Bratosch comments on Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere

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

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 0 points 5 months ago* (25 children)

There are many buyers or sellers, but one actor has enough market share to dictate prices (near monopolies)

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 25 child comments

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago (22 children)

My guy. I deliberately left out GOG in my comment because they fill a different niche in the market,, DRM-free and generally older games. The bureaucracy of refunds is probably alot less complicated.

You're probably the first person I've heard say Steam has bad customer support.

They are not making "their product accessible", they are making other people's games accessible by providing an open OS for gaming outside of the Microsoft Windows system.

Again, having a large market share because you simply provide the best service is -not a Monopoly-. 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'd happily pay 30% to Steam for all the service they provide over 100% to Ubisoft's reskinned, buggy, unoptimized quarterly "games" or EAs microtransaction simulators any day.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 22 child comments

[–] 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

[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (20 children)

i mean, sure, they can, but they will get angry emails from Valve

So? Maybe they should put more focus on improving their own platforms instead of whining about Steam, then they could sell their game exclusively there without issue.

I don't know I can make it any clearer; Steam has a big market share because people choose them, not because they use any hostile tactics to push out the others. Ubisoft and EA, among others, have for years done everything in their power to lose any good will from the player base in favor of their shareholders.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 20 child comments

[–] 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

[+] Bratosch@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago* (19 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 19 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (18 children)

I mean, there is only other platform that functions like steam (Epic store) because GoG focuses on DRM-free games, which is better than Steam pushing for DRMs.

That being said, Epic lowered the fees and showed steam what's a reasonable tax (I'm sure you've heard about Epic v Apple). Sure, they're not as feature rich as they're quite new, but you cannot deny the fact that both GoG and Epic does some things that are great for us, customers.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 18 child comments

[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 1 point 5 months ago* (17 children)

Games are surely cheaper on Epic then since they take a smaller cut? Right? Right....? Since they do it for us.

Edit: I deleted my previous comment because I felt done with this conversation. Apparently I'm not.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 17 child comments

[–] REDACTED@infosec.pub 1 point 5 months ago (16 children)

If you're a developer, then yes, you make more money for your work. Whether the developer takes the extra money or makes the game cheaper, is not really in Epic's control.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 16 child comments

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] Bratosch@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (13 children)

if you want to sell on Steam too

Yeah, if you want to sell on THEIR platform then follow THEIR rules. Like wtf?

Like a said in another reply, Steam has a "monopoly" because 1. Players choose it, and 2. Publishers keep selling there.

If you can't sell your game solely on your own platform, then maybe there's a problem with YOUR PRODUCT.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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

[–] 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.