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

[–] 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.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent