Legal action over 'unfair' Steam game store prices given go ahead
-
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.
-
Because Apple and Google are trying to lock down their platform to make sure there is no competition. The only thing Valve does is exist. Valve isn't trying to make it impossible for GOG or Itch or Epic store to exist, in fact Valve can't even do that (unless their SteamOS becomes a locked down platform which guarantees a consumer backlash) because PC is an open platform. Partly thanks to Valve you're no longer tied to Microslop either, you can swap to any Linux distro and have the vast majority of games still work. Valve isn't even using it's market position to keep competition down (even if the lawsuit tries to argue the opposite). The brought up arguments either have no impact on the consumer market or a things that other storefronts are also doing.
I'm not against having more competition on the storefront side, but this lawsuit is just about trying to squeeze money out of Valve.
In many ways I agree but the point of not being able to use expansion packs across platforms is a kind of lock in. I wish more tech companies were like Valve for sure, but they too need to be kept on check.
-
Aren't those keys for valve hosted games, meaning that they are taking full advantage of valve CDN... and so even though they're being sold on a different site, they're still being procured from valve? Way it reads to me, they're not saying they can't sell it cheaper on another market place, they're simply saying if you're using our infrastructure to distribute the game, don't undercut what we are selling your game for.
Which doesn't sound unreasonable to me... but I'm just a dude sitting in his office... so fuck if I know.
That's just the thing - the publicly visible rules are about the keys, but the email that's part of evidence isn't about the keys. (Also, steam isn't just distributing the game, but providing other services for workshop, cloud saves, multiplayer, forums)
-
Yes, the publishers have control over that, which is why I'm saying it doesn't make sense to praise Steam over games on it going on sale.
-
In many ways I agree but the point of not being able to use expansion packs across platforms is a kind of lock in. I wish more tech companies were like Valve for sure, but they too need to be kept on check.
Is there a store that allows using expansion packs across platforms? There may be some individual games that may allow it, but I don't know a single storefront that let's you use DLCs or expansions across platforms/storefronts.
-
What the fuck are you even talking about?
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.
This has been known about steam for quite some time now. This is textbook anti-trust lawsuit.
-
alleges Valve “forces” game publishers to sign up to conditions which prevents them from selling their titles earlier or for less on rival platforms.
Epic gives away games for free that cost money on Steam. The fuck is this person talking about?
Before they're released on steam? I'm fairly sure all the free games have been released to steam first, or did you fail the reading comprehension?
-
Valve got to where they are by simply being the option that offered the most convenience to end users.
All the things this lawsuit is challenging are true. Valve does have a defacto monopoly on PC games distribution, they do not let you buy DLC on other platforms for games you own on steam, and they do take a 30% cut of sales.
Having these be limited by government regulation is a good thing. It would increase interoperability and increase competition in the space.
If those things get changed, people will still continue to use Steam because they continue to offer a service that "just works". Every other storefront that has attempted to compete seems to either trip over itself by trying some anti-consumer behavior to increase short term profit(EGS, Uplay), lack discoverability features(itch), or not offer enough benefit to endure cost of change(GoG)
I'm seriously failing to understand why is Lemmy suddenly defending a corporation and a billionaire from such things. The lawsuit isn't even about the 30% cut, but that's also greediness. The "tax" hasn't changed since the times 100GB HDD costed around thousand of dollars, internet was metered in megabytes and the infrastructure was just not there yet. Still taking 30% from all devs is clearly corporate behaviour. Valve is literally called "Valve Corporation". Sure, they're less evil than EA, but is that everything gamers need to settle down?
EDIT: All hail Gabe and his fleet of super yachts, gimme upvotes. Redditors.
-
This is about steam. Post another thing for epic if you want. Whataboutism is not a good look. Two things can be bad at the same time. One thing can be "better" than something else while still being bad.
-
This is about steam. Post another thing for epic if you want. Whataboutism is not a good look. Two things can be bad at the same time. One thing can be "better" than something else while still being bad.
What isn't a good look is you dictating how a conversation should go. Maybe go back to your basement, nobody asked you to talk.
