The creators of Humble Bundle are suing Valve for monopolistic behavior in a class action lawsuit

[Quackers101]

to be fair some of the % is used for things like steam workshop, although not every game is using it.

To various features steam offers, can agree to the % is being high and also their market is more messed up in the "recent" years.

From buried games, were other AAA launchers (with stores yuck)  can find their titles easier or indies that are supported by them.

Although a lot of passes and console games have been moved over, so that's good I guess?

 

Also a video on game libraries and other third party softwares for gaming.

 

[Quackers101]

5 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

Wasn't the rules regarding Steam keys thing done because there was abuse going on? I thought they had no special rules for that but it started getting abused so they implemented those rules, but maybe I'm wrong.

yes, they removed buying in bulk as this was an option for friends before with sales included.

Also a few issues around keys, and were you have shady sites using them in "loot boxes" so people can gamble, just like with skins etc.

To the issues of stolen keys, were you might buy it from a shady site and then you try to refund it from the developers wallet than from the shady places or something like that, don't quite remember.

 

[poochyena]

20 minutes ago, JLO64 said:

Here’s the thing, retail needs to take a 50% cut in order to maintain profitability since a location needs to pay its utility bills, workers wages, rent, etc. All Valve has to do is pay their AWS (or whoever runs their servers) bill, maintain software that’s several decades old by this point, and spend a bit on random RnD projects.

Valve pays utility bills, wages, rent, etc. too though..
And idk why you mention AWS, they run their own servers, no?

[TetraSky]

If you can't beat or compete with them, sue them. Coming from Humble Bundle after what they've pulled recently, I am not surprised, especially after they decided to put a hard limit on how much money goes to charity, whereas before you could have 100% of the proceeds going to charity, they've maxed it out at 15%.

 

 

Sure, Valve's Steam is huge amongst PC gamers... But there's a reason for that. It's because it's actually good compared to the competition. Literally nothing stops a user from using other platforms either. A PC is not a console where you're locked down to one platform only, you can have Steam, uPlay, Origin, EGS all running in the background at the same time if you wanted and use Discord as a common ground area to discuss with your friends.
So the argument that there's a "high switching costs" associated to it, is plainly false. People don't use other platforms because they suck donkey balls in comparison.
At this point Valve doesn't even have to keep trying with Steam anymore, either. EGS still doesn't even have a cart feature, like, come on!

To me, this is like people/governments saying Google has on monopoly on web search because of "Google Search" ... But when the alternative is Bing and the likes, who can blame them? No one is forcing anyone from using Google, people use Google because it actually finds the stuff you're looking for the vast majority of the time within the first few results. I'd also argue they should be free to block or remove anything from their search listing if they so wanted to, without some gov entity coming in and telling them how to manage their business, because they are a private company offering a service (just like how Facebook pulled off all news pages from Australia before, because of their stupid laws. They don't need Australian news to survive, Australian news need Facebook to survive, who should be paying who here? Simply ridiculous). What would these government entities do if Google decided to close up shop (they obviously won't), sue them to stop that from happening, just like how they are trying hard to force Google to do their bidding?

 

There's also nothing wrong with Valve demanding their users be treated as good or better than they would be treated on other platform off steam, if they're selling Steam keys off platform. They're LITERALLY using Valve's services, of COURSE they would want to be favored, what kind of backwater mindset is that to expect a store to not favor its own customers. Imagine some tiny local store having a partnership with Amazon to sell Amazon Basic goods, and then this tiny store tried to sell them for cheaper than what Amazon is selling them on their own store. Amazon would do everything to prevent that as well (this applies to pretty much every other kind of partnership).

The 30% cut sucks, yes, but nothing stops devs from going elsewhere. Unlike with Apple devices and consoles, the PC gaming sphere is a free market. Just like how on Android they don't have to use the Playstore, they don't have to use Steam on PC. They will be denying themselves a huge chunk of the PC gaming community for sure though, but that's on them for refusing to pay the higher fees Valve is asking for the privilege of accessing the massive user base of PC gamers that is Steam.

Or what, they think they should be able to waltz in, put their game on a shelf and get all the profits or something? All while forgetting who pays the bills associated to that online shelf? The only reason EGS charges less, is 100% for publicity's sake, hoping devs will choose them over Steam, thus forcing more players to join EGS. They are not doing that out of the goodness of their hearts.

