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

[Mark Kaine]

52 minutes ago, tikker said:

There is a difference though. Steam's monopoly has come mostly natural.

The issues needs to be adressed regardless, ie reselling, ownership, rights ...

 

i dont see why i cannot resell a Steam game just like a cd or dvd, just because its from a  "digital storefront".  I mean , this isn't only Steam of course , but you gotta start  somewhere, and Steam already was found guilty of not following consumer rights so they just stand out even more .

 

Apple, Google, Sony, MS, etc can come next then if they keep not abiding to EU consumer laws. 

 

[tikker]

39 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

The issues needs to be adressed regardless, ie reselling, ownership, rights ...

 

i dont see why i cannot resell a Steam game just like a cd or dvd, just because its from a  "digital storefront".  I mean , this isn't only Steam of course , but you gotta start  somewhere, and Steam already was found guilty of not following consumer rights so they just stand out even more .

 

Apple, Google, Sony, MS, etc can come next then if they keep not abiding to EU consumer laws. 

 

That's a different issue though. Not saying it doesn't need adressing, all online content has this problem.

[crystal6tak]

I'm confused what the lawsuit is trying to accomplish. If they win, Valve has to... unrestrict key generating limit and allow external sales at a price lower than steam? 

 

So developers can enjoy the plethora of features that the steam platform provides for their games while not paying a dime to Valve? That's a death sentence to a digital store if I ever heard one.

[Quackers101]

a) "EGS came in and started trying to be an actual competitor to Steam"

This is bullsh*t, they were never a competitor and doesn't quite wish to be nor their goal.

"because they offer no real competition".

 

b) "Steam does not have a monopoly"

But they do have monopolistic power, a BIG DRM for a lot of games and another unsecure link in the chain when it comes to even just owning or being able to use a product. I hate all these launchers, and more so when not all of them are as trust worthy and sometimes being awfully shady (background stuff, malware like DRM, and so on). At least something I can consider using is Steam, which most have proven they are just another DRM or launcher and not a full platform like steam.

[JZStudios]

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

Correct. I never said otherwise.

Also you:

22 hours ago, poochyena said:

The fact that gamestop sells digital (Steam) games isn't a great counter argument to steam having competitors?

 

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

But they are available on other platforms too, thats the point. Steam doesn't have a monopoly, there are many games you can buy elsewhere or not on steam at all.

No, they aren't. They're either first party titles either exclusive to their own platform or their platform and Steam because no one buys anything on their platform. Fortnite is not a competitor to Steam because it's only available on EGS. That's the point. Most AAA game studios don't have their own launcher and sell only through Steam. You can't buy them elsewhere, only Steam, that's the point. Only Steam. Why is this so difficult?

 

12 hours ago, poochyena said:

If you can buy games somewhere other than steam, then steam has competition. Its as simple as that.

No. Primarily because for 95% of games, you can't. Having a game available on multiple platforms like GOG, EGS, and Steam is competition. Having it available only through Steam is not competition. It's a really basic concept.

 

11 hours ago, KaitouX said:

The MS analogy doesn't work here, as Steam doesn't profit directly from sold keys, they profit from having more users on the platform. The keys on Steam require no fee to be generated, and they obviously can't track where and for how much the key was sold, so they can't take the usual 30% cut there, and by the fact no one complains about Steam having some flat fee for each activated key and that it isn't mentioned in the site, they also don't seem to do that.

 

I'm just differentiating the action of buying/selling the product from the process of producing and using said product.

The product goes through Steam, the action of buying it doesn't.

According to this lawsuit, they definitively are.

 

11 hours ago, WereCatf said:

You keep referring to rabid fanboys and similar things, you keep bashing Steam/Valve, and it all seems like you just have an axe to grind. It's hard to take anything you say seriously with such an attitude.

 

For one, why are rabid fanboys and such even relevant? Literally everything attracts those kinds, including the other storefronts, but they're all in tiny minority and not a driving force here. Secondly, you seem to be insinuating that people are boycotting EGS just simply because it's a competitor to Steam. Sure, for the most rabid fanboys that may be true, but for the rest of us that's not the reason. I mean, if that was the reason, then why would many of us still support e.g. GOG, which is also a competitor? No, there's more to it, but I'm not sure if you just don't want to see it or if you don't even understand it.

