you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 228 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (230 children)

Bloomberg cites two high-profile cases referenced in the ongoing lawsuit, one involving Ubisoft, and another Warner Bros.

First of all, I trust Ubi and WB way less than valve.

Valve allegedly threatened to delist all editions of Rainbow Six Siege after Ubisoft offered a cheaper option on its Uplay store.

Yeah.

Because it violates their policy. That's not a "threat", those are the terms of the contract Ubi and WB agreed to. Terms that everyone has to follow.

Heck, Ubi and WB should be hit with a counter suit for trying to leverage their market position to exert control over valve and getting unusually favorable terms.

Clown suit. Ubi and WB are mad they can't break their contract with valve in a one sided way.


edit: I forgot some context:

The deal between valve and a publisher or dev is: they can sell on steam and elsewhere if steam is at least tied in price, or cheaper, but when they sell somewhere else, that includes the steam key and access to steam and steam's distribution at no cost.

What the devs and publishers wanted to do was leverage other features of steam and the steam ecosystem, while undercutting steam's price.

They are always free to just not sell on steam for a cheaper price. That's not what this is about.

edit2:

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

"Steam Key Rules and Guidelines"

  • source
  • hideshow 230 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 5 months ago (104 children)

    First of all, I trust Ubi and WB way less than valve.

    You shouldn't trust any of them. No billionaire has your best interests at heart. Even Gabe.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 104 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    That is true, definitely a "lesser evil" situation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (87 children)

    I'm inclined a little to agree with you, but it's not like he made his money because Gabe refused to be run by anyone. He pays his employees really well. My dad's friend still is working at Valve after going there 20 some odd years ago. He rakes in money like no ones business. But they are all benefitting from the work they have done.

    Secondly, nobody knows how charitable he is in his private life. The fact that he's so private about it, inclines me to believe he's probably a decent guy, who just doesn't like the spotlight. He may be a billionaire, but how many billionaires have their employees love them like at Valve?

    Lastly, most of his money is tied up in shares of the company, as he is 50%+ owner. He may use that to leverage cash loans, but he's also just smart. He doesn't really do that all that much, except when he's buying his research yachts. And those shares are only accessible by the workers, as it's a private company. Why? Because the money belongs to the laborers who produce the goods.

    Now, I'm willing to change my view if there's ever a situation in which Gabe Newall is intentionally trying to avoid paying taxes, but that hasn't happened yet.

    Bezos, Musk, Gates, Trump, Zuckerburg, Page, Brin, Ellison, Dell, Huang, the Waltons, Blomberg, Thiel. There's so many worse people out there. I do agree wealth is bad, but what the aforementioned are doing is significantly worse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 87 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (58 children)

    Now, I'm willing to change my view if there's ever a situation in which Gabe Newall is intentionally trying to avoid paying taxes, but that hasn't happened yet.

    What about exploiting child gambling? Valve's value, and thusly Gabe's value, skyrocketed after introducing lootboxes to TF2, CSGO, DOTA2, etc. He can be as charitable as he fucking wants, but he still defends lootboxes while taking little to no efforts to ensure that children aren't gambling on his platform. He's had... how many years to fix this problem now? Too many. He's not fixed the problem, and continues to reap the rewards in the meantime.

    As far as I'm concerned, he's just as much of a piece of shit as any other billionaire. The only difference is that he makes toys that a lot of us really, really like; toys that we apparently like so much so that we're willing to handwave child gambling as long as it doesn't get in the way of making it moderately convenient to download DRM-infested games.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • All of those things were specificially degined to encourage addiction to buying the product, like yeah we should do something about those practices when they cross a line. Idk why you think it should all be fair game just because a less problematic version of the issue exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (54 children)

    Mate, I did not know parents were not responsible for their own children. That is on me. I'm glad to hear all the work I've done on my network and computers to make them safe for my children was a moot point.

    Adults like gambling. It's not Valve's fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.

    As far as the DRM stuff goes, that's all based on the publisher. And it's not that difficult to bypass. Valve has shown time and time again, that they are a business for their customers. Their customers like a solid platform that works and is easy to use and has a community.

