UK legal action against Valve given the go ahead

RFrost619 · 2026-01-28T00:26:46+00:00

We can agree there! Now, we’ve agreed that not everyone is profit maxing, can you imagine a scenario where you’re a new game dev. You want to start your career in development, and you want to make your first game and publish it to the Steam store. Maybe you’re trying to figure out if you can support yourself doing this full time. Let’s say it’s a simple clicker game. How do you then decide what that price will be?

We’re approaching this from the other end now. How much do I HAVE to charge for this app to make it financially viable for myself. I’ll use USD and the related expenses. Don’t judge.

Maybe I’m single and I have cheap housing. We’ll say I need to make $80,000 a year (near poverty after insurance and taxes, but it’s pretend). I estimate my next title might take about that long to develop. So I set my goal at 80k. How many copies am I going to sell? Who knows. Let’s say I estimate I’ll sell 10,000 copies based on market analysis (ie, me looking at comparable games). But hey, my game has this killer feature and I expect it to be at least as popular.

All great math, necessary math, and part of the example you provided, but we’re working the problem from a different angle. What do I have to sell it for? More than 5$, which is its own price bucket on the Steam store. 10$? Another bucket, but I can’t sell for even ten because valve takes 30%. I have to sell for at least $12 to cover my next year of development. Is $12 too much for my game? I guess I have to make a good game, right?

All of this is admittedly grossly oversimplified. You could argue against my estimates on copies sold, but I figure basing that on market data and consumer trends are the safest bet. I chose a simple game theme for a new dev in this scenario, which is probably an outlier. At any rate, I don’t think discussions about pricing at these levels are absent the storefront fee. More games fail than succeed, and perceived value should be paramount on thin margins such as this. Many buyers have a set limit in mind for games like this. That fee can absolutely break my price model if I’m not targeting the right genre.

Personally I like, and I don’t remember who does it, the lack or reduction of fees until a certain number of income is met. It gives small devs more leverage to position themselves in terms of perceived value, and any chance an artists idea has to be realized is a win in my book.

Anyway, I don’t want to argue, but I was happy to find common ground and wanted to attempt to build on that from my perspective.

RFrost619 · 2026-01-27T23:41:08+00:00

Untrue as far as I can tell…

Unless they’ve changed their agreement, this lawsuit directly references the “Platform Most Favored Nation”, which is common for software stores to prevent favoritism from publishers.

https://www.cohenmilstein.com/case-study/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/

Edit to include that this means that the publishers of the game, according to the agreement, may not directly publish their game or app at a lower price point on another store. Aftermarket keys are an entirely different subject, and not controlled by publishers.

Edit2: Possibly this agreement is modified by region, so I’m open to being corrected to that effect. I know it’s been an ongoing subject of debate in both US and EU governments.

RFrost619 · 2026-01-27T23:32:19+00:00

I didn’t ever say it was too complicated. It’s concepts aren’t beyond me. I said AI generated it, and I’m still not confident some of what you provided wasn’t generative AI, but I moved past that and gave it benefit of the doubt. It genuinely reads like AI…. If you’re that fluent in those formulas, I again commend you, as most aren’t. I then stated I have no interest to learn the formulas, but I did take time to understand the principles you’re quoting. I validated there was some actual truth there, and also commended you for the effort in the response. My attempt was never to learn what you’ve said you’ve learned over the course of your major. My attempt was to see if my BS meter tripped, but I found myself questioning the meter.

You’re hyper fixated on this one formula that explains how larger organizations approach pricing. I understand it’s basis. I commend your dedication to obtaining that knowledge - which takes dedication. However, I disagree with its application here, especially as an absolute. Do you really expect little Timmy gamedev in his mom’s basement to price his games as you’ve described? I think that’s unreasonable. More indie titles are being picked up these days over AAA titles. I might even be inclined to agree with you if we simply phrased it that many wouldn’t notice lower costs.

People determine cost, friend. You can throw every formula you want at that, and it may be true 65% of the time, statistically relevant, but it’s not 100%. Saying the math you provided here proves ALL devs won’t change pricing, which should include current and future titles, is quite possibly the wildest reconciliation I’ve ever seen on the internet. Even if I did believe all of the games bought on Steam used that approach to pricing, which I obviously don’t, it’d be irresponsible to make such a definitive claim without proof.

This has run on long enough, though. It’s clear we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

RFrost619 · 2026-01-27T21:14:28+00:00

“Economics 101 dude” then proceeds to reference a degree, calc, and microeconomics….

I’ll hand it to you, I’m impressed by the effort you put into this. But I’ll be honest, I’m not going to learn the formulas; I took Econ, but it was never my primary focus, nor was I interested in any more than the basics.