I don't like Steam. They forced the mass adoption of DRM and going through their BS store I've never liked and caused the death of physical PC releases. There's also the long laundry list of grossly anti-consumer practices they have and yet everyone praises them as Lord Gaben and Good Guy Valve like they aren't just looking to line their pockets.

 

Because those rabid fanboys are influencing the masses. Anywhere you go online about EGS it's just people screaming to boycott them. You really think if people said positive comments or even nothing at all that it wouldn't do any better? How many people just shit on EGS for not actually having a shopping cart without ever actually using it? GOG is hardly a competitor. The only people that buy games there either want the older titles they can't get on Steam or want games DRM free. They barely make money, they just released a public figures post. People will otherwise ignore or avoid GOG because it isn't Steam and integrated into Steam's web of bullshit.

There's really not. I'm looking at this from an outsiders perspective coming into it recently, and it's fucking bizarre the way everyone bows down to Steam.

 

10 hours ago, Semper said:

I have no issue with multiple storefronts. I have no issue with competition.
I have issue with Epic working in the negative, making (granted, time-limited) exclusivity deals in an effort to undermine steam, being monopolistic in the "fight" against the monopoly. Instead of offering tangible encouragement for users to choose their storefront, such as even a basic level of usability, they brute force their traffic with "you can only get *this new game* on the EGS"

So here's my question, everyone says they're fine with all the other first party launchers (Even though no one uses them so they're forced to sell through Steam anyways) because it's their games.

How exactly is it different for a publisher to publish a game solely on their own first party platform, than it is for EGS to do the same with purchasing rights, for a time limited deal no less?

How is it different than literally any other platform of anything paying for the sole rights of anything? iTunes, Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, etc? To put in game terms, EA signed an exclusivity deal with Porsche for 20 years. No other game outside the heaving financial backing of MS and Forza, later offloaded on the customer as paid DLC had Porsche for 20 years. People bitched about it, but no one boycotted EA or Need For Speed. And as soon as it was over Porsche gave EA the finger and rushed to be in everyone else's game as EA barely used them.

How exactly is it that people will boycott/ignore every other store unless they're forced to by exclusivity that a new storefront is supposed to show up and actually be profitable without also doing the same thing?

 

I'd really like to know how people expect a new store to open and be profitable and be a viable competitor without gimmicks like GOG's DRM free/classic game practices or exclusivity. If EGS launched exactly as Steam is now, why the fuck would anybody use it when it's identical to the thing they're already using? What would be the point in switching?

 

9 hours ago, suicidalfranco said:

The only thing monopolistic about valve is it's msrketshare, other than that I have yet to see them act shady or be immoral.

I could give you a list.

 

9 hours ago, NZgamer said:

If they don't want Steam to be the largest store on the market, then someone needs to actually make a platform that's actually competitive. So far, nobody else actually offers the same level of features that Steam has. Workshop, Linux compatibility features, huge game library and multiple annual sales are just some of the features that make Steam so popular. Also the fact that Steam is very localised to the currencies of where you are is a massive feature for me. I also find that Steam has a far higher level of control over your game installations than any other platform. I don't really recognise Steam as a monopoly until someone actually tries to compete with them.

But how do you compete with them in the first place when any attempts are met with hostility and bankruptcy? EGS is losing millions and so far is the only actual attempt at competition. That's even with Epic money, no start up company is going to come out with a massive game library, fucking enormous server farms, etc.

 

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

no option to resell games (which is against EU laws) not being able to use keys from other regions (also against EU laws)

It's false advertising. Steam claims you buy games, you don't. You rent with a indefinite time period, which they can revoke at any point for any reason. It's why Apple is being sued for "selling" movies. It's also why Steam tried to argue they don't need to refund people, because they aren't selling products, they're renting. They also argued they don't do business, they just sell products for money. Sorry, they "rent" under the guise of selling.

[ravenshrike]

9 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

They forced the mass adoption of DRM

Nice revisionist history there. The idea that they forced mass adoption of DRM is hilariously wrong. Various forms of DRM were everywhere prior to Steam, and much of it was significantly nastier and more of a resource hog. They don't even mandate DRM at all to sell on their platform and the DRM they do offer is laughably easy to crack. It's only purpose is to give a DRM option for the companies that want a placebo or to be able to tell their shareholders that they are making an effort to "secure" their product.

