▲ 343 ▼ Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere (www.eurogamer.net) submitted 5 months ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 458 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 8 points 5 months ago (9 children) 40% of the market is not a monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 3 points 5 months ago (8 children) It's 75-79.5% depending on what data you use. Quite a big mistake on your part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 5 points 5 months ago (6 children) Are we not talking about PC market? Steam is a PC platform. What are you even talking about then? Steam market share on PS5? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that. Absolutely not. PC is growing, and continues to grow year after year. Consoles are on a slight decline, but PC has never really stopped growing. You're really gonna need to start citing some sources at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 5 months ago yeah i backed down from that in my other reply. permalink fedilink source parent [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5 And Valve didn't create PC. What a bizzare argument. we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche What a bizzare argument. Nearly half is "niche"? Shrinking? You people become weird when defending corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply) [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (30 children) Monopoly implies there are no alternatives. There are plenty of alternatives. People just choose Steam because the other ones are (mostly) crap. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 30 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Yes, it is. For most people, google is the only search they use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yes it is a monopoly. The legal theory that market consolidation doesn't matter so long as prices don't rise is bullshit and a big reason we have such shitty politics today. permalink fedilink source parent 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 replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (23 children) Generous refund policy Added it after a lawsuit regarding steam not wanting to properly process refunds. Epic has it better automated and GOG processes refunds regardless of your hours if you have technical difficulties, so in my eyes Steam is in the last place. Unparalleled customer support Steam support is commonly regarded as non-existing. The only times I needed it, I got automated replies and my issue was not solved. Actively working towards wider support and accessibility, i.e. SteamOS, Steam Deck, and their runnable-verification markings. Making your product accessible is just business. I don't really use any of that stuff since I'm only on PC. Definition of Monopoly according to Merriam-Webster: This is one of those words where definitions vary, but generally if a company has such a large market share/power that they can dictate prices and set rules that affect other platforms/competition, then that's monopoly/near monopolies. Valve Corporation does this. all they're guilty of is setting policies in favor of the consumer. Riiight, because ripping off gamers and devs with 30% cut (a cut that stayed from physical discs and times when 100gb HDD costed 5000eur) is so in favor of the users. The whole gambling thing and mystery boxes was also done to promote ethics to children, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (21 children) You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support. Steam customer support was a fucking meme back in my day. You also got oceans of videos like these: https://youtu.be/kE0QtkTNUqk How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to. I.. are we speaking English? Do you simply refuse to read and get new information? I mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve Corporation and threats of suspended sales, no pre-orders, etc., because that's what a near monopoly does to further cement their position on the market, and I don't even want to think about the future with different CEO and valve having basically grown into the next google or microsoft with Gabe long gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) [–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (28 children) Imagine there’s a huge fuel station that’s so big they essentially set rules towards suppliers that they can’t offer their gas to other stations at a cheaper price otherwise they can’t sell it in their station with 95% market share. That is specifically not what is happening. 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." Valve does not "dictate" prices in any way. Ubi and WB are free to sell their games for as cheap as they want. But if and ONLY IF they offer a steam key with the purchase, they can't undercut steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments replies: [–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (24 children) Please read the article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (16 children) Just for you, I gave Eurogamer my information to farm and sell of to the highest bidder. And I learned nothing new. Ubisoft want to have their game on Steams store, Steam says "alright sure, these are the requirements". Ubisoft breaks that agreement, Steam says "then we won't sell your game". Okay? So? No one is forcing them to sell on Steam if they don't like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) Speaking of God Given Rights, "we want to sell our games on Steam but not on their terms". Don't like it? Don't do it. "but they have the largest market share 😢" , because you keep selling on their platform. I don't understand how this shit is so hard to grasp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago Tell me, what have Valve done that is so evil? In your own words permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] lime@feddit.nu 8 points 5 months ago (9 children) 40% of the market is not a monopoly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 3 points 5 months ago (8 children) It's 75-79.5% depending on what data you use. Quite a big mistake on your part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 5 points 5 months ago (6 children) Are we not talking about PC market? Steam is a PC platform. What are you even talking about then? Steam market share on PS5? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that. Absolutely not. PC is growing, and continues to grow year after year. Consoles are on a slight decline, but PC has never really stopped growing. You're really gonna need to start citing some sources at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 5 months ago yeah i backed down from that in my other reply. permalink fedilink source parent [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5 And Valve didn't create PC. What a bizzare argument. we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche What a bizzare argument. Nearly half is "niche"? Shrinking? You people become weird when defending corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 3 points 5 months ago (8 children) It's 75-79.5% depending on what data you use. Quite a big mistake on your part. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 5 points 5 months ago (6 children) Are we not talking about PC market? Steam is a PC platform. What are you even talking about then? Steam market share on PS5? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that. Absolutely not. PC is growing, and continues to grow year after year. Consoles are on a slight decline, but PC has never really stopped growing. You're really gonna need to start citing some sources at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 5 months ago yeah i backed down from that in my other reply. permalink fedilink source parent [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5 And Valve didn't create PC. What a bizzare argument. we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche What a bizzare argument. Nearly half is "niche"? Shrinking? You people become weird when defending corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies) 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 replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 5 points 5 months ago (6 children) Are we not talking about PC market? Steam is a PC platform. What are you even talking about then? Steam market share on PS5? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that. Absolutely not. PC is growing, and continues to grow year after year. Consoles are on a slight decline, but PC has never really stopped growing. You're really gonna need to start citing some sources at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 5 months ago yeah i backed down from that in my other reply. permalink fedilink source parent [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5 And Valve didn't create PC. What a bizzare argument. we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche What a bizzare argument. Nearly half is "niche"? Shrinking? You people become weird when defending corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (2 replies)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 5 points 5 months ago (6 children) Are we not talking about PC market? Steam is a PC platform. What are you even talking about then? Steam market share on PS5? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that. Absolutely not. PC is growing, and continues to grow year after year. Consoles are on a slight decline, but PC has never really stopped growing. You're really gonna need to start citing some sources at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 5 months ago yeah i backed down from that in my other reply. permalink fedilink source parent [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5 And Valve didn't create PC. What a bizzare argument. we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche What a bizzare argument. Nearly half is "niche"? Shrinking? You people become weird when defending corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) 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 replies: [–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that. Absolutely not. PC is growing, and continues to grow year after year. Consoles are on a slight decline, but PC has never really stopped growing. You're really gonna need to start citing some sources at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 5 months ago yeah i backed down from that in my other reply. permalink fedilink source parent [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5 And Valve didn't create PC. What a bizzare argument. we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche What a bizzare argument. Nearly half is "niche"? Shrinking? You people become weird when defending corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 6 points 5 months ago (1 child) pc is a niche. a shrinking one at that. Absolutely not. PC is growing, and continues to grow year after year. Consoles are on a slight decline, but PC has never really stopped growing. You're really gonna need to start citing some sources at this point. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 5 months ago yeah i backed down from that in my other reply. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 2 points 5 months ago yeah i backed down from that in my other reply. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 8 points 5 months ago (1 child) nobody is claiming sony has a monopoly on the ps5 And Valve didn't create PC. What a bizzare argument. we're talking gaming, of which pc is a niche What a bizzare argument. Nearly half is "niche"? Shrinking? You people become weird when defending corporations. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (30 children) Monopoly implies there are no alternatives. There are plenty of alternatives. People just choose Steam because the other ones are (mostly) crap. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 30 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Yes, it is. For most people, google is the only search they use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yes it is a monopoly. The legal theory that market consolidation doesn't matter so long as prices don't rise is bullshit and a big reason we have such shitty politics today. permalink fedilink source parent 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 replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (23 children) Generous refund policy Added it after a lawsuit regarding steam not wanting to properly process refunds. Epic has it better automated and GOG processes refunds regardless of your hours if you have technical difficulties, so in my eyes Steam is in the last place. Unparalleled customer support Steam support is commonly regarded as non-existing. The only times I needed it, I got automated replies and my issue was not solved. Actively working towards wider support and accessibility, i.e. SteamOS, Steam Deck, and their runnable-verification markings. Making your product accessible is just business. I don't really use any of that stuff since I'm only on PC. Definition of Monopoly according to Merriam-Webster: This is one of those words where definitions vary, but generally if a company has such a large market share/power that they can dictate prices and set rules that affect other platforms/competition, then that's monopoly/near monopolies. Valve Corporation does this. all they're guilty of is setting policies in favor of the consumer. Riiight, because ripping off gamers and devs with 30% cut (a cut that stayed from physical discs and times when 100gb HDD costed 5000eur) is so in favor of the users. The whole gambling thing and mystery boxes was also done to promote ethics to children, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (21 children) You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support. Steam customer support was a fucking meme back in my day. You also got oceans of videos like these: https://youtu.be/kE0QtkTNUqk How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to. I.. are we speaking English? Do you simply refuse to read and get new information? I mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve Corporation and threats of suspended sales, no pre-orders, etc., because that's what a near monopoly does to further cement their position on the market, and I don't even want to think about the future with different CEO and valve having basically grown into the next google or microsoft with Gabe long gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 6 points 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Yes, it is. For most people, google is the only search they use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yes it is a monopoly. The legal theory that market consolidation doesn't matter so long as prices don't rise is bullshit and a big reason we have such shitty politics today. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago (2 children) Yes, it is. For most people, google is the only search they use. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yes it is a monopoly. The legal theory that market consolidation doesn't matter so long as prices don't rise is bullshit and a big reason we have such shitty politics today. permalink fedilink source parent 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 replies: [–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yes it is a monopoly. The legal theory that market consolidation doesn't matter so long as prices don't rise is bullshit and a big reason we have such shitty politics today. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 points 5 months ago Yes it is a monopoly. The legal theory that market consolidation doesn't matter so long as prices don't rise is bullshit and a big reason we have such shitty politics today. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (23 children) Generous refund policy Added it after a lawsuit regarding steam not wanting to properly process refunds. Epic has it better automated and GOG processes refunds regardless of your hours if you have technical difficulties, so in my eyes Steam is in the last place. Unparalleled customer support Steam support is commonly regarded as non-existing. The only times I needed it, I got automated replies and my issue was not solved. Actively working towards wider support and accessibility, i.e. SteamOS, Steam Deck, and their runnable-verification markings. Making your product accessible is just business. I don't really use any of that stuff since I'm only on PC. Definition of Monopoly according to Merriam-Webster: This is one of those words where definitions vary, but generally if a company has such a large market share/power that they can dictate prices and set rules that affect other platforms/competition, then that's monopoly/near monopolies. Valve Corporation does this. all they're guilty of is setting policies in favor of the consumer. Riiight, because ripping off gamers and devs with 30% cut (a cut that stayed from physical discs and times when 100gb HDD costed 5000eur) is so in favor of the users. The whole gambling thing and mystery boxes was also done to promote ethics to children, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (21 children) You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support. Steam customer support was a fucking meme back in my day. You also got oceans of videos like these: https://youtu.be/kE0QtkTNUqk How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to. I.. are we speaking English? Do you simply refuse to read and get new information? I mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve Corporation and threats of suspended sales, no pre-orders, etc., because that's what a near monopoly does to further cement their position on the market, and I don't even want to think about the future with different CEO and valve having basically grown into the next google or microsoft with Gabe long gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 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? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (23 children) Generous refund policy Added it after a lawsuit regarding steam not wanting to properly process refunds. Epic has it better automated and GOG processes refunds regardless of your hours if you have technical difficulties, so in my eyes Steam is in the last place. Unparalleled customer support Steam support is commonly regarded as non-existing. The only times I needed it, I got automated replies and my issue was not solved. Actively working towards wider support and accessibility, i.e. SteamOS, Steam Deck, and their runnable-verification markings. Making your product accessible is just business. I don't really use any of that stuff since I'm only on PC. Definition of Monopoly according to Merriam-Webster: This is one of those words where definitions vary, but generally if a company has such a large market share/power that they can dictate prices and set rules that affect other platforms/competition, then that's monopoly/near monopolies. Valve Corporation does this. all they're guilty of is setting policies in favor of the consumer. Riiight, because ripping off gamers and devs with 30% cut (a cut that stayed from physical discs and times when 100gb HDD costed 5000eur) is so in favor of the users. The whole gambling thing and mystery boxes was also done to promote ethics to children, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (21 children) You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support. Steam customer support was a fucking meme back in my day. You also got oceans of videos like these: https://youtu.be/kE0QtkTNUqk How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to. I.. are we speaking English? Do you simply refuse to read and get new information? I mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve Corporation and threats of suspended sales, no pre-orders, etc., because that's what a near monopoly does to further cement their position on the market, and I don't even want to think about the future with different CEO and valve having basically grown into the next google or microsoft with Gabe long gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (23 children) Generous refund policy Added it after a lawsuit regarding steam not wanting to properly process refunds. Epic has it better automated and GOG processes refunds regardless of your hours if you have technical difficulties, so in my eyes Steam is in the last place. Unparalleled customer support Steam support is commonly regarded as non-existing. The only times I needed it, I got automated replies and my issue was not solved. Actively working towards wider support and accessibility, i.e. SteamOS, Steam Deck, and their runnable-verification markings. Making your product accessible is just business. I don't really use any of that stuff since I'm only on PC. Definition of Monopoly according to Merriam-Webster: This is one of those words where definitions vary, but generally if a company has such a large market share/power that they can dictate prices and set rules that affect other platforms/competition, then that's monopoly/near monopolies. Valve Corporation does this. all they're guilty of is setting policies in favor of the consumer. Riiight, because ripping off gamers and devs with 30% cut (a cut that stayed from physical discs and times when 100gb HDD costed 5000eur) is so in favor of the users. The whole gambling thing and mystery boxes was also done to promote ethics to children, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 23 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (21 children) You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support. Steam customer support was a fucking meme back in my day. You also got oceans of videos like these: https://youtu.be/kE0QtkTNUqk How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to. I.. are we speaking English? Do you simply refuse to read and get new information? I mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve Corporation and threats of suspended sales, no pre-orders, etc., because that's what a near monopoly does to further cement their position on the market, and I don't even want to think about the future with different CEO and valve having basically grown into the next google or microsoft with Gabe long gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply) 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 replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (21 children) You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support. Steam customer support was a fucking meme back in my day. You also got oceans of videos like these: https://youtu.be/kE0QtkTNUqk How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to. I.. are we speaking English? Do you simply refuse to read and get new information? I mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve Corporation and threats of suspended sales, no pre-orders, etc., because that's what a near monopoly does to further cement their position on the market, and I don't even want to think about the future with different CEO and valve having basically grown into the next google or microsoft with Gabe long gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (21 children) You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support. Steam customer support was a fucking meme back in my day. You also got oceans of videos like these: https://youtu.be/kE0QtkTNUqk How do they in any way dictate prices? Ubisoft are free to sell their game for half the price on their store front if they want to. I.. are we speaking English? Do you simply refuse to read and get new information? I mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve Corporation and threats of suspended sales, no pre-orders, etc., because that's what a near monopoly does to further cement their position on the market, and I don't even want to think about the future with different CEO and valve having basically grown into the next google or microsoft with Gabe long gone permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies) 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 replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (19 children) Correction: Steam has the largest market share because for majority of it's existence, it had no competition. It already became a standart before others appeared. That being said, Valve has increasingly become evil during the past decade. I was fully on board with supporting valve, but not fixing fees, supporting and defending gambling, inventing subscription passes, supporting in-app purchases, abandoning games and not using their ridiculous money to develop things people want like Half-Life 3 (don't even get me started on TF2 mess, almost entire community holds grudge against Valve for enshittifying it like a corporation that only cares about profits). Sure, Valve also does some things that are great for gamers, but I feel like it's our duty as a society to keep these companies in check, otherwise it's a slippery slope where if they're no longer being held accountable for shitty things they do, it will become a normality. I'm seeing some parallels to Elon Musk where everyone was praising him as an anti-corporate dude who's going to save everyone from oil or whatever, while few guys were screaming about red flags they're seeing, but everyone ridiculed them permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 19 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) load more comments (3 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) Exactly. The publishers want to satisfy their shareholders by forcing Steam to lower their fee. Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor? Polish up Uplay and sell games from other developers too. Bam, fixed it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago* (14 children) Instead of just, I don't know, release a competitor And now we've gone full circle and came back to Valve anti-trust practices, the ongoing lawsuits and their status of near monopoly. Like, you literally cannot do that if you want to sell your games on steam too. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent 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 replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (12 children) Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf? I don't think I'm capable of convincing you that this is anti-trust competition practice enabled by near monopoly, which is bad. You would not get such stupid rules from Epic or GoG. I guess the only thing I can say is that be glad that current CEO of valve isn't as bad as other CEOs, but it won't stay like that and it feels like we're slowly creating a monster. All corporations, without exclusions, should be kept in check permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (11 children) I agree there, we probably wouldn't get those rules from GoG. But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share, well, I don't know what to tell you. Steam enforces No Advertising in games and taking active steps in forcing developers to actually optimize their games. In no universe would EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, Epic or any other so the same. We'd have commercial breaks in our 2fps games years ago. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (10 children) But if you even for a second think Epic would not impose 30%+ fee if they had Steams market share Don't you see how you're accidentally proving my point here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) I see how you think I am. I'm saying that having a clear winner in an open market is not the same as them having a monopoly. Assassin's Creed games releases on both Steam and Uplay. Same price. Same game. Same everything. Why do people still choose Steam? It's not because they are forced to. They have the option to simply not buy it on Steam. That is why I don't think Steam is liable. Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (8 children) Ubisoft wants so sell cheaper on Uplay to pull traffic there. Why not just simply dump Steam and ONLY sell on their platform? I'd really like you to answer this question. Steam has major market share and it's not a good business decision to ignore that, so publishers are forced to submit to Valve's rules, unless they're ready to take the loss. In a fair world, all these publishers would likely sell cheaper on their own platforms, which is good for you, the customer, but that won't happen with Valve setting rules, and so there is no reason for customers to make a switch, and so other platforms can't compete. Epic gained some traction by giving away free games, but that's basically the best they can do. Ask yourself - how can any other company be competitive in the current environment? How would you even go about building your own platform when the very basic thing (pricing) is basically regulated by the big guys? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) Listen. Steam is free. Uplay is free. Epic is free. EA App is free. It's not like Playstation vs Xbox, where the market is divided because of financial limitations on the consumers. What stops anyone from using any other launcher? What stops any publisher from not selling through Steam? "market share" is not really a valid argument when all options are free and easily available to everyone. Monopoly means lack of alternatives. Right now the option is buying a game for $70 on either Steam or EA App, for example. People choose Steam. Nothing is stopping EA from saying you know what, we'll sell it only on our own page but for $60. Nothing. People who want to play a game would most likely just buy it there then. My view is that these lawsuits etc are purely a way for the failed competitors to force their way in while still providing the same absolute garbage of a service. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) This is not what I'm talking about. I agree with you, and anyone can choose whichever platform they want. The discussion is about how Valve Corporation uses it's status for anti-trust practices which is a major blockade for other companies to compete with steam. Like I said, as long as this keeps happening, others can hardly compete and gamers don't have a reason to use other platforms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (5 children) gamers don't have a reason to use other platform Exactly my point. Give them a reason. And they can compete. They just don't want to. It's easier to shift the blame onto big bad Valve. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) ..... How can I not blame Valve when they're the reason others can't compete in pricing? Why are you not getting this? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Oh my lord. The problem isn't the pricing!!!!!! If you feel like you can't sell your game for $55 on just Epic so you must sell it on Steam too but for $70, there's a problem with your product and/or service. Not Steam. Epic tried the "1 year exclusivity" for a couple of games, like Borderlands 3 did that. People simply didn't buy the game. Was the game cheaper? Nope. See my point? Steam had zero hand in people rather not buy a game than installing Epic. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) So? They could've sued for anything, doesn't mean they're right. They sued for the money issue because they either can't comprehend that consumers don't like what they're providing, or they (the companies) simply don't want to invest in improving it so they start pointing fingers instead. That's all it is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) No, they sued as an answer against Valve's threats and actions, nothing really to do with customers, but Valve using it's power to dictate how they can sell their product in a way that does not create competition against Valve. It's literally called anti-trust lawsuit. EDIT: Honestly dude, I think we should just agree to disagree and finally end this convo. You're obviously not convincing me and I'm not convincing you, so it's a dead end of back and forth. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (28 children) Imagine there’s a huge fuel station that’s so big they essentially set rules towards suppliers that they can’t offer their gas to other stations at a cheaper price otherwise they can’t sell it in their station with 95% market share. That is specifically not what is happening. 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." Valve does not "dictate" prices in any way. Ubi and WB are free to sell their games for as cheap as they want. But if and ONLY IF they offer a steam key with the purchase, they can't undercut steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 28 child comments replies: [–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (24 children) Please read the article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (16 children) Just for you, I gave Eurogamer my information to farm and sell of to the highest bidder. And I learned nothing new. Ubisoft want to have their game on Steams store, Steam says "alright sure, these are the requirements". Ubisoft breaks that agreement, Steam says "then we won't sell your game". Okay? So? No one is forcing them to sell on Steam if they don't like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) Speaking of God Given Rights, "we want to sell our games on Steam but not on their terms". Don't like it? Don't do it. "but they have the largest market share 😢" , because you keep selling on their platform. I don't understand how this shit is so hard to grasp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago Tell me, what have Valve done that is so evil? In your own words permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies) load more comments (1 reply)
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 2 points 5 months ago (24 children) Please read the article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 24 child comments replies: [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (16 children) Just for you, I gave Eurogamer my information to farm and sell of to the highest bidder. And I learned nothing new. Ubisoft want to have their game on Steams store, Steam says "alright sure, these are the requirements". Ubisoft breaks that agreement, Steam says "then we won't sell your game". Okay? So? No one is forcing them to sell on Steam if they don't like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) Speaking of God Given Rights, "we want to sell our games on Steam but not on their terms". Don't like it? Don't do it. "but they have the largest market share 😢" , because you keep selling on their platform. I don't understand how this shit is so hard to grasp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago Tell me, what have Valve done that is so evil? In your own words permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (5 replies)