    Let's take a look a Linux real quick. If it wasn't for Valve, Linux gaming wouldn't be what it is today. They did that and gave it to the community. I'm sorry other platforms can't be bothered to put in that kind of effort. If you wanna play with the big dogs, you gotta get off the porch. And Ubisoft wants to take the easy way out through a lawsuit. They need to do better with their storefront. Offer good exclusives. Try to actually appeal to your customers.

    I still remember when everybody bitched about Steam when half-life 2 came out. It was kinda bad, and people were mad about it. But Valve was just ahead of the curve. It allowed them to publish updates, patches, anti-cheating. And soon enough, the community grew to love it. It just worked. If something broke in your game, it was probably fixed in a week if it was a Valve game. It gave so much to PC players.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    You're right, I just gave you my personal experiences about parenting children. I even brought up my brother in recovery, distinctly because you brought up addicts. I still stand by it being a parental issue. Don't have kids if you don't want that responsibility. This kind of argument has the same vibes as, "we need age verification on websites". No, we don't. Parents need to be better. I'm a millennial parent and I know how the internet works. I also know that every app nowadays has parental controls built in. Moreso, I can specifically block things on the router. The tools are there. Just be a parent. How many children do you have?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    If it's gambling, loot boxes should be items of value, redeemable for cash, correct? And Valve should be the one providing that cash, as they are the child casino, correct?

    Yes, that's literally how the Steam marketplace works. Where am I losing you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Okay, let's get rid of all TCG too. I never argued against the dangers of gambling. I never said it wasn't, it is gambling. But that's not what this post is about. This post is specifically about a NY case against Valve. That requires knowledge of the NY Penal Code. But if you want to continue being self-righteous rather than actually debating the points, then you're welcome to continue this debate with me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (39 children)

    Adults like gambling. It’s not Valve’s fault that children are using it cause their parents are ignorant of their own child.

    If adults want to gamble, fine. Let's enforce gambling laws and get this over with. It would also solve the children gambling problem because that would be illegal. But this is why Valve's gambling service is indefensible. Valve is actively trying to prevent the gambling classification because if it gets treated like actual gambling it most likely stops being profitable. I don't necessarily have an issue with gambling, I have an issue with it not being treated as gambling. And all the other things Valve has done that have been positive for gaming do not justify giving Valve a free pass on gambling.

    To bring it back to Gaben, he isn't avoiding taxes but he is avoiding the (gambling) law because it makes him more money, so is it that different from avoiding taxes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 39 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (38 children)

    That is a fair point. However, I must ask, what is the different between what Valve is doing with loot boxes v. every single trading card game out there. MTG, Pokémon, Yu-Gi-Oh, or Disney's Lorcana? You are purchasing an item that has items in it that are random. The only reason they have value is because people have the option to just buy skin they want on Valve's marketplace. Just like people have the option to buy a specific Pokémon card from a third party.

    The other thing that Valve has done is, there's no inherent value to the item. You can sell items for Steam Wallet funds, to then use in the marketplace. So, to me it seems, it's really easy to set up a Steam account to not be allowed to purchase items. Which would include adding money to a Steam wallet for the marketplace. So, no this is not a "think of the children" issue. It's yet again, another people are bad parents and can't be bothered to use parental controls on their children's electronics. Or take steps to prevent them from spending real money. Or take steps to prevent them from playing too much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (22 children)

    That is an appeal to authority. Every one is susceptible to a mistake. And I believe this one is. I think the court will rule in favor of Valve if they don't dismiss it. The way the economy works inside of Steam is what insulates it from being gambling. NY is arguing that being able to redeem your wallet for a Deck and then selling that deck, introduces the cash component of gambling. Not only that, but third party sellers are brought up and that adds several other layers that will be harder to make the case for. In addition, they claim Valve knowingly doesn't care about the third party sellers. That, in and of itself, is not Valve's problem specifically. If people want to pay money for a cosmetic item, it's no different than Pokémon. Again, an insulating layer. That is a far cry from an open and shut case, as you seem to think it to be.