[poochyena]

5 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Also you:

by steam games I meant games also available on steam, not steam keys.

6 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

They're either first party titles either exclusive to their own platform or their platform and Steam because no one buys anything on their platform. Fortnite is not a competitor to Steam because it's only available on EGS.

they are a competitor. To compete against another company, they sell different games. Would you say mcdonalds and burger king aren't competitors because they sell different types of burgers?
There are also many games in which multiple platforms sell on

 

. You can easily find multiple platforms selling Cyberpunk 2077, for example.

10 minutes ago, JZStudios said:

Having it available only through Steam is not competition.

It is. The reason is because publishers CHOOSE to only sell through steam.

[JZStudios]

4 hours ago, tikker said:

And there is the problem. In my view there are two problems 1) you cannot expect to get full revenue from your game if you use someone else's distribution platform. You can argue if that's 30%, 12% or whatever, but you'll have to split. 2) as you say, the other platforms don't even attempt to actually compete with Steam. They're just creating walled gardens with only their games and the bare minimum of features.

EGS is at least making an attempt at actual competition with a fairer split and third party titles, both through exclusivity and just being an open platform. They've been building on the store and adding new features, I think they just did regional pricing and mod support. Seems a lot more like back end stuff than storefront stuff. They probably could've launched a bit more feature flushed, but they didn't just drop a turd in the pool and walk away.

They have a roadmap, but given how many people are still bitching about a shopping cart I don't know why it's not "up next."

https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap

4 hours ago, tikker said:

People aren't just boycotting Epic because it's not Steam, but because they offer no real competition either. For one they try to draw people in by obtaining exclusives from tempting developers with large bags of money instead of pouring that money into improving their platform. Not saying Steam is faultless, but you are shooting yourself in the foot if the only way to fight Steam's "monopoly" is to create one of your own in my opinion.

It's both. It's less feature rich than Steam, but people also boycott them because it wouldn't be integrated into their Steam network, along with stupid shit like not having a shopping cart and exclusivity. And as I mentioned, they are improving it.

From what I understand, and as I mentioned before, what else are they supposed to do to draw in customers? if they had all the same features of Steam and nothing else what's the incentive to switch? I think Tim has the idea to get it up and running to be viable and then stop doing the timed exclusivity. Which really gets me, people bitch about the exclusivity, but it's always only for a limited time. It's just not that big a deal.

[JZStudios]

7 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Nice revisionist history there. The idea that they forced mass adoption of DRM is hilariously wrong. Various forms of DRM were everywhere prior to Steam, and much of it was significantly nastier and more of a resource hog. They don't even mandate DRM at all to sell on their platform and the DRM they do offer is laughably easy to crack. It's only purpose is to give a DRM option for the companies that want a placebo or to be able to tell their shareholders that they are making an effort to "secure" their product.

Having it be prior to is not the same as making it mass market. I said they forced it, not created it, though they do have their own. I keep hearing that they don't require DRM, but every game I've ever looked at that's also on GOG has Steam DRM and at minimum requires the launcher.

Denuvo is also easy to crack, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

8 minutes ago, poochyena said:

You can easily find multiple platforms selling Cyberpunk 2077, for example.

It's like you don't read the words I type at all.

[ravenshrike]

Just now, JZStudios said:

Having it be prior to is not the same as making it mass market.

Mass market means a great deal of people had it. Which means yes, DRM was mass market well before Steam. Now, Steam did offer a standardization of DRM for products on their platform, but given the ease with which it is cracked and the minimal intrusiveness of it, that offered a net benefit to the consumer. As for why the vast, vast majority of games use it on Steam, that's because it's dead simple to use since it's a simple binary wrapper that Steam can automatically apply requiring no special coding tricks unlike Denuvo or its predecessor Starforce and most publishers want to use DRM because they think its use nets them more money.

[Delicieuxz]

On 4/30/2021 at 2:19 PM, Lurick said:

Wait, is this the same Humble Bundle that recently capped/cut the donations to charity from 100% to 15%?

