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 to c/technology@lemmy.world
458 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 101 points 5 months ago (30 children)

I love valve as much as the next PC gamer, but I agree their rules should not affect what publishers do entirely on other platforms.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    They aren't. If Ubisoft wants to release a game on their own platform steam can do nothing about it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Did you even read the article? That is exactly what the to lawsuit is about?? Do you have any insider knowledge or why are you starting this as fact???

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

    No, Ubisoft tried to offer a partial game for free, distributed via Steam, but sold paid full access for cheap on Uplay. Basically, a "purchase full access to this Steam game on our storefront so we don't have to pay the fee we'd normally pay to get Steam to distribute the game for us".

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

    It's like if I download an app from Google Play Store, and then go to that apps first party website, and pay for your subscription to the app service there , in order to bypass the Google Play Store transaction and thus the developer fee.

    I'm trying to figure out why I'm okay with circumventing this to amazon, apple, and every other publicly traded company offering a platform or marketplace, but feel that my favorite privately owned and operated platform should get a pass and be able to restrict the off network transactions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    Because steam offers steam keys for free if "given away" Pay me $25 and you get a free steam key to game B but I'm going to explicitly charge $30 if you try and buy it on steam direct. Mean while steam is on the hook for hosting and server costs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Steam can delist all of Ubisoft's games from their storefront in retaliation to what Ubisoft does on their own independent store

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

    Sure, and ubisoft can decide to not sell their property on steam at all, that mechanic goes both ways.

    I forgot the issue at hand while writing that, oh bother

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    there's more to it than that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 5 months ago* (8 children)

    Yeah but it's fairly simple.

    You can generate Steam keys using the Steam developer tools. This allows a game key to be purchased on any storefront that supports selling them, which can then be activated on Steam.

    The main requirement? You can't price those steam keys on a 3rd party store cheaper than on Steam itself.

    For that, it means if the 3rd party store takes a smaller cut than Steam itself would take, the developer makes a bit more profit through almost no additional effort. Steam is the system users use to download and update the game, and cloud save syncing, and community guides, forums, workshop, etc.

    The developer is, afaik, more than welcome to also sell a UPlay key if they partner with Ubisoft at any price point they want (regardless of the Steam price) because Ubisoft is the taking on the burden of distribution, etc.

    The only price requirement Valve imposes is on selling Steam keys on 3rd party storefronts. Not UPlay keys. Not Xbox keys. Not Epic Store keys.

    Edit: and I read the article, while albeit short (can't access the linked Bloomberg article sadly), they claim exactly that, that the version on UPlay was significantly cheaper than the version on Steam for essentially the same game. Valve was arguing that Rainbow Six Siege needs to change their pricing on UPlay or they would be delisted.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 40 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The crux of the case is whether Valve is applying that rule to non-Steam keys or not. Lawsuit says they are, Valve says they aren't. If Valve is telling the truth, they've done nothing wrong. If Valve is lying however that is an anticompetitive practice that should be punished. We won't really know until the trial concludes though.

    Personally I think the most likely answer is that some junior support people at Valve misunderstood the policy and told some people the wrong thing. There's a decent chance that when those accusations first surfaced a decade or so ago (yes this has been a thing for that long) Valve probably sent some internal memos to clarify what the rule actually covers and what it doesn't and hopefully that was that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    Valve probably sent some internal memos to clarify what the rule actually covers and what it doesn't and hopefully that was that.

    Speaking from my company experiences as an employee:
    If it's not written in a clear language (e.g. ONLY keys generated and distributed by Valve need to follow the same price on other storefronts. We do not care about 3rd Party key generator/distributors like uPlays own infra) and somewhere accessible it will be forgotten or misinterpreted by employees.
    I can't even count the amount of "With this email we inform you of policy X and order Y".
    This email will be lost and new employees will never receive it.
    And employees will repeat the rules in a flawed way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    This isn't about steam keys, it's about Valve throwing their weight around.

