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
[–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    It's literally what lawsuit is about, but okay.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 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
    •
  • [–] 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