 

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2021/04/humble_bundle_will_begin_to_cap_charity_donations_next_month

I don't know if it's been mentioned by anyone else already, but the devs of Wolfire Games who are filing this lawsuit against Valve and who founded Humble Bundle, Jeff Rosen and John Graham, haven't been affiliated with HB since maybe a couple of years ago. They sold the business to IGN back in 2017 and stayed-on for a couple of years after that before leaving the company entirely.

[WereCatf]

2 hours ago, JZStudios said:

The only people that buy games there either want the older titles they can't get on Steam or want games DRM free.

You're still grinding that axe and throwing around baseless projections. Well, okay then.

[suicidalfranco]

2 hours ago, JZStudios said:

I could give you a list.

enlighten me, i've got all night

[Lurick]

1 hour ago, Delicieuxz said:

I don't know if it's been mentioned by anyone else already, but the devs of Wolfire Games who are filing this lawsuit against Valve and who founded Humble Bundle, Jeff Rosen and John Graham, haven't been affiliated with HB since maybe a couple of years ago. They sold the business to IGN back in 2017 and stayed-on for a couple of years after that before leaving the company entirely.

Yah, I'd been meaning to edit that as I saw some comments on another article mention that. Will update that now

[suicidalfranco]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

Valve is forcing a high cut

considering that when they opened shop the standard cut was 50%, 30% sounded like a dream. 

And since they never changed that cut to this day, tell me where's the abuse. 

[Semper]

3 hours ago, JZStudios said:

So here's my question, everyone says they're fine with all the other first party launchers (Even though no one uses them so they're forced to sell through Steam anyways) because it's their games.

How exactly is it different for a publisher to publish a game solely on their own first party platform, than it is for EGS to do the same with purchasing rights, for a time limited deal no less?

How is it different than literally any other platform of anything paying for the sole rights of anything? iTunes, Spotify, Netflix, Hulu, etc? To put in game terms, EA signed an exclusivity deal with Porsche for 20 years. No other game outside the heaving financial backing of MS and Forza, later offloaded on the customer as paid DLC had Porsche for 20 years. People bitched about it, but no one boycotted EA or Need For Speed. And as soon as it was over Porsche gave EA the finger and rushed to be in everyone else's game as EA barely used them.

How exactly is it that people will boycott/ignore every other store unless they're forced to by exclusivity that a new storefront is supposed to show up and actually be profitable without also doing the same thing?

 

I'd really like to know how people expect a new store to open and be profitable and be a viable competitor without gimmicks like GOG's DRM free/classic game practices or exclusivity. If EGS launched exactly as Steam is now, why the fuck would anybody use it when it's identical to the thing they're already using? What would be the point in switching?

I never said I liked it, but it's their game. Should they choose to not make it available on multiple platforms, that's their prerogative. I'd be willing to put my life'e saving on the fact that there's games out there that I'd be interested in that I don't know about, simply because they didn't surface on Steam, not because Steam is the only platform that I use, but because it's the most accessible.

For the developer, it's no different at all. You're free to choose where your game is available. Steam, Epic, GOG, your own independent launcher, wherever. The simple fact is you're going to have the highest success chance with Valve because of their reach. The reality here is they effectively did it first, and as of current, they're still doing it the best. Steam is far from perfect, but they're still doing it better than anything that's come after them. Should they decide to preclude themselves from the reach that Steam has in an effort to avoid their cut, that's their decision. For Epic and the EGS, it's very different. It's a black knight in shining armor so to speak. "Beat the man and his monopolistic oligarchy" while simultaneously being the very definition of what they're trying to fight; "beat the monopoly by partaking in our monopoly" that's the crux of my issue. They're trying to beat something that doesn't exist, by becoming that which they claim exists.

I've already addressed how I feel about everybody wanting their piece of the pie. We're coming full circle back to cable TV. When netflix, again, the platform that effectively did it first, was the hub for streaming entertainment at a good price, piracy dropped. Now that every production company wants their own piece of the pie, the market is saturated and fragmented. To do what cable TV used to do at $50(?)/month would now cost several times that much.

"Nobody boycotted EA" clearly shows that you didn't read through my post. I will not be purchasing an EA title any time in the foreseeable future. Care to ask me what the last Need for Speed game I played was? Need for Speed III. Playstation 1, 1998.

