Games

Epic exclusives prove that developers are happy skipping Steam entirely.

Thanks for sharing that!

Steam’s “price parity rule” is a policy that ensures that 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.

IMO, it's reasonable to say "If you want to sell Steam keys off Steam, you need to follow our pricing rules," but it is not reasonable to say "If you want to sell your game, sans keys, off Steam, you have to follow our pricing rules to keep selling on Steam." You're talking about the former here, right? Or does that mean that the following situation is prohibited:

• Your game is listed at $50 on Steam
• You sell keys from your own site for $50
• You sell your game directly from your site for $40

and if so, that the mitigation is to either stop selling Steam keys entirely or to raise the price on your own site to $50?

That's somewhere in between the two but I dislike it. I suspect it's more legally murky, too, like tied selling.

The article briefly talks about the latter (emphasis mine):

Wolfire's David Rosen expanded on that accusation in a recent blog post, saying that Valve threatened to "remove [Wolfire's game] Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website, without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM."

However, it also says "Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this 'parity' rule only applies to the 'free' Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms. Valve hasn't responded to a request for comment on this story." I wonder if the lack of comment was because of Wolfire's lawsuit?

I'm also now curious if the reason for Steam saying that was related to the in-between situation I talked about above.

@Kecessa@sh.itjust.works shared this ArsTechnica article from 2022 that covers an update on that lawsuit - I haven't seen anything more recent. In it, Wolfire makes the same claim, in court, that they'd already made in their blog post, which was sufficient to convince the judge to re-open their case.

The ruling [to re-open the case] makes particular note of “a Steam account manager [who] informed Plaintiff Wolfire that ‘it would delist any games available for sale at a lower price elsewhere, whether or not using Steam keys [emphasis in original complaint].’” The amended suit also alleges that “this experience is not unique to Wolfire,” which could factor into the developer’s proposed class-action complaint.

Hopefully we'll hear more about that soon.

Your best sources are a tweet by a competitor and a 2.5 year old lawsuit filed because of that tweet? Excuse me for maintaining my skepticism.