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.
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.
-
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.
So the entire problem is about restrictions on steam codes?
-
-
Seems like buying games to remove them from your competitor is a scummier thing to do.
This would be like if someone sued Walmart for letting their local store go out of business.
-
Because Steam is the world's biggest games store on PC while Epic is statistically insignificant. What's the question?
epic is irrelevant because nobody wants it, not because steam is trying to crush competition.
-
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.
looks at Hytale doing quite well without even touching 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.
ah yes, they are price fixing by saying devs can't set the price on steam (which the devs control) higher than the price on other platforms (which the devs also control)
-
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.
Just a bunch of crabs in a bucket.
-
looks at Hytale doing quite well without even touching Steam
Got any other modern examples than just the one game that had a massive following for the last 7 years of development?
-
looks at Hytale doing quite well without even touching Steam
Hytale has incredible publicity for an indie release and caters to a target group that’s used to a separate launcher. Not comparable to the usual release.
-
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.
They essentially removed games that I owned and made it so I could no longer play them by drippy Linux support.
-
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.
They only did that because they wanted their walled garden to be there too. Tim Sweeney is just butthurt his walled garden isn't the biggest
-
This would be like if someone sued Walmart for letting their local store go out of business.
More like the local store suing Walmart for putting them out of business, but only after they pushed away all of their customers with bad ideas and flashy gimmicks
-
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.
“Gaming community.”
Steam and Epic are both malware.
-
You prefer Walmart instead of Walmart?
-
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.
The only answer with an actual articulate explanation has 30% downvotes because the average gamer IQ is double digits.
-
They only did that because they wanted their walled garden to be there too. Tim Sweeney is just butthurt his walled garden isn't the biggest
Of course, but...broken clock, you know? A large percentage of personal computers will be freed from Windows in large part because of Valve, even though they profit off of legalized child gambling addiction. And walled gardens in mobile will be broken down in large part because of Epic, which uses dark patterns to trick people out of their money in pursuit of a cultural hodge podge of nonsense that won't even exist in a few decades.
-
So the entire problem is about restrictions on steam codes?
It’s a restriction on where you can get a DLC you paid for. The fact that you paid for it at Walmart shouldn’t matter.
-
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’m pretty sure that Amazon also says that you can’t sell things on Amazon for more than you sell the same item elsewhere.
I’ve certainly seen a video claiming that.