    Multiple lawyers would point out that introducing steps to acquire cash insulates it. Especially since one of those steps is selling an item. This economy that they are trying to build out is shaky at best. But that's just like, my opinion man. Do you have any of your own thoughts regarding the case? Have you read the case documents and come to a conclusion for yourself? Or are you just reading an article and calling it a day?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • load more comments (22 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    spend 2 minutes yourself or don’t, i don’t really care

    here’s a entire reddit thread on it you lazy fuck

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/1rqz5i4/steam_support_about_the_new_york_attorney_general/

    “In addition, although this case is about illegal gambling, it is important to note that Valve’s promotion of games that glorify violence and guns helps fuel the dangerous epidemic of gun violence, particularly among young gamers who can become numbed to grave violence before their brains are fully developed."

    look at this shit, complete fucking fud

    https://www.aclum.org/publications/ai-powered-surveillance-is-turning-the-united-states-into-a-digital-police-state-now-is-the-time-to-stop-it/

    this from the aclu

    https://www.openrightsgroup.org/press-releases/roblox-reddit-and-discord-users-compelled-to-use-biometric-id-system-backed-by-palantir-co-founder-peter-thiel/

    but go ahead and tell me you think the aclu is big on conspiracy theories

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (14 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    You didn't realize they had a 75% market share? Please save the bootlicking for someone who cares.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    I get you are in denial they have a monopoly. For instance Microsoft only has about 65% market share and everyone considers them a monopoly

    "A monopoly describes a market dominated by a single seller or producer that controls so much of that market share, anywhere from 50% to 100%, that it faces no meaningful competition."

    At this point you could even argue they have become a natural monopoly as they have not used a lot of anti-competitive practices. The only way to protect consumers is government regulation at this point since no competitor can reign them in.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Just fine here, I can't say the same for you though. Yes, you aren't just confusing. You are straight up mental. That is okay though.

    Yay! You replied! I'm so excited to see what you brought to the table!

    Look, you brought up steam keys AGAIN. What a strange strawman you have constructed. I have never mentioned steam keys, nor has any article I referenced. That hasn't stopped you though.

    Rainbow Six Siege multiplayer uses Steamplay. So, I'm actually wrong! The DLC is unlocked through a Steam Key, regardless of platform choice (not considering Xbox/PS5). Learning is fun! But, I guess you're not, a developer, or in the industry. So, how could you know. Sorry for not bringing that up, I thought you knew.

    If you think you have proved me wrong then I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. What is that? The bridge guy already sold you several bridges in Brooklyn. That makes a lot of sense.

    I'm certain I have proved a few points of yours wrong. I don't care if you think so, or not. I'm just enjoying a debate.

    Not sure what case your talking about, you did not link it or reference it. Honestly you are kind of spooky at this point, but not in a good way. So far your legal mind can be summarized by you not even understanding the one thing Steam has done that I have mentioned several times. I will hard pass on debating you.

    What case? Are you stupid? The fucking case we are currently talking about. NY v Valve. The report came from that case, so seeing that case can help understand what we are taking about. I don't think you're a paralegal anymore, if you are, you should be fired lol.

    To summarize Steam is a monopoly by definition. Thanks for coming full circle with me. It has been a wild ride because you keep jerking the wheel and sending us off road. What are a few bumps though when you eventually get to your destination. Cheers!

    Valve is a monopoly, by definition, could be debated still. Are discussing legal monopoly, or the definition of monopoly? Are you a textualist? I've still argued my points, so you still have a chance to rebut. I've enjoyed the journey! Yeah, I'm am aggressive debator. Some say, a master debator.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (44 children)

    Amazon got slapped with a substantial fine (in the EU) for having basically the same "rule" in their contracts, that forbid cheaper listings elsewhere. So yes, in the EU hanging that rule is illegal. But if it applies to digital licensing is another matter.

    You do know you're only renting access to the game with a one-time fee, not buying it, right?

    Edit: the original comment left it unclear if the price rule only applies to copies sold that include a steam key, or if copies that work completely without steam can be arbitrarily priced. If the latter is the case, it's obviously fine. If it includes any game version, it isn't OK.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    amazon's case is different. if you're selling the steam version of your game it needs to match the price on steam. if you have a separate non-steam version you can charge whatever you want.

    the reason places like gog follow steam pricing is, why wouldn't they? makes them more money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    if you have a separate non-steam version you can charge whatever you want.