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (16 children) Just for you, I gave Eurogamer my information to farm and sell of to the highest bidder. And I learned nothing new. Ubisoft want to have their game on Steams store, Steam says "alright sure, these are the requirements". Ubisoft breaks that agreement, Steam says "then we won't sell your game". Okay? So? No one is forcing them to sell on Steam if they don't like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) Speaking of God Given Rights, "we want to sell our games on Steam but not on their terms". Don't like it? Don't do it. "but they have the largest market share 😢" , because you keep selling on their platform. I don't understand how this shit is so hard to grasp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (16 children) Just for you, I gave Eurogamer my information to farm and sell of to the highest bidder. And I learned nothing new. Ubisoft want to have their game on Steams store, Steam says "alright sure, these are the requirements". Ubisoft breaks that agreement, Steam says "then we won't sell your game". Okay? So? No one is forcing them to sell on Steam if they don't like it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 16 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) Speaking of God Given Rights, "we want to sell our games on Steam but not on their terms". Don't like it? Don't do it. "but they have the largest market share 😢" , because you keep selling on their platform. I don't understand how this shit is so hard to grasp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (15 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 15 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply) [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) Speaking of God Given Rights, "we want to sell our games on Steam but not on their terms". Don't like it? Don't do it. "but they have the largest market share 😢" , because you keep selling on their platform. I don't understand how this shit is so hard to grasp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (9 children) Steam only takes a share on sold copies. Having YOUR game on THEIR site while selling it cheaper on your OWN site would effectively be leeching free exposure off of Steams front page. How is it not reasonable for Steam to not want that? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (7 children) I don't get it. Steam does not have a chokehold on supply of servers, hardware, software, personnel, investments, nothing. Steam has a huge base because people like their platform. If the big publishers would pull out of Steam, you think it would survive? If Ubisoft and EA and Rockstar and all of the others decide hey, we're just gonna sell on our own platforms from now on, you think Steam would prevail anyway? Counter-Strike is not THAT profitable. The CORE ISSUE is not Steam having a 30% fee, it is THE OTHER PLATFORM ARE CRAP and people rather not play your game than install Uplay. And again, Valve are not setting any prices. They do 2 things, Set their fee Won't accept you using Steam as a free advertisement window Look, I don't like the 30% fee either. They could lower it drastically and probably still be fine. But make no mistake; if, say, EA had launched an equivalent to Steam in the early 2000s, today it would be common practice to have Ads in the launcher, Subscriptions for "better deals", Fees for adding more games to your library, Spyware, and don't think they would have more generous fees for developers. If anything, they would have a HIGHER fee than 30% and if anyone tried to launch a competing game launcher they would buy it up and shut it down. Stop acting like Valve isn't the best we could ask for out of all the alternatives. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (6 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (5 children) You want to punish Steam in favor of the shareholders of the likes of Ubisoft, who is really gagging on billionaire cock here? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) Humble Bundle isn't even mentioned in the article shared my guy. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago My apologies! Genuinely. Now, from what I understand, Rosen had his game in early access on Steam for like 5 years. And the game was hosted solely on Steam. Things that cost Rosen nothing. Then, Rosen wants to sell keys directly to the costumers rather than through the very service used to distribute the game, effectively bypassing paying Valve anything. Valve says that's not ok, Rosen sues them, and somehow Valve is the bad guy? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (4 children) Speaking of God Given Rights, "we want to sell our games on Steam but not on their terms". Don't like it? Don't do it. "but they have the largest market share 😢" , because you keep selling on their platform. I don't understand how this shit is so hard to grasp. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (2 children) None of that first paragraph is in the article OP linked lmao, at least not the one I can see. Why would Steam put your game on their site for free, giving it exposure to potential buyers, just for the buyers to turn around and buy it cheaper somewhere else? Steam only takes a cut on sold copies. Xbox, Ubisoft, EA, Blizzard/Activision, Epic, Rockstar, all have launchers. Hell, even Amazon has got a game launcher. Had any of them been better than, or at least as good as Steam, people would probably buy a game there if it was not listed on Steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago And Steam is not their fucking platform . If Amazon where to set such a policy, well then just fucking stop selling there. It would come crumbling down on itself. You people don't seem to realize the responsibility of the sellers in keeping companies like Valve at the position their in. You can't have the cookie and eat it, which is exactly what they are pushing for with these lawsuits. But yeah, let's kill Steam and watch EA put commercial breaks in their games, MTX just to progress in the story, subscription to even continue to have access to your games, always-online for the most basic single player games just so they can keep track of you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago Tell me, what have Valve done that is so evil? In your own words permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago Tell me, what have Valve done that is so evil? In your own words permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago Tell me, what have Valve done that is so evil? In your own words permalink fedilink source parent