Why is Valve being sued for almost $900 million, but Epic Games wasn't sued when they bought Rocket League and Fall Guys to remove them from steam?
-
I can't corroborate that Steam's revenue for the e-shop was $16Bn. The best estimate that I have is that their game sales netted them $4Bn last year. I'm still trying to find a better source for that. However we may both be wrong here.
Ya, I misread it and I'm way off. It's 4bn. Epic also made a lot less, my stats are not for gross revenue but generated revenue before they split it with the devs. Amateur hour over here (me, not you).
I went off in my other comment and was a bit of a dick throughout the convo. It just feels like someone is being robbed here. 4bn is a lot of money and, from the wolffire lawsuit leak, they have less than 100 people working on steam full time.
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
Who sued who in the what now?
-
its not about making better product for epic. its about removing competition so they dont have to.
They could remove that competition by making a better product, but that is somehow always the last thing they'd ever think about. It never stops being so fucking weird with all these business people who go to great lengths to do shitty stuff and always end up making it worse for everyone except a quick buck for themselves, even though they could easily make a lot more for a longer time by simply doing a good job. But no, that would require anything other than immediate greed. Absolutely vile people.
-
That's false. They do not allow steam keys (free to generate steam licenses of games) to be sold cheaper anywhere else for less than the game is sold for on steam. And in exchange, the profits on those game licenses sold elsewhere the developer gets to keep 100% of.
It is alleged by one developer that steam told them they can't sell their game for less on other stores even if they use a different company to generate the license keys. But that hasn't been proven. And since only 2 other developers are backing the new class action lawsuit out of literally thousands of devs who would be effected this way if it were true, it logically doesn't make sense. The dev who brought the first lawsuit that go thrown out? Their game is still up on Steam.
The fact is, Epic is making half the revenue Steam is with 11 times less market share, and not gaining market share because customers don't want to use their store. Customers don't want free games they want services that work.
You're alleging that Valve is doing something anti-competitive to maintain their market share here and you still haven't given me what I asked for.
What regulations are you expecting to be imposed, and how will that detrimentally or positively effect the consumers?
They do not allow steam keys (free to generate steam licenses of games) to be sold cheaper anywhere else for less than the game is sold for on steam.
That itself is false too with a quick look at isthereanydeals showing lot of steam games being sold cheaper outside of the steam store.
Even the Steam key guidelines don't explicitly state that steam keys can't be sold cheaper.
It's OK to run a discount for Steam Keys on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
Key word being comparable which is why if you are a user of isthereanydeals or /r/gamedeals you've likely gotten most of your steam games from outside the official Steam store.
I think some people just assume Steam sales must be the cheapest and don't look beyond it.
-
its not about making better product for epic. its about removing competition so they dont have to.
Epic approach is the typical venture capitalist run company approach of running at loss then once they get market share start jacking up the prices.
Can't really trust a company until they are actually profitable with a functioning sustainable business model. We've seen it time and time again where even Facebook launched without ads and look at it now.
-
Well that's stupid. If Steam charged less, the price of games wouldn't change.
Developers and publishers would just pocket the difference.
Best example is Ubisoft and EA when they took their games off Steam and Epic wasn't around but didn't sell their games any cheaper despite 0% cut. Or Final Fantasy 7 Remake released as an Epic exclusive, but was priced at $70.
It is weird. Every other product people know that companies want to charge as much as the market will take to maximize profits. Most noticeable examples being GPU prices over the years and now ram and storage.
But, gamers for some reason think companies want to price things lower as though game companies are so noble they escape the greed of capitalism to seek out exponential profits.
-
That's not true, it only applies if you're selling a steam key. Devs are free to set the price on any platform they want, want proof? Check out the currently free game on epic which has never been free on Steam.
Steam provides developers with infinite steam keys that they can sell outside of steam for 100% profit, however those keys cannot be sold at a lesser price than what it's sold on steam. Which honestly sounds like common sense.
That itself is false too with a quick look at isthereanydeals showing lot of steam games being sold cheaper outside of the steam store.
Even the Steam key guidelines don't explicitly state that steam keys can't be sold cheaper.
It's OK to run a discount for Steam Keys on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
Key word being comparable which is why if you are a user of isthereanydeals or /r/gamedeals you've likely gotten most of your steam games from outside the official Steam store.
I think some people just assume Steam sales must be the cheapest and don't look beyond it.
I am puzzled why people believe Steam keys can't be sold cheaper outside Steam unless they never looked outside the Steam store.
This is one example of a game that isnt too old is Silent Hill F.
https://isthereanydeal.com/game/silent-hill-f/info/
Historical low is $31.49 from Fanatical and Steam low is $41.99
-
They could remove that competition by making a better product, but that is somehow always the last thing they'd ever think about. It never stops being so fucking weird with all these business people who go to great lengths to do shitty stuff and always end up making it worse for everyone except a quick buck for themselves, even though they could easily make a lot more for a longer time by simply doing a good job. But no, that would require anything other than immediate greed. Absolutely vile people.
Their approach feels like how lot of companies are currently focusing on AI to market to investors and AI data centers directly, and ignoring what consumers want assuming their opinions are of little relevance. Like how Microsoft doesn't care if people dont want copilot, and keeps talking up the corporate side with the assumption that they know people will use Microsoft no matter what.
Which is much like Epic with them focusing more on giving money to publishers to lock up titles in the past like Final Fantasy 7 Remake from Square Enix over concerning themselves with the demographic of people buying the product.
Its not a consumer focused business model, because the idea of consumers not buying it is impossible to comprehend. Their headlines never seem to be around how its better for the consumer and the benefits to using them over the competition.