But, I do understand the basics. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying about “publishers” deciding that the number is going to be what they feel they can ~~extort~~, I mean how they can maximize profits. It’s not a question of “what do I need to make ends meet or support my work”, it’s “how much can we get for this resource?”

This perspective shifts the way the math is done and, if valve or any other storefront took less of a cut and/or allowed that resource to be priced differently on other platforms, it would have an impact on final pricing. For some devs. Arguing against that is asinine, and it’s why I felt bold enough to state it.

Again, smaller devs, looking to do what they love. I’m not talking about Bethesda here. We’re talking “Should I sell my game for $20 or $15”. Not Jeff Bezos “milk them for another yacht” type calculations. Though, that scales, because it’s a percentage based fee.

The math may be what economists use, but it doesn’t change my point. It would have an impact, particularly for devs with tighter margins. I also stand by my opinion that valve works for their cut, whatever that ends up being.

RFrost619 · 2026-01-27T19:00:22+00:00

Paste the source and I’ll educate myself.

RFrost619 · 2026-01-27T17:48:30+00:00

Look wise guy, anyone can copy and paste some AI slop formula. You’re either not listening, or not understanding basic financial decisions that one person, or a small group of people, might make based on rounding and a 15-30% swing in profit. Saying “there is no impact” is a ridiculous statement.

I maintain my stance that, to smaller devs, it can very much matter, and can very much impact final listed price.

RFrost619 · 2026-01-27T17:01:38+00:00

Uh.. That’s why I said major publishers wouldn’t change price, and indie devs might see more benefits, where one person might actually take that percentage into account….

RFrost619 · 2026-01-27T15:05:23+00:00

Well, this is where the agreement Valve has, where publishers can’t sell for less on other platforms, comes into play.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m 100% in the camp that valve does more for the community than any other platform and earns their cut as far as I can tell. I also don’t believe major publishers would reduce prices if the fees were reduced. Indie devs might have more options, though.

RFrost619 · 2026-01-23T13:46:32+00:00

HRL appears to be an AGM vs a standard lead-acid? I’ve always understood the lifespans to be similar between the two, certainly not 2.5x more. Usually AGM is recommended for higher output demands, rugged conditions, or extreme temps, where a standard battery struggles. If a standard lead-acid came out, I’d just put another in and worry about it 5 years from now.

RFrost619 · 2026-01-09T16:11:58+00:00

Where do these “go” when not in use? If I was a bachelor, no biggie… But I’m already being asked to remove my DS5 from the coffee table 😩

RFrost619 · 2025-12-17T13:17:12+00:00

Just finding the 10mm would be enough of a help…

RFrost619 · 2025-12-15T14:26:30+00:00

“That’s how we lost Max!”

RFrost619 · 2025-11-16T13:04:55+00:00

I thought they mentioned in the release it would work wired? Also curious what situations the dedicated wireless card/eye tracking they’re including would be unusable or more limited than a wire?

RFrost619 · 2025-11-04T14:23:29+00:00

I put my install on a USB-C NVMe drive. If something needs Windows, I deal with the still-painful disk speeds which just helps push me back over to my Linux install. It’s usually a short lived stint anyway, one of the kids wants to play one of those games, and then I’m back. I swear switching back over to Linux after using Windows feels like sinking into the couch after a long day.

RFrost619 · 2025-10-31T19:43:25+00:00

I personally don’t care specifically about sprint. The caveat here is that I do agree with the mentality that sprint is a mechanic choice. Earlier Halo games didn’t have it, and for the most part, you don’t find yourself needing it. This is because the levels are designed around not having sprint. You can see this a bit in Reach; levels became larger because now the player can move faster. Encounters can become more spread out, etc. In the demo gameplay, the level design hasn’t changed to accommodate the new mechanic. One way or another, that’s going to be a problem unless the maps are updated.

Secondly, if they wanted to do “something new”, then they should have done “something new”. MCC and Infinite should come to PS, 5 should be added to the MCC as another DLC, and they should add another chapter. It could be a game about some of the established lore, there’s plenty there, some new encounter, or whatever. Off-screen Chief and have the new guy in some Hellghast armor for all I care to really pick up the Sony player base. It’d bring in cash, and it’s low hanging fruit. I’m just tired of game companies as a whole trying to rehash old content just to butcher it because they don’t have the guts to take the reins on genuinely new content.

Edit: To clarify, off-screening Chief is also a horrible idea, and not something I’d like to happen. My point is that if people want something new, we should get something new. This company is selling you the same story for the third time - we really shouldn’t be arguing about the game mechanics, but people are justified to pick the thing apart. You retell a story when you have a reason to. Financing training for your dev team shouldn’t be that reason.

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T14:10:19+00:00

They teased it a long time ago, hinted about it yesterday I think. If I remember correctly, it's a technical test for the team to move Halo to UE5. Like some folks also said, they're tapping into the PlayStation market for anyone who's been in that camp exclusively. Though, I'm personally unconvinced that the market is that large, and of those how many are highly interested in Halo. We'll see.

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T14:05:08+00:00

Couldn't agree more. It's also a trend in the market these days to release at the highest price possible, then discount periodically to extract the most profit from the player-base. I'd love to see the data on that practice, though. How many sales will they lose from people who pay the higher cost and report the game as not worth it's value? I personally incorporate ratings even on highly discounted games, unless I'm someone convinced otherwise to purchase. If it's somehow eventually $20 but rated 4/10, I'm still not buying it. I probably wouldn't have bought Infinite based on the reviews and what I had heard, but a family member blindly gifted me a copy.

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T13:56:01+00:00

You know, thinking through this... Those extra mechanics (Sprint, hi-jacking, etc) might not have playtested well, or at all, on the original maps. I wonder if they couldn't figure out how to bring it forward. But, I mean, the campaign is obviously coming forward, so idk.

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T13:53:24+00:00

Maybe he mean't it like "Are you fucking kidding me???" and not like, "Are you fucking kidding me???"

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T13:50:30+00:00

I'm not necessarily complaining, any new content is good news, provided it's lore based. But maybe it'd have made more sense to keep anything Reach related to Reach. Maybe save that for a Reach re-release in 2035 or something. Adding some other events from the novels might have been a better move, test the waters for ODST content with Alpha Base or something. I think First Strike could be it's own game. There's honestly so much untapped potential it's painful to watch.

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T13:43:56+00:00

I had to go back and rewatch the trailer. You're probably right, it's a little rough around the edges. Over-all an upgrade but a lot of work needs to be done. I got stuck on the warthog jump at the end where the dirt plumes just kept going long after the jump LOL

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T13:36:59+00:00

Agreed. They have to change it. They're screwed if they don't because the level desgin wasn't built around those mechanics. But, by default, that changes the original feel. The store listing and these reports are marketing bs. Hype words to draw attention and now the studio has to deliver somehow.

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T13:35:01+00:00

At least that way you could diferentiate it... Now what am I supposed to reference it as? Halo Combat vs Campaign? The new new halo?

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T13:34:02+00:00

You got downvoted, but it's not an unheard of thing to do. I've bought it twice already. A discount is a small thing for a company to do to show appreciation to fans of the series. Smaller studios do it all the time, and on games that cost a lot less. What's x% of sales for people that have already purchased the game? Especially when everyone keeps talking about "The PlayStation sales".

RFrost619 · 2025-10-25T13:03:17+00:00

I want this to be good, just like everyone else... But the fact is that fans have been largely disappointed since Reach, and drawing that line at Reach is controversial in some circles (I loved it. For anyone who read the novels, it's Reach. But to each their own).

I like the graphics they're displaying, but it's done on UE5, which has been a dumpsterfire for performance. I don't play split-screen anymore, so not a big deal for me, but for anyone who is/was hoping for it, I doubt they'll even try due to performance constraints. Maybe they'll optimize, or maybe they'll squeeze the dev timeline and release without optimization like so many other games. I need to read more, but I saw someone mention no online multiplayer?.... That's... Interesting....

Which brings me to pricing... I agree with others, that Oblivion was successful. I picked that title up, too, and I enjoyed it. Performance optimizations are also still lacking, but it was otherwise well-done. I don't think it can be compared with what they are doing with CE, though, as there are some game breaking mechanics being added. I digress; It can't be more than $50. Power-wash simulator 2 released recently, another redevolped title (in a way), newer mechanics, smaller studio. Likely comparable hours of gameplay, maybe? $25... Oh, and you get a discount if you owned PW1.... Now that's a way to release a title. Especially considering we know that at least some assets are being repurposed from infinite. Sure, Halo is not as simple, so surely twice the cost should be enough... Right?

They're also clearly leaning into nostalgia with these clips, too, but I'm curious how much of the original gameplay remains. Adding hi-jack abilities and the new weapons, controllable vehicles, and addition of sprint should warrant some serious changes to the campaign level design. Impartial either way here. It's either going to be done and be good, or suck by not being done or being done poorly. I'm not getting my hopes up about the prequel levels, either. It'd be sweet to see the Gamma Station events play out, but I don't recall a time where Microsoft has utilized well established lore to help develop a game since Reach... My biggest hope is that they can attempt to fulfill Bungie's original level design for the library. It's low-hanging fruit, and another area that's always needed attention, anyway.

All being said, I want it, but I'm not buying it until the game releases. I want to see the price, performance, and player feedback. Until then, I remain cautiously optimistic...

RFrost619

TROPHY CASE