    This is the part that was unclear from the original comment. If that's in fact the case, that's obviously fine (and different from the Amazon case).

    why wouldn’t they?

    it's called "competetive pricing". If I'm a customer and have a steam account holding most of my games (like most PC gamers), why would I even consider buying it anywhere else if it isn't even cheaper and now I got games in like 3-5 stores with at least 2-3 launcher/downloaders/apps. No, this most likely won't make them more money but much much less with fewer people buying it there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If I'm a customer and have a steam account holding most of my games (like most PC gamers), why would I even consider buying it anywhere else if it isn't even cheaper

    I pay the same or sometimes a bit more for GoG games because they are DRM free. Id like better client support on Linux, but DRM free is a value proposition thats usually worth it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I do appreciate the ability to download a fully offline installer from gog and the requirement that games be drm free. But people keep making statements similar to yours as if steam games have to include some form of drm. There is no such requirement. Steam can simply act as a downloader and patcher. Integrating stream services and failing to start if there is no steam or the active account doesn't own the game is completely up to the developer.

    So if they have a drm free build on gog, but the steam hype includes drm, that's cause the developer actively decided it should be like that.

    Popular game examples that do not include any drm in the steam version are Factorio and (the original) Kerbal Space Program. Once downloaded, you can freely copy the installation around, and just start the exe. These games start just fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I know, i know there are also some utilities to back up steam games. Ive used them years ago. I dont hate Steam by any means, but i really like GOGs philosophy and requirements so I support them where i can, though i will borrow games from the family library if someoen else bought it on steam for the achivements

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    There have been several lawsuits about this policy, and the more recent class action one is about whether steam is actually enforcing this policy for steam keys only or also for games sold on other platforms without relying on steam keys. I don't think there is any actual written rule about this because it's probably illegal in several jurisdictions but there have been rumors about this since basically the beginning of third party games on steam.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (25 children)

    Edit: the original comment left it unclear if the price rule only applies to copies sold that include a steam key, or if copies that work completely without steam can be arbitrarily priced. If the latter is the case, it’s obviously fine. If it includes any game version, it isn’t OK.

    Ok. The rule is, actually let me link it...

    https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

    "Steam Key Rules and Guidelines"

    "You should use Steam Keys to sell your game on other stores in a similar way to how you sell your game on Steam.** It is important that you don’t give Steam customers a worse deal than Steam Key purchasers."**

    Just read that paragraph. It should be pretty clear what the whole thing is about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 2 points 5 months ago (20 children)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    sure, but rainbow six siege uses all of those things because it's an online game. otherwise there'd be a need to have separated server infra for steam and non-steam users.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 5 months ago (18 children)
  • load more comments (15 replies)
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    "It is important that you don’t give Steam customers a worse deal than Steam Key purchasers."

    That's a very fair way of phrasing it and should make sense to anyone saying "but what if they want to sell it cheaper elsewhere?" Seems most people don't even understand the actual issue, they just are butthurt over headlines

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    Yep. Sell your game for whatever you want wherever you want. If you want to distribute your game via Steam (Steam keys), you can't sell them cheaper than they are sold on Steam because you aren't handling the distribution (which costs money).

    Otherwise a competing company (like Ubisoft) could just make a 20TB game, list it on steam for a crazy price, then sell Steam keys for it on another storefront cheap; Steam will have to cover the distribution costs without making anything in return.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    That is another situation

    Amazon is a seller. Steam is (aside from selling) a service provider with their workshop, forum, etc

    While it would be way better if those were all in a different tier for devs, so for example they can select to get less of a share for those features, what they are basically doing is sidestepping a provider

    Or in the case of photography:

    You go to a Photo shop and lend their camera equipment and services for free, but they take a 20% cut for every copy of that picture sold.

    If you buy a picture, you can download it indefinitely and get some services like changing the color grading on the website. The photo shop hosts the picture for free and only makes a profit through selling licenses. The owner also has an option to get infinite licenses for these services for free.