-
Which isn’t accurate and is more nuanced involving Steam keys like another user said. For instance, Prey is on sale for $6 on the PlayStation store but still $30 on Steam.
That's because they can't intimidate Bethesda with an email.
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
I didn't know Fall Guys got bought out. But then again, that was a flavor-of-the-week kind of game where streamers tried to care, then moved on and Fall Guys became irrelevant.
-
Because Steam is the world's biggest games store on PC while Epic is statistically insignificant. What's the question?
What if I told you that the MAU count for Fortnite alone is more than half of the total MAU count for all of steam?
Even if the only game on epic was Fortnite, that doesn't qualify as "statistically insignificant" no matter how you look at it.
-
Epic approach is the typical venture capitalist run company approach of running at loss then once they get market share start jacking up the prices.
Can't really trust a company until they are actually profitable with a functioning sustainable business model. We've seen it time and time again where even Facebook launched without ads and look at it now.
If they didn't have fortnite and unreal engine money propping them up it would have closed by now. Hasn't been profitable since it opened in 2018.
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
I'm still bitter at Steam for taking a bunch of my single-player games off me that I'd already paid for when I moved to another country, and refusing to refund me because I'd already played 10 hours. Also the support guy treated me like I was a criminal for even trying.
-
That itself is false too with a quick look at isthereanydeals showing lot of steam games being sold cheaper outside of the steam store.
Even the Steam key guidelines don't explicitly state that steam keys can't be sold cheaper.
It's OK to run a discount for Steam Keys on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
Key word being comparable which is why if you are a user of isthereanydeals or /r/gamedeals you've likely gotten most of your steam games from outside the official Steam store.
I think some people just assume Steam sales must be the cheapest and don't look beyond it.
I am puzzled why people believe Steam keys can't be sold cheaper outside Steam unless they never looked outside the Steam store.
This is one example of a game that isnt too old is Silent Hill F.
https://isthereanydeal.com/game/silent-hill-f/info/
Historical low is $31.49 from Fanatical and Steam low is $41.99
Sure, but that's more about Valve not pursuing violations than anything else (in other comment I also mentioned how they turn a blind eye to Humble Bundle as well). But legally they could go after silent hill f and demand it be sold for a similar value to $31.49 since some time has passed and stem users have not been offered a comparable offer. I think what's in the clause they make people sign is more important than whether they enforce it or not, because if it was about price parity with other stores then it would be abusive (even if they didn't enforced it always), but if it is about selling something they provide then it's not abusive even if they do enforced it always.
-
“Gaming community.”
Steam and Epic are both malware.
I wouldn't call them malware, but both Valve and Epic are not your friends and they have done a lot of bad shit (Valve was huge in enabling lootbox gameplay).
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
they probably have a legal team protecting thats why, or they are paying of some judges/politicans.
-
You have to differentiate between a monopoly in economics and a monopoly in law.
In economics a monopoly is the only seller of a good with no other competition. If I am the only one who owns apple trees, I got a monopoly on apples.
In law a monopoly is someone who owns so much of the market that they can charge unfair prices. If I am the only one who owns large orchards full of the best kind of apple trees, it doesn't really matter to me that someone else has a couple mediocre trees in their backyard. I am not a economics-monopoly, since someone else is also selling apples, but I hold enough of the market that I can set the price to whatever I want.
(Ok, the analogy isn't perfect, but you get it, I hope. Basically the "excess market power" thing you talked about is the legal definition of a monopoly.)
Customers don't necessarily need to be end customers. If steam is charging their business customers too much, that counts too. (It also affects the end customers too, btw.)
So the question is: If I don't release a game on steam, will that cause it to underperform significantly? If so, does steam charge a lot above market price? If both of these questions are answered with yes, a lawsuit could be successful.
-
If they didn't have fortnite and unreal engine money propping them up it would have closed by now. Hasn't been profitable since it opened in 2018.
If they didn’t have Fortnite they probably wouldn’t even have the money to dump into Unreal Engine to make it where it is today. They probably would ask Tencent for more money and Tencent would have bought the rest of the company. The game engine business is just not as profitable as Fortnite, just look at Unity.
-
You have to differentiate between a monopoly in economics and a monopoly in law.
In economics a monopoly is the only seller of a good with no other competition. If I am the only one who owns apple trees, I got a monopoly on apples.
In law a monopoly is someone who owns so much of the market that they can charge unfair prices. If I am the only one who owns large orchards full of the best kind of apple trees, it doesn't really matter to me that someone else has a couple mediocre trees in their backyard. I am not a economics-monopoly, since someone else is also selling apples, but I hold enough of the market that I can set the price to whatever I want.
(Ok, the analogy isn't perfect, but you get it, I hope. Basically the "excess market power" thing you talked about is the legal definition of a monopoly.)
Customers don't necessarily need to be end customers. If steam is charging their business customers too much, that counts too. (It also affects the end customers too, btw.)
So the question is: If I don't release a game on steam, will that cause it to underperform significantly? If so, does steam charge a lot above market price? If both of these questions are answered with yes, a lawsuit could be successful.
UK law basically doesn't use the term.
My point was that proving dominance and abuse is rarely objective fact. It sure isn't showing market share and that some games companies go out of business. They have to show the things that valve does to restrict competition - being popular isn't enough alone.
Your last question is quite a good example of how hard it is to prove because it includes counterfactual comparisons.
This might be why it seems (if the journo is to be believed) that they're going down the tie-ins angle for the DLC, not necessarily headline pricing. Thou the latter would probably a worse outcome for valve if guilty.
-
They were mentioned in a recent Youtube video by Bellular News. I haven't read more about it myself.