I do not boycott other stores. I've made that very clear. I have multiple storefronts installed. I use multiple storefronts for both first and third party games.
Valve and Steam are not perfect, as I said previously. There's room for innovation. Petty bickering in the form of exclusivity deals shrouded in a thin veil of "pro consumerism" isn't innovation. Launching a shell of a platform to compete with something that's established isn't innovation. Innovation, incentive to use your platform because it offers something compelling that others don't is innovation. It's why Steam exists. Valve took a chance when PC gaming was the minority, it paid off for them. PC gaming success as we know it today has been influenced in no small part by Valve, for better or worse, whichever you view it as. I see Epic's stance as little more than a temper tantrum "that's not fair that they're so successful"

I don't see GOG's DRM stance as a gimmick.
I see EGS's exclusivity stance as a gimmick.
If EGS launched with the feature set that steam has now, it would have a fighting stance. It launched as a hollow platform with a buy game button, and exclusivity deals that backed it. If EGS had launched with something innovative, it would have offered incentive to use it.
So to you, I ask, What is the point in switching? Exclusivity? Is that the best that you can conceive to fight Valve? I won't be partaking in it.

 

[Brooksie359]

17 hours ago, JZStudios said:

You don't do logic well do you? Buying a Steam key on Gamestop is still buying it through Steam, not another platform. And the vast majority are Steam keys outside of Ubi and EA titles.

 

The only top games not sold on Steam are only available through their own first party launcher. That's primarily... Fortnight and...? Origin is now selling games through Steam after failing to make revenue otherwise, as well as Ubi. Hell, even MS is moving their games to Steam since people refuse to use their store. You let me know which other massive games are sold on multiple platforms that are blowing away the rest, because the games I listed are not small titles.

Once again you prove inept at following logic.

 

You're missing the entire fucking point of people saying "Steam is the only place to get 90% of games" by saying that some other first games are only available on first party launchers. That's not how an open market competition works. If you fail to understand that, then something is wrong with you.

 

There's probably an amount of development cost associated with other platforms, I don't really know. But given how if people say they'll skip Steam and just go to GOG or EGS the community will send them death threats and pirate their games... I mean, they could release on multiple platforms. GOG has been growing, but they're a much smaller store and since it's DRM free it's mostly old games and indie titles. Every other platform outside EGS now was always and is only really used for first party titles in an attempt to get the full price instead of splitting the revenue.

If you didn't release on Steam your game got no traction or people would just boycott/pirate it, and the other platforms (outside GOG) are really just first party. If you're a AAA studio and you want that sweet, sweet Denuvo, Steam was your only option.

 

That's why EGS came in and started trying to be an actual competitor to Steam as an actual storefront, and people are boycotting the shit out of them. Steam started this anti-consumer shit storm and somehow gained a rabid cult following.

 

How do you people think buying Steam keys isn't going through Steam? That's like saying you're not paying MS for your copy of Win10 because you bought it from your local PC store.

Steam has competition but they suck so nobody wants to use them leading to companies feeling the need to sell through stream to get to the market they have. Thats not steams fault and it is not on steam that the competition made their platforms so terrible that people can stand using them. If there is a real problem it is that the competition needs to improve their platforms so that people will actually want to use them and gain marketshare allowing companies to put their games on there without having to worry that they won't be hitting a huge part of the gaming market. I think if epic had put all that money into making a good platform and having the occasional free games they likely wouldn't have been boycotted for paying for exclusives. 

[ravenshrike]

48 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

If Valve is forcing a high cut

They aren't. Their operation costs are are much higher than stores like EGS and MS store specifically because they offer so many additional services. Even GoG, which doesn't offer nearly as many bennies as Steam wouldn't survive on a 12% cut. With costs to them accounted for at most they're making 15% profit on sales, which is not by any stretch of the imagination egregious outside of utilities.

[Thaldor]

While I can agree that the Steams initial 30% cut is steep and probably lowering it to the 24% (which is the second tier, IIRC) and going lower from that could be better for the devs. And I agree that Steam is a monolith that could be considered monopoly just because how huge it is.

