Dieser Bereich kann Inhalte enthalten, die nicht für alle Nutzer geeignet sind. Dazu können unter anderem Texte, Medien oder Diskussionen gehören, die als beleidigend, extremistisch, gewaltbezogen oder anderweitig belastend empfunden werden. Wenn du solche Inhalte nicht sehen möchtest, nutze bitte die jeweiligen Filter- und Meldeoptionen der Plattform oder meide entsprechende Threads/Communities.
Did they? Just searched the web and, voila you are right: https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/pc-gaming/valve-clarifies-ban-on-in-game-advertising-on-steam Now they do not link to the page they cite (bad habit, I hate that), so let me quickly find the source… aaand there it is: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/marketing/advertising
That doesn’t discuss pause screen ads, unfortunately.
If they accept money to show those pause screen ads, that’s part of their business model and it wouldn’t be allowed.
I’m no lawyer, so I’m sure some corporate goon (on either side) will find loopholes to do whatever they want, but the idea is to ban mobile-style F2P games where you show ads alongside gameplay or “watch ads to refill your play meter” as your only revenue stream. Some other kinds of in-game advertising are still allowed. Unfortunately.
Requiring a 30-second pause every half hour (or whatever the timer is) is “gating gameplay behind advertising”.
Yes. Pause screens seem not to fall under these categories. Valve will probably update this page to clarify on this, either to allow or to ban. So its worth keeping an eye on this page for changes.
Unfortunately “should” and “must” have different legal meanings
At least they are saying steam will not help or support that feature in any way. That reads like, if it makes your game unavailable offline, sale is prohibited.
Or shall.
Valve can kick out games that do not play along their rules. They should follow the rules, or they risk to get kicked out. So whats your point?
A little harder to enforce (‘no, judge, it says SHOULD, grant our civil suit please’) and a little easier to grant exceptions for than saying “must” (ah sorry customers, bigco had a bunch of money, and the rules don’t say MUST). It’s a well known wording choice in software, see every RFC ever.
It signals to me that Valve wanted an out for their rules when they wrote them because it’s an odd choice for such a well known word choice otherwise.
I think in this context “should” and “must” are interchangeable, because its under “Not Supported” listed.