    Valve was arguing that Rainbow Six Siege needs to change their pricing on UPlay or they would be delisted.

    It's the equivalent of Amazon telling a manufacturer that they can't sell their product at a lower price on their own website if they want to sell it on Amazon.

    None of this should be defended.

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

    No, it would be like Amazon saying that a manufacturer cannot use Amazon to ship goods sold on their own website if they're going to sell at a lower price. That is reasonable. Steam keys are a means of distribution. If steam is going to provide the file transfer, cloud saves, multiplayer server hosting, community page, and workshop page for your game, then don't sell your steam keys for less than the game on steam.

    If you want to sell a key for epic for less than you list the game on steam, they do not stop you from doing so.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Yes it's a very short article and apparently you completely hallucinated a paragraph where it's about steam keys?

    I do not see any mention of steam keys in the article. They wanted to sell a version that wasn't even on steam. Only on Uplay. This has nothing to do with steam keys. And valve was still complaining.

    So yeah. It's fairly simple and you still got it wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Not really no. Ubisoft agreed to these terms in order to sell their game on steam. If they sold their game on any third party platform, they would agree to the same or even more severe terms. They even made their own storefront specifically so they would have the option to not sell on a third party platform.

    They now cry foul because they got all the benefits from selling on steam, but they don't want to pay for any of those benefits.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Yeah it's particularly weird in this case because Ubisoft and Valve both have publisher, developer, and distributor departments within each company. So the agreements they signed and put into place are probably somewhat complex.

    Looking at the Steam page though it says

    Developer: Ubisoft Montreal

    Publisher: Ubisoft

    So in this case it's whatever Ubisoft as a publisher signed / agreed to with Valve when they accepted their distribution terms. These are probably not the same boiler plate terms an indie dev would sign if self publishing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    that's some fucked up logic.

    steam is simply saying, "if you want to sell your product through us you must not sell it elsewhere for cheaper". don't like it? don't sell your product on steam. simple as that.

    valve has a fiscal responsibility to ensure that developers aren't siphoning customers away from the platform and requiring equal pricing for the same product across all platforms ensures a level playing field for both devs and resellers.

    ask yourself, why would Ubisoft sell a game on steam for $60 and then attempt to sell the same game on their platform for $40? I'll give you a hint, it's not out of the goodness of their heart.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    That’s why Ubisoft could sell their games for 30% cheaper on their own platform

    good for them. they can fuck off and sell their shit on their platform exclusively.

    that 30% that valve takes? that's the cost of business working with valve. that's the fee to have access to their delivery platform, their inventory control system, their large consumer base.

    it melts my brain to attempt to comprehend how anyone can complain that a company is literally charging for their services AND have TOS to back it up.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    A fiscal responsibility to who?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (1 child)
    • their employees
    • the developers that use the platform to sell products
    • the customers that use the platform to buy products

    Valve has a fiscal responsibility to maintain solvency. if they allow their competition to undercut them while at the same time abuse the system to sell products at a higher price, they risk opening a rift for consumers to flood to a cheaper platform and thus weakening their solvency and profitability.

    if their competition wants to sell from their own platform at a cheaper rate, they need to make their products exclusive to their own platform.

    this is marketing 101.

    tired of people claiming Valve has a monopoly when it's very clear that this is manufactured because competition is unable or unwilling to develop a better solution than Valve. that's not monopolistic, that's just business.

    Nobody said Netflix had a monopoly when they put blockbuster out of business. nobody claimed monopoly when Walmart put your local grocery chains out of business. nobody claimed monopoly when Nintendo put atari and Sega out of business. know why? because a monopoly requires exclusive rights to sell a commodity or service. can you buy games outside of Steam? YES! then it's not a monopoly.

    antitrust my ass. Google had an antitrust suit. why? because the OS they maintained locked down app access to only their delivery platform. THAT'S a monopoly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •