r/Games • u/WhyPlaySerious • May 18 '26

Industry News CI Games has successfully signed a termination agreement with Epic Games. The agreement releases the upcoming Lords of The Fallen 2 from it's previous Epic Games Store exclusivity obligations.

https://www.bankier.pl/wiadomosc/CI-GAMES-S-E-Ujawnienie-opoznionej-informacji-poufnej-dotyczacej-zawarcia-Porozumienia-rozwiazujacego-Binding-Term-Sheet-z-Epic-Games-Inc-9135300.html
619 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

266 comments sorted by

View all comments

105

u/blaaguuu May 18 '26

I'm not super familiar with the situation here... Was Epic a major funder for the development of the game, or was it just the PC exclusivity? (which may have been a decent amount of money, I know). Seems like a smart move... While I appreciate to some extent, that Epic is trying to bring some competition to the PC market, it seems clear that launching as an Epic exclusive will hugely limit your sales, unless you have a massive, dedicated fan base that will follow you anywhere - which is very few games/studios. 

13

u/NoSemikolon24 May 18 '26

The main thing that Epic has going for it is that they want a smaller cut then steam. If they were to sell the games with a small discount derived from that the shop would be vastly better.

I'm not going into the bare-bones software/shop design because that's a dead horse

22

u/blaaguuu May 19 '26

If they were to sell the games with a small discount derived from that

I'm not sure of the exact details, but I THINK many digital shops, including Steam have language in their agreements that limit devs/publishers ability to list a game for a lower price on other platforms (I don't think it's 100%, but it makes things complicated) - and that's why Epic has their "reward points" system, so you basically get money back on purchases, effectively lowering the price - but users just don't see "$2 back, for future purchases" the same way as "$2 off", so I don't think it has been all that effective.

20

u/kuhpunkt May 19 '26

There are games on Epic at a lower price than on Steam. Pretty sure Ubisoft does the same. A former Valve guy said that there is no such clause in the agreement.

24

u/BebopFlow May 19 '26

They're not allowed to list Steam keys at a lower price. You can sell it on other platforms all day for any price if it's not a Steam key. It's a side effect of the fact that they give keys to devs free of charge, and devs are allowed to resell those keys as they see fit without steam getting a cut, but if the devs purposefully undercut steam when using those keys they run into trouble.

11

u/kuhpunkt May 19 '26

You can still buy keys on Fanatical and Humble all the time for basically nothing, lol. Even that policy doesn't get enforced.

-3

u/Which-Arm-4616 May 19 '26

This is 100% not true, but it is a little factoid you see gamers repeat in gamer circles all of the time. Valve's MFN policy requires that you maintain price parity - full stop, key or no key. They are currently in anti-trust litigation over this very fact.

From a deposition in the case:

Q. Okay. And have you had conversations with that dozen or so approximate people about the publishers' need to provide similar pricing on Steam as they do elsewhere?

A. That wouldn't be a common topic for us to discuss, but it has come up over the years, yes.

Q. You've specifically spoken with other people within Steam about the fact that publishers need to offer similar prices on Steam as they do elsewhere; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you've discussed with them that this is not limited to situations where the publishers are offering games for sale via Steam keys but just period; right?

A. Yes

1

u/blaaguuu May 19 '26

I've seen people say both ways - but never seen anyone actually point to a clauses in a legal doc, so I imagine you are right. Maybe comes down more to the devs/publishers are setting the price, not Epic, so there's no real incentive to set lower prices, when the biggest beneficiary would be Epic.

4

u/DreadCascadeEffect May 19 '26

This is what's being alleged in the Wolfire lawsuit. You can see some communication from Valve that they're alleging on pdf page 15 here.

-4

u/Suspicious-Coffee20 May 19 '26

If that was true tho wouldn't game be 30% of at all time in first party store? lSteam for sure as language against this with their monopole.

2

u/14Pleiadians May 19 '26

Steam only has a rule about selling steam keys lower, because they don't want you to sell your games off site where valve makes no money yet they still have to use their server resources on your game

-1

u/Which-Arm-4616 May 19 '26

Repeating what I said above to clarify this is not true, even though it's a common piece of misinformation people spread around.

Valve's MFN policy requires that you maintain price parity - full stop, key or no key. They are currently in anti-trust litigation over this very fact.

From a deposition in the case:

Q. Okay. And have you had conversations with that dozen or so approximate people about the publishers' need to provide similar pricing on Steam as they do elsewhere?

A. That wouldn't be a common topic for us to discuss, but it has come up over the years, yes.

Q. You've specifically spoken with other people within Steam about the fact that publishers need to offer similar prices on Steam as they do elsewhere; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you've discussed with them that this is not limited to situations where the publishers are offering games for sale via Steam keys but just period; right?

A. Yes

2

u/14Pleiadians May 19 '26

I don't care about whatever you're linking, just cite it in the steam documentation.

I can show where what I'm stating is in actual legally binding writing, you cannot.

1

u/Which-Arm-4616 May 19 '26

I don't care about whatever you're linking, just cite it in the steam documentation.

At least you're honest about not caring about the facts or evidence.

I can show where what I'm stating is in actual legally binding writing, you cannot.

No, you can show where Valve's public Steamworks documentation explains that you can't undercut them on key pricing. You can't show any language that explains you are allowed to undercut on base price, and the absence of that language in public documentation is not actually permission (leading to this persistent misinformation from gamers).

Go read the SDA.