 

But the kicker is, there really isn't any competition for it especially if you take the whole picture and not only what consumers see. Not a single other "platform" offers anything close to Steamworks which basicly is complete project manager where you can have your development builds, the gold build, experimental builds, version history for all of those and you don't need to have the game even close to be publishing ready to take those advantages. You can even share the project files through the Steamworks to all the devs (as in not the build game that testers and consumers get but the in-work project files) and quite easily manage through the keys who has access and to what branches and builds of the project. And from the key management IIRC Steam is still the only one that even allows you to get keys to sell/giveaway elsewhere without going through customer service and waiting and even straight out buy the keys in first place to be sold elsewhere (and I mean that is available for everyone, not just to some AAA games or special cases), yeah there is limitations to that but it's still more than the others offer.

 

This more or less stinks as the Wolfire trying to get the free meal, having the possibility to not list the game in Steam Store or at least up the price for Steam Store all while selling the keys in Humble Store or elsewhere cheaper or without any cuts and still use Steam to actually deliver the game. Which is something that probably not a single storefront would allow, not GoG, not EGS, not even the Microsoft one.

IMO this is more even pushed as they go on with the Steam's key pricing policy which is exactly that you wouldn't sell Steam keys cheaper elsewhere, which doesn't mean you couldn't sell your game cheaper elsewhere as long as you do not sell the Steam keys there (as in you can put your game in EGS for half the price and Valve probably wouldn't give two flying fracks because EGS copies aren't delivered through Steam, they are delivered through EGS and consuming their storage space and bandwidth not Steams like "Steam key" copies would).

[AndreiArgeanu]

How about making a proper competitor to Valve's Steam before actually whining. There's no other marketplace out there that offer the same community features, marketplace for trading and selling items, profile and achievements. Maybe if they'd actually bother to create some competition rather than whining about it, maybe Steam wouldn't be a leader in the market, or at least have as much of a lead in the market. Ah yes, I don't want to compete, so I'mma just sue everyone in my way for monopolistic behavior.

[Thaldor]

17 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

Well, after reading their complaint a bit more, it does sound abusive as in illegal.  I'm ignoring the cut aspect, but if the key restriction is true then yes you are abusing your monopoly, which is illegal.  But, if you signed something agreeing to it then you're probably SOL.

The key part is the one giving them away. Valve is OK for you to sell your game elsewhere at whatever price you want, as long as it's not delivered (as in the buyer doesn't come and use Valves servers and services to download the game) with Steam. They are not OK with you selling the Steam keys, which they need to deliver and basicly fulfill the order, somewhere else cheaper than the game is on Steam Store (with quite a lot special cases being approved like the Humble Bundle and other charity, giveaway and whatever cases), as in they are directly competing against Steam while Valve still must deliver the product.

 

What I think Wolfire Games are after is to get a court order on which they can either sell their games on Humble Store only or sell their games on Humble Store significantly cheaper than on Steam Store all while Valve must still handle the delivery of the games besicly without compensation. Just as Humble Store works currently but without the need of Valve keeping a track on what are the prices  and adjusting the Steam Store prices to reflect those just in hopes to get the 30% cut that also covers the bandwidth and other costs generated by the people buying the game from Humble Store and using Steam to get their bought games.

[Mark Kaine]

58 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, if you signed something agreeing to it then you're probably SOL.

Nope! im pretty sure this would be like a TOS. Sure ,its "binding" but only as long its not illegal itself.

 

 

[Andreas Lilja]

I guess not having a shopping cart isn't helping either.

[Spindel]

I say as in all these cases with Apple AppStore on iOS. 

 

If you don't like it build your own platform and distribute. If you want the exposure of 100 million users you pay for it. 

 

And to be really honest this is even more bizarre than the iOS appstore claims since at least you don't have to make any actual good hardware (that is expensive) to be able to compete, it's all software. 

[Stahlmann]

Imo Valve is not really a monopoly. You have the free coice to buy/sell your games whereever you want. The reason why the stores frome Epic, EA, Ubisoft, etc. cannot gain ground is because they just don't offer the same features as Steam does. And instead of trying to improve their platform they try to get exclusivity deals and force people to use their store. But because of this forced userbase it just leaves a bad taste in peoples mouths and because of this most people ulitmately don't stay in these platforms. So it's basically on Steam's competitors that they're not able to compete, not Valve.