Legal action over 'unfair' Steam game store prices given go ahead
-
In 2005 when Roblox came out? No. League of Legends came out in 2009, and I had barely started shopping on Steam for non-Valve games back then. Most of us were still buying games on disc at Walmart. Minecraft was doing early access before Steam had the feature.
Jesus Christ, I had no idea know Roblox was that old. (2006 btw, not 2005) I thought LoL and Minecraft were the oldest, which both came out in 2009, and Steam had already cemented itself by then. It was definitely past its infancy, and what other digital game store was it competing with back then? I was already using it, and there was nowhere else I downloaded games from other than individual game's websites. It WAS the defacto storefront. Walmart is a store, not a storefront.
-
I haven't read the article yet, but isn't it about Steam's unfair cut?
-
Think of it this way, claiming the free game costs them bandwidth. Downloading the game costs them even more bandwidth. Yeah my bandwidth isn't much but collectively with everyone claiming the games that adds up. I have played and enjoyed a few like Dead Island 2, but I would never give Tim Sweeney and Epic game store money. I will just cost them money.
That...still doesn't make sense.
They waste money anyways. They have to be spending a lot to developers who are willing to have their games be given away for free.
Let them spend and waste on that, as well as just the sheer volume of bothering to stay in business. They must also be spending a lot to get so many licenses on Fortnite too. That's far more wasting than just bandwidth.
-
Jesus Christ, I had no idea know Roblox was that old. (2006 btw, not 2005) I thought LoL and Minecraft were the oldest, which both came out in 2009, and Steam had already cemented itself by then. It was definitely past its infancy, and what other digital game store was it competing with back then? I was already using it, and there was nowhere else I downloaded games from other than individual game's websites. It WAS the defacto storefront. Walmart is a store, not a storefront.
Steam was a launcher for games most people still bought on discs back then. I remember 2007 was the first time I bought a game on Steam, and it wasn't a regular habit for years after that. It wasn't about which other digital store you used; it was that, as a digital store, it held no power in the market compared to brick and mortar. Plus, back then, PC gaming was definitively second fiddle to consoles.
-
Steam was a launcher for games most people still bought on discs back then. I remember 2007 was the first time I bought a game on Steam, and it wasn't a regular habit for years after that. It wasn't about which other digital store you used; it was that, as a digital store, it held no power in the market compared to brick and mortar. Plus, back then, PC gaming was definitively second fiddle to consoles.
Except your original comment said nothing about the power it had against brick and morter, you said several of the games listed were old enough that steam was in its infancy and not the defacto storefront when they came out. The only one that came out when Steam was in its infancy was Roblox, and as for the rest, if there's no other storefronts around to speak of, then its the defacto storefront.
-
Yeah it is. But Epic is sounding like they never take a pay cut. Only, they still do. The way it works is, is that for the first 6 months, Epic allows a developer 100% of their revenue. Afterwards, they take 12%. But they also offer 0% revenue share on the first million earned on a game by a developer.
The issue really is that Epic makes it sound like they never take a pay cut, when they do, it just works differently.
-
Except your original comment said nothing about the power it had against brick and morter, you said several of the games listed were old enough that steam was in its infancy and not the defacto storefront when they came out. The only one that came out when Steam was in its infancy was Roblox, and as for the rest, if there's no other storefronts around to speak of, then its the defacto storefront.
If consumers' regular buying habits at the time were not to buy on Steam by default (which they weren't), then it's unimpressive, and not a feasible poster child, for one's game's ability to survive in the modern market without Steam. That's the point I was making. Brick and mortar was the de facto storefront for PC games at the time that most of those games came out, so it was not strange for an always-online game to sell itself online-only on their own web sites. These days, skipping Steam is not a path most will take, and for good reason.
-
It's the crux of the law suit? They are claiming that valve are applying it to non-steam key games. I think this is their website https://steamyouoweus.co.uk/faqs/
These price parity clauses apply to all games listed on Steam, not only those distributed via Steam Keys. As a result, other platforms cannot offer better deals, limiting consumer choice and keeping prices higher across the board. This harms competition in the market and stops other platforms from improving their services.
Though I do think the last part is nonsense.
It also says it in the article, though I suppose it is less clear:
The lawsuit - filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London - alleges Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.
The suggestion is that they are enforcing this on somewhere like gog, where they don't give you a steam key?
It's the crux of the law suit
The plaintiffs making the claim doesn't make it fact like you're suggesting. The entire lawsuit is hinging on a single email from years ago. That's not steady ground.
This is doubly true when you actually look at prices on other storefronts. How was EGS able to have lower prices or even give games away for free when said games were/are available on Steam at the same time?
-
If consumers' regular buying habits at the time were not to buy on Steam by default (which they weren't), then it's unimpressive, and not a feasible poster child, for one's game's ability to survive in the modern market without Steam. That's the point I was making. Brick and mortar was the de facto storefront for PC games at the time that most of those games came out, so it was not strange for an always-online game to sell itself online-only on their own web sites. These days, skipping Steam is not a path most will take, and for good reason.
You're moving the goalpost, have a nice day.
-
You're moving the goalpost, have a nice day.
I think you just internalized this to be only about online shopping, but that was never what I meant.
-
It's the crux of the law suit
The plaintiffs making the claim doesn't make it fact like you're suggesting. The entire lawsuit is hinging on a single email from years ago. That's not steady ground.
This is doubly true when you actually look at prices on other storefronts. How was EGS able to have lower prices or even give games away for free when said games were/are available on Steam at the same time?
It is the crux of the lawsuit, I don't think I suggested anything. The original post is asking what they are on about. I replied with what they are on about.
-
I don't feel like I'm flexing, just stating numbers, but whatever. I've already had an Epic account from way back, and it takes like 20 seconds of my time each week to claim the free game(s). I have such a large backlog of games on other platforms that I just don't go to Epic first to select something to play.
I keep them in case there's something I want to play on a particular day that I don't already own on another platform. And there have been a few recently that I'm becoming more interested in.
My original point is that I go with Steam because I enjoy their interface a lot more than Epic's. Epic needs to do more work. GOG as well. And Valve seems to be a better company overall, so my money goes to them.
