349
Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere (www.eurogamer.net)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
465 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 3 months ago (26 children)

Yeah I hope Valve loses this in favor of developers and consumers. If another platform asks for a smaller share devs should be allowed to set a lower price.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (13 children)

    If valve loses this, they will clamp down on their features.

    Because why would they provide infrastructure for free when the developer sells keys for less somewhere else?

    If you expect them to provide storefront, infrastructure and community integration for free, I don't think they will.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (6 children)

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this article (and case?) has nothing to do with keys. It's just about steam saying: If you want to sell on other platforms, even if the other platforms don't use any of valve services, they need to have the same price as on steam. Which would be clear monopolistic behaviour imo. (-> does rainbow six siege on ubisoft connect use any valve servers/services? You don't get a steam key on ubisoft connect afaik)

    For those who downvote: please explain where I am wrong. Thank you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Valve is denying this, but are they lying seems to be the real question.

    So we need the full email and your question about ubi using anything of valves answered.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

    Steam was saying that if they want to sell it cheaper elsewhere then they should also sell it cheaper on steam. Steam threatened to delist the game if the prices weren't consistent because it was comparatively overpriced by a significant amount.

    They did not say the publisher needed to raise the price elsewhere, just that it needed to be consistent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (3 children)

    But that's the whole point of this. Why should steam have a say in it, how expensive or cheap different games are sold on different platforms. They basically prevent price competition. To be fair in this case selling the starter pack only on Ubisoft Connect (exclusivity) is also anti competitive and worth investigating, but the point stands. Why should steam have the power to force Gamedevs to have price parity with other stores, if the versions of the other stores don't have anything to do with steam? Why can't some games be cheaper in other stores, where the stores take a smaller cut of the profits?

    Yes Ubisoft is evil, but that doesn't make Valve the good ones.

    Yes Steam has more and better features, but that doesn't mean other stores should be prohibited to compete on price.

    Yes Steam has the largest Playerbase by far, but how many people would switch if games where just always 20% cheaper on other platforms? This price competition seems to be the exact thing that Valve tries to block.

    And this is not about keys at all. Steam has of course the right to set the price for their steam keys, because they provide the servers, interfaces, etc.

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

    Steam is choosing not to distribute the game at a significantly higher price than elsewhere if the publisher is choosing that pricing structure. The publisher can either choose to distribute on steam with a comparable (not identical) price on steam or not distribute on steam.

    Steam isn't making the publisher do anything on other storefronts and as you pointed out what Ubi was doing was anticompetitive.

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

    Well, the second story in the linked article is about the same version of the game sold at different price points and Valve rejected it because the price was "significantly higher" on steam.

    Now the problem is, we don't know what "significantly higher" means because Valve did not specify it. But the base line for "allowed" cheaper prices should be the 30% steam cut, shouldn't it? So a game can be 30% cheaper somewhere else, which in turn makes the steam version around ~42% more expensive. Which could very well fall in the category of "significantly higher."

    But I guess this is why we have the lawsuit to figure this out. I'm just a bit annoyed at a lot of people here jumping directly to conclusions without even reading the linked article. I guess my main point is, that it is POSSIBLE that steam is guilty in contrast to a lot of people just saying "Steam Keys!!!" and denying the possibility of wrongdoing. If it turns out Steam is not forcing something of a price parity, I too would be very happy.

    Thank you very much for discussing in good faith.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    On the other side is an assumption that a publisher can just set significantly sifferent prices in different store fronts and are entitled to being on those store fronts. That isn't the case either, brick and mortar stores have always had the option to not carry an item when the sale price is significantly different than other store fronts.

    The 30% thing is also incredibly misrepresented. Regular and online stores always have a significant markup for the vast majority of their stock, with a few high profile items as exceptions to that rule.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    This is not about other sites selling steam keys. This is about other stores fronts entirely.

    Steam it's abusing it's monopoly like position to keep prices artificially high across the board. Stop licking their boots.

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

    If you want to sell the game cheaper, then you lower the price on all plaforms. Valve doesn't dictate prices, publishers do.

    Steam does take a 30% cut when you sell a game on steam, but if you don't want to pay that, and still provide a steam key, you can sell the game on your platform for the same list price and pocket the 30% yourself. Valve gives keys out for free for this sole purpose.