 

Thank you for coming to my TED talk, hope you didn't waste your time on all of that. This is not even a subject worth discussing. Are you for or against business (and anyone else, really) being allowed to do what they want with their own stuff? Don't like it, don't use it.

[Quackers101]

also when there was a recent exploit with game keys too, think it's fixed now.

The Spiffing Brit - UNLIMITED STEAM KEY FARMING WITH EA PLAY IS BROKEN - Steam Is Perfectly Balanced With No Exploits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SteIpicvLA

 

[lewdicrous]

Steam is far from perfect, as others have pointed out, but haven't the other companies thought of, idk, becoming as good or even better?

Last time I used origin or uplay, there was absolutely no sense of community; no guides, discussions, the ability to interact with people other than the ones in your friend's list (like the aforementioned discussions, posts, etc.), the ability to create groups with other people, etc.

 

I wonder how the fact that steam also allows you to buy games from other publishers, like ubisoft, that require you to download their launcher in order to play their games, will hinder/aid the lawsuit.

 

Edit: I think EA is also allowed to have, or advertise, their subscription model on steam. Haven't tried it or looked into it, so I don't know if you're paying through steam or through origin.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Remember (as most people are forgetting this fact):

This is about having monopolistic power and abusing it.

Valve is not a monopoly.buy they have the power of one. And they are abusing it.

You can be a monopoly (not really here, but in some countries you can ) You can have monopolistic power. But if you abuse that power, that's where you are illegal.

[Quackers101]

1 hour ago, lewdicrous said:

Edit: I think EA is also allowed to have, or advertise, their subscription model on steam. Haven't tried it or looked into it, so I don't know if you're paying through steam or through origin.

Paid through steam, but can be linked with your origin account.

[KaitouX]

Quote

"That would improve quality for gamers and publishers alike, all while lowering prices for everyone."

Last time I saw prices didn't drop when PC games went from physical to digital, and that was a bigger difference than this would be, plus games on EGS aren't cheaper, including exclusives that wouldn't be limited by any deal with Valve.

 

Apparently GOG barely breaks even on a 30% cut, so GOG would probably be the first one to go down if there ever was a price decrease based on the cut the store takes. Also it's amazing how the best alternative to Steam is the client of the store that most publishers don't want to sell at because they can't add DRMs when selling games on it.

[Andreas Lilja]

Humble still a thing since they were bought by IGN?

[Kisai]

4 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

 

Last time I used origin or uplay, there was absolutely no sense of community; no guides, discussions, the ability to interact with people other than the ones in your friend's list (like the aforementioned discussions, posts, etc.), the ability to create groups with other people, etc.

 

That costs money to moderate.

[Tenelia]

That sort of business logic makes no sense. So if I'm running a mall now, am I supposed to accept tenants that can sue me for not supporting their attempts to setup and run a competing mall? But well, doesn't matter for me in Asia. It's just silly to see how organisations can abuse the legal system over in your half of the planet.

[DarkClaw]

So, number of rogue thoughts that for some reason I decided to type out. This might be kind of unorganized and rambly, but hopefully I can keep each point short enough that it's not too bad.

1. This article by the same author on Ars Technica explains how, functionality, Valve doesn't take a 30% cut. It's still possible, but just not what seems typical.
2. I'm sorry, but I simply can't see the issue with Valve requiring a product to be available on its store if the producer of said product wants to take advantage of the rest of the Steam platform. I'm not going to visit Costco for support on something I bought from Walmart, even if Costco is selling the same item (I know this is an imperfect comparison, but it's the best I could think of).
3. Honestly, just in general, I have difficulty seeing "middlemen" companies (ie retailers) as having a monopoly. I don't mean they can't be powerful, throw their weight around, or do unethical things... just that, definition-wise, I have difficulty seeing them as monopolies because they don't produce things; they usually offer things like marketplaces and services, which are replicable even by the people who produce the things that are used in the marketplaces and services. There's some exceptions to this feeling... Apple's App Store for one, in my opinion, seems like a monopoly because there actually are no other middlemen on that platform. However, it's "technically" arguable because you had to lock yourself into some other decisions before you've trapped yourself in their monopoly; you had to buy an iPhone. On the flip side, Steam is on the most open digital platform I know: the PC... I feel like this does the opposite to what happens to the App Store, making Steam feel like even less of a monopoly. While you definitely wouldn't get as much exposure, you could deploy and sell your game any way you want on PC; literally the interconnected Turing machine (or even physical media) sky is the limit.
4. Actually, expounding on that last sentence... it doesn't feel like Valve could be a monopoly without Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony could be found as monopolies first for their respective stores and exclusives, if that makes sense. And yet, I don't quite see them as monopolies or throwing around monopolistic behavior (though Nintendo feels like it's the next closest thing to Apple's App Store). So, to me, it sort of feels like it wouldn't make sense that Valve has a monopoly while the console trio don't.
5. I feel like the length of time these policies have been in place matter. If Valve has been taking a 30% cut since the beginning of when Steam was opened up to other developers and publisher, I don't see why it should be seen as a "taking advantage of market" policy now. If they increased it to 30% recently, due to the audience they command, that would make sense to me as a them throwing their weight around, but that doesn't seem to be the case since everyone echoes that that has been the standard cut, for the most part.
6. Similarly, for the Steam key policy, if that has been the case since the inception of the program when Steam opened up to other developers and publishers, I can't see the issue. This one is fuzzier though, because I would bet that it's a newer policy... it does depend on whether this was before they had as much weight as they do now.
7. Honestly, I the consumer am incentivized to wait for something to be sold on Steam (generally speaking) because of all the additional benefits I get from it. In that respect, it sort of feels like... a buyer's union? A single-buyer model? So rather than saying Valve has a monopoly, it's more like we've "voted with our wallet" that we overwhelmingly prefer this service, which actually feels like it further empowers us and creates a positive feedback loop (resulting in the "unusually" strong positive image Valve and Steam have). This is a feeling that I have a hard time describing, so maybe a better person than I could properly explain what's happening there.

[xAcid9]

Yes, Steam is monopoly. I blame their cheap game prices, sense of community and great infrastructures. You cannot do that to consumers! I hope this company rot in hell.

[sydh]

Humble is just trying to divert people away from it's shitty new slider removal. Now preventing you from donating more than %15 to charity. I guess they got greedy at seeing gamers donate nearly $200m to charity and not their own pockets over the last like 7 or so years. That or big publishers pushed this after KNOWING what humblebundle is but also not getting a big enough payout. Either way humble monthly/bundles are dead to me. It was nice having a fun/easy way to donate to charity and show gamers are not just a shitty stereotype. 

 

As for Steam, ya it's fine. Show me a platform that does anything remotely close or as good as them. Could the cut drop? Yea sure with how massively successful Steam has become it would be cool if some Devs got more of a games sell price.

[WereCatf]

8 hours ago, JLO64 said:

All Valve has to do is pay their AWS (or whoever runs their servers) bill, maintain software that’s several decades old by this point, and spend a bit on random RnD projects.  Granted this is a massive oversimplification of their costs but the point still stands.

That's such a massive oversimplification that I don't agree on the point still standing.

• Valve runs their own servers
• Given the size of games, especially AAA-titles, they need absolutely massive amounts of storage
• They also allow people to save screenshots and upload videos and all sorts of other content of their own, which increases storage-needs
• They have their own CDNs all over the world
• They consume insane amounts of bandwidth at all times and, as you might be aware, that doesn't come cheap
• They have their own, entirely free streaming-service, which also consumes bandwidth and storage
• They have their workshop, which also consumes bandwidth and storage
• The Remote Play and Remote Play Together - stuff goes through their Steam Network if all parties are behind strict NAT and that consumes massive amounts of bandwidth -- they are proxying all the data through their own VPN-servers for no fee on the customer
• Voice-chat in and out of games also goes through their Steam Network, if needed. While it's obviously a lot less bandwidth, it is still an additional drain

Ask anyone who actually runs something that consumes massive amounts of bandwidth and you'll very quickly find out that it does not come cheap.

 

The software could use quite a bit of work, but it's not like they haven't been doing anything at all with it. What they've been doing as of late has been more about designing a good AI-like system for recommendations, trying to find a way of getting the less-easily-found games out and about, giving them some much-needed visibility and so on -- it's all entirely non-flashy stuff and uninteresting for most people, but I tend to pay attention to such things.

