resources from being used and abused.  Everything else is just anthropersonification of business as usual.

[Trik'Stari]

Enforcing this (by taking legal action) has the chance of making Valve look like assholes, not enforcing it makes them look like they care about the developers more than their own profits.

 

Good PR move?

[TechyBen]

On 9/9/2019 at 6:41 AM, astranger200 said:

I dont like epic games, dont get me wrong, but we must remember valve is a company, and they are only doing it to make money

Also a legally bound company. To be fair, it's rather a grey area to promis customers pre-orders through/for Steam, then "lolz, Epics exclusive, was only a jk, psyke!!!" after.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, JZStudios said:

What? You don't advertise your products to Steam, I don't know what point this is supposed to make. And as far as I'm aware, I've not seen Wal-Mart advertise microwaves, much less for a specific one. They just have them in stock. Similarly, Steam doesn't advertise much unless there's a big sale or the publisher pays for it, in which case, there's no damages to Steam if they pull the plug.

Exactly, EULA's and TOS's don't mean shit until they go through the legal system and then have the legality determined. I could put something in the small print saying that I own your house after you sign to sell a product on my store front, but it doesn't mean that'll actually happen. They aren't all that legally binding, especially when it's as flimsy a case as this. Also, my dads company literally just went through this. That "contract" doesn't mean shit until the judge decides what it actually means, or if it already has well established laws in place.

No, because that's based on pre-determined laws, not just some shit they made up. If you take Epic's money and run, at the very least they could sue to get back the money you stole.

No one is stealing money from Steam, but Steam is deciding it has distribution rights over your product, forever. Which is horseshit and I don't think has much legal precedence when they don't own anything about the IP or invest in it. Which also reminds me that Epic's money for exclusivity is supposed to be a small investment in return for a LIMITED exclusivity contract.

 

 

Ehh, I guess. Even then it's pretty minor and Steam isn't actively advertising it.

Valve is deciding for itself what it's rightfully entitled to, being the distribution rights over IP they don't own.

 

 

I doubt that.

 I think you might be reading way too far into this and creating scenarios that don't exist to justify your claims.    For one thing no one has said anything about stealing money from valve and there is no reason to believe valve would sue for such a thing.   If a developer was to sign a contract with valve then remove their fame from steam and move to an exclusive with epic then it is possible valve could seek reimbursement for hosting their game whist in development and providing all that listing on steam does.  But that has nothing to do with theft.

[TidalZelda]

5 hours ago, JZStudios said:

No one is stealing money from Steam, but Steam is deciding it has distribution rights over your product, forever. Which is horseshit and I don't think has much legal precedence when they don't own anything about the IP or invest in it.

uumm what. steam is NOT deciding it was distribution rights because of their Software Distribution Agreement that you as a publisher have to agree to first. if steam was then how can Deep Silver even possibly pull metro exodus from steam, if as you said, steam "decided" it has distribution rights?
 

6 hours ago, JZStudios said:

What? You don't advertise your products to Steam, I don't know what point this is supposed to make. And as far as I'm aware, I've not seen Wal-Mart advertise microwaves, much less for a specific one. They just have them in stock. Similarly, Steam doesn't advertise much unless there's a big sale or the publisher pays for it, in which case, there's no damages to Steam if they pull the plug.

Soo Steam doesn't advertise, except when it advertises, but if it does, its fine because there's "no damages to steam". right. sure.
What about Metro Exodus, you know, that game that was advertised by Steam and its publisher Deep Silver, that was pulled at the last second, and that has only 200k purchases on steam?

But its fine, because steam suffered no damages from missing out on the apparently 5 million purchases* that the epic store got instead. but yes, no damages at all. </sarcasm>

Deep Silver made a agreement with Steam that in no uncertain terms states not to release on another platform at the disadvantage of Steam. if you are going to disadvantage Steam, don't sign up with Steam until your ready. Deep Silver used Steam to advertise a game, then basically spat in Steam's face, and as a result are going against it's agreement with Steam. if they don't like the terms, then they should not have agreed to them.


*: the exact sales number is not publicly known, however  Deep Silver did state sales were 2.5x more then metro last light on steam, which also does not have sale statistics. steam-spy claims that there are currently 2 to 5 million owners of metro last light redux, so going very conservative and picking 2 million, the result is a estimate of 5 million.

[Crowbar]

So why isn't Valve taking these game studios/publishers to court then?

 

Probably because they already know these terms mean little more then a EULA and would hold up like a shit sandwich in a rainstorm.

 

Just another "epic bad, steam good, duuuuuur" circle jerk thread.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, Crowbar said:

So why isn't Valve taking these game studios/publishers to court then?

Probably because it's much nicer PSA to smaller dev studios that may not actually be fully aware of the terms for the Steam platform, 'FYI what's been going on isn't actually ok'. Looks a lot better than immediately squashing the unaware.

 

EULA has no relevance here at all, EULA: End User License Agreement. Publishers and developers are not end users. This is an Agreement for Supply of Products and Services contract, completely enforceable if Valve wishes to do so. Never assume contracts are not enforceable, just because one party violates the terms doesn't mean the other party will want to go down the litigation path. Litigation is for after negotiations fail.

[Crowbar]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Probably because it's much nicer PSA to smaller dev studios that may not actually be fully aware of the terms for the Steam platform, 'FYI what's been going on isn't actually ok'. Looks a lot better than immediately squashing the unaware.

 

EULA has no relevance here at all, EULA: End User License Agreement. Publishers and developers are not end users. This is an Agreement for Supply of Products and Services contract, completely enforceable if Valve wishes to do so. Never assume contracts are not enforceable, just because one party violates the terms doesn't mean the other party will want to go down the litigation path. Litigation is for after negotiations fail.

Oh look, another "steam are the good guys" post. Color me shocked.

 

Either way, valve have proven may times over that the bottom line is what they care about. User experience be damned since they hold a monopoly.

 

I also never said this was a EULA. I said these vague, dubious terms are comparible to one and therefore their interal legal team knows it's a waste of assets to go after anyone regarding it.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Crowbar said:

Oh look, another "steam are the good guys" post. Color me shocked.

 

Either way, valve have proven may times over that the bottom line is what they care about. User experience be damned since they hold a monopoly.

 

I also never said this was a EULA. I said these vague, dubious terms are comparible to one and therefore their interal legal team knows it's a waste of assets to go after anyone regarding it.

How was that a Steam is good post? But neither am I shocked you haven't read the agreement because it's certainly not vague nor dubious. It's on the first page, at least a fair bit of it if you wish to read it.

 

Going straight it litigation if you don't need to is not only a waste of money and resources it negatively impacts your customers, the companies using Steam for distribution, which is not a smart thing to do. There's an easy way to push people over to a different platform, unnecessary lawsuits.

[The King of the Undead]

I will buy off EGS when they will support linux.

[Crowbar]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

How was that a Steam is good post? But neither am I shocked you haven't read the agreement because it's certainly not vague nor dubious. It's on the first page, at least a fair bit of it if you wish to read it.

 

Going straight it litigation if you don't need to is not only a waste of money and resources it negatively impacts your customers, the companies using Steam for distribution, which is not a smart thing to do. There's an easy way to push people over to a different platform, unnecessary lawsuits.

Assuming steam are doing this because "it's the right thing" is exactly that. Meanwhile they peddle a DRM client that's a forced install with many games having no legal alternatives. Please, explain to me how that doesn't "negatively impact your customers"?

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

Oh look, another "steam are the good guys" post. Color me shocked.

You seem have a very serious aversion to anyone making positive remarks about Valve.  Why is that?  One can be critical of Valve and also point out where they are (or at least may be) doing things right.  It's not an either/or proposition.

1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

Either way, valve have proven may times over that the bottom line is what they care about.

Of course they care about the bottom line, they're a business.

1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

User experience be ****** since they hold a monopoly.

I can't say that Valve has the best track record of customer support, but they're not a monopoly.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/monopoly#

Quote

1. exclusive control of a commodity or service in a particular market, or a control that makes possible the manipulation of prices.Compare duopoly, oligopoly.
2. an exclusive privilege to carry on a business, traffic, or service, granted by a government.
3. the exclusive possession or control of something.
4. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
5. a company or group that has such control.
6. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.

I ask you, which of those definitions apply?

1 hour ago, Crowbar said:

I also never said this was a EULA. I said these vague, dubious terms are comparible (sic) to one and therefore their interal (sic) legal team knows it's a waste of assets to go after anyone regarding it.

Or perhaps they're biding their time, while they determine if it's cost effective to proceed forward.  At this point, the only one I could see them really having a proper case against would be Deep Silver and Metro: Exodus, given that they had already been taking pre-orders for the game on Steam.

40 minutes ago, Crowbar said:

Meanwhile they peddle a DRM client that's a forced install with many games having no legal alternatives.

 That's on the developers/publishers, not Valve.  Valve has never mandated use of the Steam DRM.  In fact, there are numerous games on Steam that do not require the Steam client to play, only to download.  Divinity: Original Sin (both I and II) for one prominent example.