    If you want to sell the game cheaper, and not provide a steam key for your user, you are free to do so at any price too.

    The thing you aren't allowed to do is sell the game for cheaper than on Steam, and still give a free Steam key with the game.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    you are free to do so at any price too.

    Read the fucking article. Valve is being sued because they're explicitly blocking non steam key sellers from selling at lower prices.

    Ubisoft was told they couldn't sell an entirely different version from what was available on steam, at a lower price, ON THEIR OWN STOREFRONT, or else steam would remove their game.

    Holy shit, you're just blindly defending the very practice that you said wasn't even happening

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    This has nothing to do with keys. This would be like Sony listing a basic PlayStation on their website that was $100 cheaper than other stores and Walmart threatening to remove PlayStation from their stores. This is about Steam (like many retailers) ensuring that they aren't being undercut by other retailers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago*

    Did Rainbow six siege on ubisoft connect include a steam key at any point? In the article it just states that they had a cheaper version of the game and valve threatened to take R6 out of steam. Am I missing something?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (11 children)

    Let's go on a hypothetical trip. Say valve loses this, and as a result they stop providing free steam keys to publishers, so that you can now only buy on steam. Obviously this is the absolute worst thing they could do.

    Everyone loses, every key shop is dead. Say goodbye to humble, greenmangaming, fanatical and so on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    If you had actually read the article, instead of stepping in to blindly defend the corporation that is actively causing you to pay more money for games, you'd know this was not about steam key seller sites.

    Uplay featured a $15 USD Rainbow Six Siege Starter Pack, but this version was not available on Steam, making the cheapest option on Valve's platform much more expensive. It's claimed Valve insisted Ubisoft swiftly remedy the discrepancy, giving the publisher "until the end of day tomorrow" to change that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago (5 children)

    Lowering the price on steam would have been a remedy and would have benefitted players, just like all of the sales on steam that it actively promotes where the publisher drops the price.

    This is about Ubi trying to be anticompetitive in pricing on their store and steam choosing to not go along with it. Steam consistently lowers the prices of games overall and always has.

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

    It's an odd one.

    If a game cannot be sold cheaper elsewhere, publishers have two options, lower the price on Steam (which benefits consumers) or increase the price on the other platform(s) (which benefits the publisher).

    It benefits Valve no matter what. It can also benefit the consumer. It can also harm the consumer.

    Publishers have every right to not use Steam. Ubisoft had success with UPlay in the past, they just wanted even more money, so went back to Steam.

    Will be interesting to see what happens with the lawsuit.

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

    Ubisoft had success with UPlay in the past

    What?

    The whole case is about Valve forcing other storefronts to sell at the same price as these publishers sell in Steam. Key point is that allegedly Valve requires this even if the game is sold not with a Steam key, but publishers own. Allegedly. Time will tell if they actually do it or not.

    So far Ubisoft and WB hasnt had a great reputation in gaming community, so there should be no surprises why most gamers side with Valve.

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

    Of course. Ubisoft sold their games on UPlay and not Steam for a while. People still played their games and they had some big releases.

    Did they sell the games any cheaper? Of course they didnt.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -5 points 3 months ago

    Those is literally about valve being anticompetitive. How are you mentally twisting this into being Ubisoft being the bad guy here for selling their own product.

    Steam is artificially keeping prices higher with this practice. Their larger cut % keeps the price floor high, because valve is threatening these developers to not lower prices on lower cut % stores (that don't use valve infrastructure or keys). There's zero leg to stand on claiming steam is lowering prices with this well known policy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    I like how you think I was "blindly" defending them and that this wasnt related.

    Say valve lose this, things could hopefully trundle on. Or, Valve throw their weight around and lock the steam consumers to steam. You want to sell and distribute a game as someone not being a big publisher? Now you have to deal with all the servers and distribution, and payment processing. Yea, someone like Ubi or EA have their own store, but lets be real, no one really uses or likes using them. There is a reason Ubi and EA both came back to steam.

    In the end this hurts consumers, and really badly.

    Obviously this is a worse case hypothetical. But it is a potential problem caused by this law suit. And this all started because valve was actually trying to get equal treatment for their customers, instead of them being ripped off by Ubisoft

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