    What youre allowed to do is host the picture on your own, pay your own cloud provider, and sell the picture that way.

    What youre not allowed to do is generate infinite licenses for free and sell them without ever paying the photo shop for their services, while still using them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    The service part only applies to copies sold that include steam keys and therefore use the steam-API related things (workshop, cloud saves). I haven't read about this specific case in detail, but as long as that use of steam for copies sold is part of what they wanted to leverage but essentially not pay for, that's obviously bull.

    This honestly is somewhat unexpected and I had to re-read the comment I replied to to understand it correctly, hence my misunderstanding of that aspect. It's unexpected cause ubisoft in particular for the longest time had their own "store" and games required at least their own launcher. I haven't played Ubisoft games in at least a decade, so I don't know/remember if the games reuired your own ubi-account, or if the games relied on Steams systems (workshop/cloud saves/...). I would've assumed no, and that they only use it as a downloader cause players essentially wouldn't buy it outside of steam (or at least not enough).

    Top be clear: if steam allows copies of a game listed on steam to be sold at an arbitrary price as long as that doesn't include a steam key, this is perfectly fine. Actively thinking about it now I would assume it does, as I'm pretty sure I bought games without steam keys for less than the listing on steam was.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This isn't about steam keys, it's about a most favored nation clause. It's a fairly common clause when selling across multiple platforms. It can be considered anticompetitive in some cases. It's also pretty standard in retail agreements. It's why name brand products are generally the same price everywhere.

    The same thing would happen if Walmart found Sony was selling PlayStations cheaper on their website than in store.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (24 children)

    Yeah but why do they have that market share? It's not forcefully. They aren't buying up competitors. They don't own all the publishers and can dictate who sells their games.

    People choose Steam. Why? Because Ubisoft Connect it horrendous to navigate. Because EA App is slow and, when it launched (as Origin), left a bad taste in people's mouths because it bordered on spyware. Epic Launcher is kinda getting better but when it launched it was extremely bare bones, it didn't even have a cart to buy multiple products at once, you had to buy things individually, which is absolutely ridiculous for an ONLINE STORE .

    This so-called monopoly is not a product of predatory methods, quite the opposite. Valve may be a corporation but they constantly set standards in favor of the consumer:

    • Generous refund policy
    • Unparalleled customer support, as opposed to their competitors basically giving the finger to users asking for help.
    • Actively working towards wider support and accessibility, i.e. SteamOS, Steam Deck, and their runnable-verification markings.
    • Just recently announced the "real requirements" stats from players sharing a games' performance on their actual hardware rather than the developers Recommended Requirements which we all know are complete bullshit. They are literally forcing developers to stop cranking out half-assed games with non-existant optimization for $70.

    Definition of Monopoly according to Merriam-Webster:

    exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action. specifically : exclusive control of a particular market that is marked by the power to control prices and exclude competition

    None of this applies to Valve/Steam, all they're guilty of is setting policies in favor of the consumer. People tend to choose the consumer-friendly seller.

    Who'd've thunk?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Valve allegedly threatened to delist all editions of Rainbow Six Siege after Ubisoft offered a cheaper option on its Uplay store.

    Yeah.

    Because it violates their policy. That's not a "threat", those are the terms of the contract Ubi and WB agreed to. Terms that everyone has to follow.

    I do like Valve more than most companies, but this is absolutely monopolistic behavior.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    I do think the R6 Siege situation is a bit different, to my knowledge it was about Ubisoft adding a new cheaper "Starter Pack" option that lets you access a multiplayer-first game on different terms. It seems scummy to give users playing the same game on the same servers different terms on different storefronts.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    but when they sell somewhere else, that includes the steam key and access to steam and steam’s distribution at no cost.

    Ubisoft selling the game on Uplay, their own storefront, does not include a steam key with the purchase. The clause you just listed IS NOT RELEVANT to the situation. Which is why valve is being sued.

    They're offering a version of the game that isn't even available on steam (so doubly no steam key), and were told that doing so at a lower price would have valve removing all versions of the game for sale. This is blatant market position abuse to fix pricing.

    Who the fuck is upvoting your blatant misinformation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    40% of the market is not a monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (33 replies)