[Vishera]

10 hours ago, JLO64 said:

My thoughts

Steam is a monopoly. 

No it is not.

If you don't want to use Steam,you can use competing solution such as GOG and the Epic Game Store.

10 hours ago, JLO64 said:

After years of growth, the vast majority of PC gamers are locked in to the Steam platform thanks to "immense network effects" and the high switching costs to move to a new PC platform, the suit argues.

It's called features,and the competition are free to implement them.

That is not an act to stifle competition,but rather for the benefit of the customer.

10 hours ago, JLO64 said:

But Valve places significant limits on this feature, which "[rigs] the Steam Keys program so that it serves as a tool to maintain Valve’s dominance," according to the lawsuit. That includes a "Price Parity Rule" that tells publishers, "Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website." Valve also reserves the right to deny key requests if the publisher asks for an "extreme number of keys and [isn't] offering Steam customers a good value" (as the suit notes, the precise definitions of "extreme" and "good value" are unspecified and determined by Valve).

Steam keys are the way licences for games on Steam are distributed to customers.

It doesn't stifle competition in any way,It's their platform and they can use every method they want for the distribution and management of game licences in their own store.

It doesn't affect the competition at all.

 

As for the Steam keys price policy,It's a pro-consumer one,

It's bad only for those who wish to sell Steam keys for prices ABOVE Steam prices.

I don't see how preventing games from being sold at higher prices is monopolistic,in fact lower prices help competition as competing entities fight for the money of customers.

10 hours ago, JLO64 said:

"At bottom, Valve’s scheme imposes a massive tax on the PC Desktop Gaming industry," the suit argues in seeking the usual mix of damages and injunctive relief to fix the situation. "If Valve did not block price competition for Steam-enabled games, gamers and publishers would be able to have a seamless and non-fragmented platform while also enjoying the benefits of price competition in the distribution market. That would improve quality for gamers and publishers alike, all while lowering prices for everyone."

Steam prohibits higher prices than in it's own store,but approves lower prices than it's own store,

If anything you can retain a competitive edge with lower prices,as people like lower prices.

10 hours ago, JLO64 said:

"Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website."

If Humble Bundle opposes this it means that they really want to sell steam keys above the prices that steam offers.

10 hours ago, JLO64 said:

But Valve places significant limits on this feature, which "[rigs] the Steam Keys program so that it serves as a tool to maintain Valve’s dominance,"

Seems like Humble Bundle wants steam to use a third party game key distribution system?!

Maybe Humble Bundle wants to be the provider of that service,because why would anyone want such a thing if it won't affect their profits?!

 

From this lawsuit i think that Humble Bundle are crazy and disconnected from law and reality.

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, Vishera said:

It's called features,and the competition are free to implement them.

It seems only GOG is actually interested in developing features, they just don't have what it takes to develop features at a rapid pace nor do they have the profits to start running anything similar to Steam Network, unfortunately. EGS, Origin, Ubisoft etc.? No, they do the bare minimum.

 

I view GOG as the most "goodest guy" and Steam as a close second, just simply because of all the things Steam is giving us all for free -- no subscriptions, no need to buy even a single game to make use of its features and so on -- , then there's a huge gap and then come the rest.

[Vishera]

Just now, WereCatf said:

It seems only GOG is actually interested in developing features, they just don't have what it takes to develop features at a rapid pace nor do they have the profits to start running anything similar to Steam Network, unfortunately. EGS, Origin, Ubisoft etc.? No, they do the bare minimum.

 

I view GOG as the most "goodest guy" and Steam as a close second, just simply because of all the things Steam is giving us all for free -- no subscriptions, no need to buy even a single game to make use of its features and so on -- , then there's a huge gap and then come the rest.

Steam has implemented those features through a span of decades,It's main competitors were not around for as long as Steam has been.

[JZStudios]

10 hours ago, poochyena said:

No they aren't. Amazon, gamestop, and epic games just to name a few competitors.

Anyone who tries to insist steam is a monopoly has absolutely no clue what they are talking about.

When actually was the last time you could walk into Gamestop and buy a PC game? Much less one that wasn't actually a Steam game? Most PC games don't bother with a physical release, and when they do it's just a Steam code.