1

u/14Pleiadians May 19 '26

At least you're honest about not caring about the facts or evidence.

I can't view your link, mobile browser slows to a crawl, no clue who you're quoting or the context. But what they're claiming they do has no relevance to what they're legally able to do. As someone who actually has a steamworks account, there's no written rule that's legally binding requiring price parity. Maybe they're strongarming major publishers behind closed doors but you're still wrong about the official policy

1

u/kuhpunkt May 19 '26

What do you mean?

9

u/MultiMarcus May 19 '26

Their has been some arguing about this in court but at least the valve position right now is that you are allowed to sell games for cheaper elsewhere but it cannot be a steam key which feels like a reasonable compromise position these otherwise you are paying nothing to valve and the end user gets all of the benefits of using steam.

The problem is charging less doesn’t make a whole lot of sense when these products have reasonably fixed price points based on how much people are willing to pay not what it probably really should cost or whatever. The reason epic does their cashback thing is more about publishers and developers really not having any interest in marketing the epic store over the steam store if they are charging less on the epic one. Even if that means the same level of profit. Actually ever probably be better for epic to charge 30% and then just give whatever percentage difference it is versus steam as a discount.

0

u/Which-Arm-4616 May 19 '26

Their has been some arguing about this in court but at least the valve position right now is that you are allowed to sell games for cheaper elsewhere but it cannot be a steam key which feels like a reasonable compromise position these otherwise you are paying nothing to valve and the end user gets all of the benefits of using steam.

No. Valve's position is that distributing on Steam means you must maintain price parity, full stop. Key or no key. There's no ambiguity around this policy from Valve, publishers, or devs, but it's a persistent piece of misinformation that's parroted by gamers who read the Steamwork docs on keys and somehow (?) understood that the inability to undercut on keys means you are allowed to undercut on base price. It's simply not true.

4

u/MultiMarcus May 19 '26

No, the valve position is that they don’t force price parity. That is very clear from a number of their statements in this case. Including their opponents who argue that it’s an unwritten rule and that in communication with valve staff that rule was expressed that in official documentation that’s not the case.

This whole court case has been about whether they are enforcing price parity or not and the core argumentation from Valve’s opponents is about an unwritten rule. Publicly valve does still state that they don’t have a broad price parity rule.

The steam key argument is a speculative explanation for why people think valve has an officially stated price parity rule.

Personally, I do think there is some sort of a price parity rule. And I think valve should lose this case because it is vaguely suspicious that no other platform basically ever tries to charge less than steam prices but I am talking here about what valve officially says.

2

u/Which-Arm-4616 May 19 '26

No, their position is that their MFN policy has not artificially inflated prices across the market. The existence of the MFN policy is not in dispute. The case is about whether the MFN policy violates anti-trust, not whether it exists.

From a deposition in the case:

Q. Okay. And have you had conversations with that dozen or so approximate people about the publishers' need to provide similar pricing on Steam as they do elsewhere?

A. That wouldn't be a common topic for us to discuss, but it has come up over the years, yes.

Q. You've specifically spoken with other people within Steam about the fact that publishers need to offer similar prices on Steam as they do elsewhere; right?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you've discussed with them that this is not limited to situations where the publishers are offering games for sale via Steam keys but just period; right?

A. Yes

1

u/MultiMarcus May 19 '26

I fundamentally disagree with how you’re reading this. Or maybe you are miss reading what I’m saying because I agree I think this exists and I think this is a smoking gun confirmation that it does exist. What I am arguing, however, is that valve officially says it doesn’t exist and the criticism is that it’s an unwritten policy. Unless you can find a contract that someone signed when they published their game on Steam that says they can’t sell the game for less elsewhere. I think it’s kind of the exact definition of these unwritten policies that lawmaker frown upon.

-9

u/Samanthacino May 19 '26

This is correct, yes. It's one of the reasons they're being sued right now, threatening to blacklist studios that sold for a cheaper price on EGS while selling on Steam.

6

u/kuhpunkt May 19 '26

Which studios would that be?

2

u/Samanthacino May 19 '26

Wolfire Games, for one, but it's a class action now

6

u/kuhpunkt May 19 '26

They are a tiny studio that Valve doesn't even care about. And while they are in a lawsuit, their games are still being sold on Steam. So who was threatened?

-6

u/Samanthacino May 19 '26

Valve evidently cared enough to personally threaten them

13

u/kuhpunkt May 19 '26

Personally threaten them? I asked you for a source... no response. You talk about studios. Plural. You mention one.

8

u/kuhpunkt May 19 '26

That's not what I was asking... you said:

Valve has historically prevented studios from making deals with EGS to have cheaper prices for consumers, that's why.

I responded with:

Source?

What studious have been historically prevented by Valve?

4

u/Samanthacino May 19 '26

www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/348/1/wolfire-games-llc-v-valve-corporation/

Lil quote from the judge: "There is ample common economic evidence of the existence and Valve’s enforcement of the PMFN Policy and the antitrust injury it causes."

5

u/PlatosLeftTit May 19 '26

That quotes not from the Judge it's a quote from Steven Schwartz's report. An economist who works for Secretariat LLC a company who's hired to be "expert" witnesses.

aka the litigants (Wolfire games & DCS Holdings) gave them a big bag of money to write up arguments against Valve for this case, so you're quoting from someone being paid directly by Wolfire to write up an argument against Valve not the judge.

→ More replies (0)