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?
-
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.
-
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.
Did they explain why moving to another country ment anything?
-
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.
Did they explain why moving to another country ment anything?
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
I haven't really looked deeply into this issue but what caught my eye was the claim that a 30% fee was excessive. I'm no insider into video game publishing but 30% is the standard retail markup for many things. If you bought a candy bar today, it probably cost the mini mart you bought it from 70% of what they're charging.
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
I haven't really looked deeply into this issue but what caught my eye was the claim that a 30% fee was excessive. I'm no insider into video game publishing but 30% is the standard retail markup for many things. If you bought a candy bar today, it probably cost the mini mart you bought it from 70% of what they're charging.
-
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.
Isn't most of that from consoles and mobile?
-
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.
There's an argument for using these services in the early stages because they often operate at a loss in the hope that they will secure a monopoly in the future. The trick is to immediately abandon them when they jack the price up. I recently heard that in the food delivery space virtually no one is turning a profit.
-
I haven't really looked deeply into this issue but what caught my eye was the claim that a 30% fee was excessive. I'm no insider into video game publishing but 30% is the standard retail markup for many things. If you bought a candy bar today, it probably cost the mini mart you bought it from 70% of what they're charging.
Just letting you know that you commented the same thing twice.
-
Did they explain why moving to another country ment anything?
There was a time when the swastika was not allowed to be shown in games because of a law in Germany, causing Wolfenstein (the uncencored version) to be banned. Maybe the country in question has similar laws?
-
There's an argument for using these services in the early stages because they often operate at a loss in the hope that they will secure a monopoly in the future. The trick is to immediately abandon them when they jack the price up. I recently heard that in the food delivery space virtually no one is turning a profit.
Even worse, it's costing the food places you order from money. We have a lot of restaurants here that will give you free stuff if you do not use Thuisbezorgd which is owned by Just Eat Takeaway. They also own the American Grubhub since 2021 and are also active in the UK, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands.
-edit-
Correction they no longer own Grubhub, and are active in a lot more countries than I first thought, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Eat_Takeaway.com
