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?
-
They are being accused of price fixing with the whole "can't sell games for cheaper on other store fronts compared to the steam listing" thing
warm@kbin.earth explains it better below:
It only applies to Steam product keys though, so developers cannot sell cheap Steam keys on other platforms while still taking advantage of Steam’s services.
Oh well that's totally fair, honestly.
It locks out real competitive pricing.
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
Because Steam is the world's biggest games store on PC while Epic is statistically insignificant. What's the question?
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
Valve is being sued because they are forcing others to follow policies that further entrenches Steam as the largest store.
Since Epic bought the game developer, it only applies to themselves. It is much harder to sue someone over a decision that only applies to something they own. How can a company be sued for not selling their product at a store? Should Valve be sued for not selling their own games on Epic or GOG?
Is Epic’s decision to only sell their games on their store annoying for users? Yes. But unfortunately, there is nothing illegal about. There would be a better chance of a lawsuit of Epic paying other game developers for exclusivity, but that would still not be easy as game exclusivity is still a significant factor on game consoles as well. Albeit much less than in the past.
-
What are they being sued for? I guess I missed this?
Also I guess it could be argued they only removed it from new sales whereas people who already owned those titles on Steam still have them on Steam.
As per my understanding (which isn't saying much), Steam takes a 30% cut of each sale.
In UK, someone with a specific agenda claimed to represent gamers as a class and sued reasoning that the 30% cut inflates the price of games globally even beyond Steam's store, harming everyone.Did i understand it right? No idea.
What's the actual goal here? Also no idea.
Is Steam the "good guy" in all this? Of course not. -
Valve is being sued because they are forcing others to follow policies that further entrenches Steam as the largest store.
Since Epic bought the game developer, it only applies to themselves. It is much harder to sue someone over a decision that only applies to something they own. How can a company be sued for not selling their product at a store? Should Valve be sued for not selling their own games on Epic or GOG?
Is Epic’s decision to only sell their games on their store annoying for users? Yes. But unfortunately, there is nothing illegal about. There would be a better chance of a lawsuit of Epic paying other game developers for exclusivity, but that would still not be easy as game exclusivity is still a significant factor on game consoles as well. Albeit much less than in the past.
Isn't valve being sued for
-
Not allowing devs to sell steam download codes on other stores, But the ban only applies if they are selling the download code for cheaper than Steam
-
Not allowing devs to sell steam DLC download codes on other stores
I don't think 1 or 2 puts other stores at any disadvantage. If a store wants to sell steam download codes then Valve has to get their normal cut. If they don't want to pay the valve tax, then they don't need to offer a Steam download code.
-
-
Valve is being sued because they are forcing others to follow policies that further entrenches Steam as the largest store.
Since Epic bought the game developer, it only applies to themselves. It is much harder to sue someone over a decision that only applies to something they own. How can a company be sued for not selling their product at a store? Should Valve be sued for not selling their own games on Epic or GOG?
Is Epic’s decision to only sell their games on their store annoying for users? Yes. But unfortunately, there is nothing illegal about. There would be a better chance of a lawsuit of Epic paying other game developers for exclusivity, but that would still not be easy as game exclusivity is still a significant factor on game consoles as well. Albeit much less than in the past.
Valve isn't forcing anyone to use their platform.
If Steam's terms aren't satisfactory for developers, then they don't have to use Steam.
-
No one gives a flat fuck about epics launcher.
Stupid people do.
-
As per my understanding (which isn't saying much), Steam takes a 30% cut of each sale.
In UK, someone with a specific agenda claimed to represent gamers as a class and sued reasoning that the 30% cut inflates the price of games globally even beyond Steam's store, harming everyone.Did i understand it right? No idea.
What's the actual goal here? Also no idea.
Is Steam the "good guy" in all this? Of course not.Well that's stupid. If Steam charged less, the price of games wouldn't change.
Developers and publishers would just pocket the difference.
-
As per my understanding (which isn't saying much), Steam takes a 30% cut of each sale.
In UK, someone with a specific agenda claimed to represent gamers as a class and sued reasoning that the 30% cut inflates the price of games globally even beyond Steam's store, harming everyone.Did i understand it right? No idea.
What's the actual goal here? Also no idea.
Is Steam the "good guy" in all this? Of course not.Is Steam the “good guy” in all this? Of course not.
Too bad a lot of people, even here or in other threads, don't get it, so they willingly cheer for Valve simply because Tim Sweeney sucks.
-
If Epic spent half as much money as they are suing organisations and instead funded developing their shop into a gaming community platform like Steam, they’d probably have caught up by now.
Epic Games Launcher would always end up a pile of shit anyway. Tim Sweeney is a fuckhead and he has lots of investors to please.
-
Oh well that's totally fair, honestly.
It locks out real competitive pricing.
It only applies to Steam product keys though, so developers cannot sell cheap Steam keys on other platforms while still taking advantage of Steam's services.
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
TIL it was removed from steam. I play it on my deck all the time
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
Kick them to the curb valve at least until the lawsuit is resolved.
-
If Epic spent half as much money as they are suing organisations and instead funded developing their shop into a gaming community platform like Steam, they’d probably have caught up by now.
To be honest, Epic is doing a good job of tearing down walled gardens in places like mobile, and we'll probably be better off for it. But yeah, they've done a terrible job of competing with Steam.
-
Is Steam the “good guy” in all this? Of course not.
Too bad a lot of people, even here or in other threads, don't get it, so they willingly cheer for Valve simply because Tim Sweeney sucks.
I think devs actually get quite a bit for that 30%. Let's present a hypothetical. What if Valve offered an option where you could list your game on Steam with no restrictions and they'd only take a 10% cut, but the tradeoff is, they won't promote your game at all? Like, it won't show up in any Steam storefront advertisements, can't participate in sales, etc. - it's still there if it's linked to from off-Steam or if someone searches for it, but it won't be promoted, period.
How do you think that would work out for developers? I'd argue not well, especially for small studios.
The promotion those games get applies to the game as a whole, not only through Steam - someone can see the promotion on Steam, then go shop around and buy it elsewhere. Why should Valve promote a game if they aren't getting a cut of the sales?
-
If Epic spent half as much money as they are suing organisations and instead funded developing their shop into a gaming community platform like Steam, they’d probably have caught up by now.
it's often more risky and expensive to hire, train and develop systems and communities like that, especially when doing it against the tide, than to just try to trip up the competition. It's not just that it's dificult and it costs money, but it's not preferred because investors abhor risks.
Isn't this seen in global politics all the time. When US says China is too dominant in X and we need to fight it. They are not saying that US will invest in shit that will help them compete. All or 90% of the actions is to try to trip up, sabotage and sanction the competition.
-
Yeah, it's no longer for sale. If you bought it before it was delisted, you can still download/play it through steam. What is fucking atrocious is that I had to go and make an account with epic to play. Well, they can spam and sell my 'nannerbanner'sfakeemailforepiccunts@proton.me' all they want. Fucking cunts. .
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
Because it's a patent troll who has attempted this a few times before.
-
They are being accused of price fixing with the whole "can't sell games for cheaper on other store fronts compared to the steam listing" thing
warm@kbin.earth explains it better below:
It only applies to Steam product keys though, so developers cannot sell cheap Steam keys on other platforms while still taking advantage of Steam’s services.
I think this lawsuit is actually about allowing people to buy dlc from other stores for games that you bought through steam?
-
Valve isn't forcing anyone to use their platform.
If Steam's terms aren't satisfactory for developers, then they don't have to use Steam.
There are laws that say that abusing a monopoly is illegal. Steam is objectively a monopoly in pc games. Sure, you don't have to use it, but it is basically impossible for indie developers to make a living without it.
Now, the question is if valve's actions are actually abusing the monopoly, or normal business practices.