You're argument has no validity, at least not the competitors you mentioned.

 

Try buying a game outside of Steam that isn't on the other store platforms i.e. 95% of all games. Lemme know how that works for you. Your argument works for console games, where you can buy the game from any number of stores. This doesn't work when you apply the logic of Steam in that actually, wherever you buy it from it's still coming from Gamestop and you still have to put up with their bullshit. No I don't want the rewards program! Just sell me the game and leave me alone!

10 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

That is their claim, but it isn't true. 

You do have access to a much larger audience, just like you would by selling on Epic, Ubisoft, Origin, Battle.net, MSFT store.

 

They're preventing you from selling STEAM keys for a lower price than on Steam. A.k.a. if you're not going to pay for the game delivery and support, at least don't make steam customers pay more.

 

I use GOG and Steam, and used to use Origin (but now EA started selling games on steam and I got them there) and Battle.net (which I refuse to spend any more time and money after the Hong Kong stuff).

 

All of those stores combined make up less than 10% of Steams sales. The only reason people use those other stores is because they have to.

 

They're also preventing you from not selling through Steam so they're still taking their cut. Which I kind of thought was them paying for delivery and support.

10 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I don't really see the 30% cut as an issue, I'd like to see Valve lower their cut but they have more on their store to manage than for example Epic does.

On PC you aren't forced to use Steam, you can get games from others stores besides Steam and thats exactly what Humble does, or you can get games from GOG. I consider Valve to be a better company than Epic, because Valve doesn't force developers to sell only on Steam, and Steam is a significantly better platform to use. The epic store doesn't even have basic features like a shopping cart, a review system, or remote play.

No, it's almost always Steam keys. It's occasionally DRM free, and rarely a GOG code.

Can someone please explain to me why absolutely everyone is so stuck on the shopping cart? How many games are you people buying at once? And Steams review system is a complete joke.

10 hours ago, poochyena said:

eh, of course there are steam fanboys, but they are a small minority and exist in every community. I'd bet my house that there are nearly as many people who say the same about epic, that they'd only buy games on Epic store and never steam. Think of all the people whose first or main gaming experience is from fortnite.

By that logic EGS would actually be profitable. There's a portion of people who hate Steam, but they typically stick to GOG for the DRM free games and they're an absolute minority.

 

10 hours ago, WereCat said:

I know that Steam has its flaws and they also tried some shady stuff but it's just so much better than any other store out there... 

 

The workshop alone is so good, easy access to mods... its really difficult to get an alternative.

They just have a truly god awful suckass UX. Every time people say it's a great store I gag a bit. Ever since Galaxy 2.0 came out and Steam did their library redesign, I haven't touched Steam at all and have a much better experience. GOG and EGS both have better actual storefronts for browsing titles than Steams horrendously outdated never-was-good design that has 3 or 4 different visual styles that aren't at all cohesive. Not even mentioning the useless community tags, pointless review system, random "curated by the community" crap... Steam is basically bloatware

 

To me all of that also translates over to the workshop browsing, so I just don't. I use Nexus or ModDB, and the Workshop is closed source, so even though I own a game from GOG or EGS, I can't use Workshop mods with it unless the author also put it on Nexus or something. Really kills the spirit of modding to me.

[JZStudios]

5 hours ago, KaitouX said:

Last time I saw prices didn't drop when PC games went from physical to digital, and that was a bigger difference than this would be, plus games on EGS aren't cheaper, including exclusives that wouldn't be limited by any deal with Valve.

 

Apparently GOG barely breaks even on a 30% cut, so GOG would probably be the first one to go down if there ever was a price decrease based on the cut the store takes. Also it's amazing how the best alternative to Steam is the client of the store that most publishers don't want to sell at because they can't add DRMs when selling games on it.

I think for GOG though a lot of that cost goes to A. Much less actual revenue, and B. I'm pretty sure they have to license and make sure all of their games actually work. If a game breaks, GOG fixes it, adds in translations, fan patches etc. If a game on Steam breaks they don't give a fuck. It's going to cost a lot more money for them to essentially do dev work and strip out the DRM that may have been present and get it working on modern systems.

 

2 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

great infrastructures

 

1 hour ago, WereCatf said:

no need to buy even a single game to make use of its features

Well that's not true. My brother got a PC and was pretty surprised to find out we couldn't be Steam friends unless he paid money. Real pro-consumer stuff there.

[Mr.SeriousCat]

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Well that's not true. My brother got a PC and was pretty surprised to find out we couldn't be Steam friends unless he paid money. Real pro-consumer stuff there.

I thought that was a way to prevent bots, wich we still have on the platform anyway, and if Im not wrong the system is not quite that way, he cant send you a friend invite but any other account that had already payed for their games can. If nothing changed I've done it before that way with my second account wich has 0 games.

[Quackers101]

When it comes to steam vs GOG, there is a lot of good GOG have done (some bad that I dont remember).

From recovering very old titles and even doing hunts for original sources and their content, putting a lot of effort and time in some of their older titles.

Although don't see if they have a big traction of people coming to their site, and often I forget it myself that GOG exist.

 

When it comes to steam, yes a lot of their structures seems like it works but also seems old. Were there are different structures around steam that doesnt always fit together or work flawless. To some security or exploiting issues, but do offer a lot of features. Want Streaming videos? they got that (or some), want to play remotely or with friends who don't own the game? they got that to some degree! (some software that does certain things better). Quick updates, family settings/shared, workshop, community threads and with developers, console features from their times of the steam controller, were you can download pre-sets and using mostly anything as a controller?

 

Although steam sometimes seems like apple when it comes to eating some features from smaller third parties, adding a lot of features to their own consumers so they don't have to go anywhere else... even though some features are a lot better with other peoples software (might not always be as secure or supported by the developers of the game).

[poochyena]

9 hours ago, JZStudios said:

When actually was the last time you could walk into Gamestop and buy a PC game?

Never? If i want to buy a PC game from gamestop, which I have done before, I just buy it on their website. Are you unaware that gamestop sell digital games on their website?

9 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Try buying a game outside of Steam that isn't on the other store platforms i.e. 95% of all games. Lemme know how that works for you.

That really wouldn't be hard to do. Some of the biggest PC games aren't even available on steam. Just because you like steam doesn't mean you can't buy games elsewhere.

[JZStudios]

2 minutes ago, poochyena said:

Never? If i want to buy a PC game from gamestop, which I have done before, I just buy it on their website. Are you unaware that gamestop sell digital games on their website?

Not a great counter argument. Granted, I didn't know Gamestop actually sold PC games online, but it's still just Steam keys.

 

5 minutes ago, poochyena said:

That really wouldn't be hard to do. Some of the biggest PC games aren't even available on steam. Just because you like steam doesn't mean you can't buy games elsewhere.

Really? Try buying Arma 3 elsewhere. Just going through the Steam "Top Sellers" chart, skipping Valve owned franchises:

1. Resident Evil Village - Steam only
2. Nier Automata - Steam primarily, MS store has "Become as gods" edition?
3. Total War Rome - Steam only
4. NieR Replicant™ ver.1.22474487139... - Steam only
5. Mass Effect Legendary Edition - Steam and Origin (EA game)
6. Valheim - Steam only
7. GTFO - Steam only
8. Death Stranding - Steam and EGS after exclusivity
9. It Takes Two - Steam and Origin (EA game)
10. Outriders - Steam, EGS
11. RE8 & RE7 bundle - Steam only (RE7 not on any other stores either)
12. Iron Harvest - Steam, EGS, GOG
13. GTAV - Steam, EGS
14. Craftopia - Steam only
15. Persona 4 Golden - Steam only
16. HUMANKIND™ - Steam, EGS
17. Sea of Thieves - MS Store, Steam after no one bought it on MS store.
18. Baldurs Gate 3 - Steam, GOG
19. Rust - Steam only
20. MORDHAU - Steam only

I checked Steam, Origin, EGS, GOG, MS Store, Ubi Connect.

So out of Steam's top 20 selling games, excluding their own franchises, 50% of them are available only through Steam, 20% of them are only sold on other platforms because they're first party or paid exclusivity, and only 30% are actually on the "open" market.

 

No one is choosing to play Fortnight on EGS, they're forced to. Same with Ubi games and EA games and whoever else has a first party launcher.

 

I would very much like to see you buy any of those games not available on any other stores outside of Steam.