▲ 349 ▼ Valve antitrust lawsuit reportedly reveals lengths Steam owner is willing to go to prevent cheaper prices elsewhere (www.eurogamer.net) submitted 4 months ago by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world 464 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (18 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (17 children) so you're saying that the steam version is not using sheam features? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) The steam version probably just uses steam features through some library/interface/whatever that simply implements calls to the relevant code depending on the game's build (steamworks for steam, Xbox live or whatever they changed it to again, PSN, epic online services, etc..) for platform-related stuff like rich presence, joining servers etc. I don't know the specifics of R6 but I've worked on multiplayer, multiplatform games, and I really doubt they have a specific network stack for Uplay, another one for PC, and then another one for each console. Especially if it has crossplay. More likely it's all going to ubi's servers (through their own crossplay solutions and servers, or through a third party like EOS) and just implementing the aforementioned platform specific stuff to make the experience smooth for the end user. I'm not a law guy but I don't think the other platforms pricing thing was ever about a "steam version" of the game, as that rule would be easily circumvented by releasing another "version" where the black background on the title screen is a slightly different shade of black than the steam version or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago well no, the integrations are what i'm talking about. not saying that valve is hosting their own r6s servers, just that by using steam features and having the same game (eg able the connect to the same server) on two stores it falls under their "parity" policy. permalink fedilink source parent [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (13 children) so they can't play against people on steam? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (3 children) It's more complicated than that. Technically, you're right, if the game entirely relies on steamworks for networking you can only play with people on steam. A lot of indies/AA actually just did that for a while because they just connected players P2P (so, no dedicated servers, which would necessarily be "outside" of steam's ecosystem) and crossplay was too complicated, so there are a lot of multiplayer games out there that you literally can't play crossplatform, at least in a user friendly way (shadow warrior 2 comes to mind, where you can actually connect the GOG version to the Steam version by entering a console command and knowing the other guy's IP). Big publishers like Ubisoft definitely had the developers and the money to roll out their own crossplay architecture and code very early though, and they absolutely did. Basically, if the game has dedicated servers it most likely has crossplatform. Nowadays a lot of UE games just rely on Epic Online Services for crossplay. I think you can actually use it with non-UE games too but there might be licensing shenanigans involved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) r6s isn't unreal though, it's anvil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not. permalink fedilink source parent [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago Steam version probably uses steam networking and Uplay, with the latter being responsible for basically all the online features, and the former only for interfacing with steam. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (6 children) i was genuinely curious because i didn't know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they're using steam's services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (4 children) okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case. but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (17 children) so you're saying that the steam version is not using sheam features? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 17 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) The steam version probably just uses steam features through some library/interface/whatever that simply implements calls to the relevant code depending on the game's build (steamworks for steam, Xbox live or whatever they changed it to again, PSN, epic online services, etc..) for platform-related stuff like rich presence, joining servers etc. I don't know the specifics of R6 but I've worked on multiplayer, multiplatform games, and I really doubt they have a specific network stack for Uplay, another one for PC, and then another one for each console. Especially if it has crossplay. More likely it's all going to ubi's servers (through their own crossplay solutions and servers, or through a third party like EOS) and just implementing the aforementioned platform specific stuff to make the experience smooth for the end user. I'm not a law guy but I don't think the other platforms pricing thing was ever about a "steam version" of the game, as that rule would be easily circumvented by releasing another "version" where the black background on the title screen is a slightly different shade of black than the steam version or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago well no, the integrations are what i'm talking about. not saying that valve is hosting their own r6s servers, just that by using steam features and having the same game (eg able the connect to the same server) on two stores it falls under their "parity" policy. permalink fedilink source parent [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (13 children) so they can't play against people on steam? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (3 children) It's more complicated than that. Technically, you're right, if the game entirely relies on steamworks for networking you can only play with people on steam. A lot of indies/AA actually just did that for a while because they just connected players P2P (so, no dedicated servers, which would necessarily be "outside" of steam's ecosystem) and crossplay was too complicated, so there are a lot of multiplayer games out there that you literally can't play crossplatform, at least in a user friendly way (shadow warrior 2 comes to mind, where you can actually connect the GOG version to the Steam version by entering a console command and knowing the other guy's IP). Big publishers like Ubisoft definitely had the developers and the money to roll out their own crossplay architecture and code very early though, and they absolutely did. Basically, if the game has dedicated servers it most likely has crossplatform. Nowadays a lot of UE games just rely on Epic Online Services for crossplay. I think you can actually use it with non-UE games too but there might be licensing shenanigans involved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) r6s isn't unreal though, it's anvil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not. permalink fedilink source parent [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago Steam version probably uses steam networking and Uplay, with the latter being responsible for basically all the online features, and the former only for interfacing with steam. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (6 children) i was genuinely curious because i didn't know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they're using steam's services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (4 children) okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case. but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (1 child) The steam version probably just uses steam features through some library/interface/whatever that simply implements calls to the relevant code depending on the game's build (steamworks for steam, Xbox live or whatever they changed it to again, PSN, epic online services, etc..) for platform-related stuff like rich presence, joining servers etc. I don't know the specifics of R6 but I've worked on multiplayer, multiplatform games, and I really doubt they have a specific network stack for Uplay, another one for PC, and then another one for each console. Especially if it has crossplay. More likely it's all going to ubi's servers (through their own crossplay solutions and servers, or through a third party like EOS) and just implementing the aforementioned platform specific stuff to make the experience smooth for the end user. I'm not a law guy but I don't think the other platforms pricing thing was ever about a "steam version" of the game, as that rule would be easily circumvented by releasing another "version" where the black background on the title screen is a slightly different shade of black than the steam version or whatever. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago well no, the integrations are what i'm talking about. not saying that valve is hosting their own r6s servers, just that by using steam features and having the same game (eg able the connect to the same server) on two stores it falls under their "parity" policy. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago well no, the integrations are what i'm talking about. not saying that valve is hosting their own r6s servers, just that by using steam features and having the same game (eg able the connect to the same server) on two stores it falls under their "parity" policy. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (14 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (13 children) so they can't play against people on steam? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (3 children) It's more complicated than that. Technically, you're right, if the game entirely relies on steamworks for networking you can only play with people on steam. A lot of indies/AA actually just did that for a while because they just connected players P2P (so, no dedicated servers, which would necessarily be "outside" of steam's ecosystem) and crossplay was too complicated, so there are a lot of multiplayer games out there that you literally can't play crossplatform, at least in a user friendly way (shadow warrior 2 comes to mind, where you can actually connect the GOG version to the Steam version by entering a console command and knowing the other guy's IP). Big publishers like Ubisoft definitely had the developers and the money to roll out their own crossplay architecture and code very early though, and they absolutely did. Basically, if the game has dedicated servers it most likely has crossplatform. Nowadays a lot of UE games just rely on Epic Online Services for crossplay. I think you can actually use it with non-UE games too but there might be licensing shenanigans involved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) r6s isn't unreal though, it's anvil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not. permalink fedilink source parent [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago Steam version probably uses steam networking and Uplay, with the latter being responsible for basically all the online features, and the former only for interfacing with steam. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (6 children) i was genuinely curious because i didn't know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they're using steam's services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (4 children) okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case. but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (13 children) so they can't play against people on steam? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (3 children) It's more complicated than that. Technically, you're right, if the game entirely relies on steamworks for networking you can only play with people on steam. A lot of indies/AA actually just did that for a while because they just connected players P2P (so, no dedicated servers, which would necessarily be "outside" of steam's ecosystem) and crossplay was too complicated, so there are a lot of multiplayer games out there that you literally can't play crossplatform, at least in a user friendly way (shadow warrior 2 comes to mind, where you can actually connect the GOG version to the Steam version by entering a console command and knowing the other guy's IP). Big publishers like Ubisoft definitely had the developers and the money to roll out their own crossplay architecture and code very early though, and they absolutely did. Basically, if the game has dedicated servers it most likely has crossplatform. Nowadays a lot of UE games just rely on Epic Online Services for crossplay. I think you can actually use it with non-UE games too but there might be licensing shenanigans involved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) r6s isn't unreal though, it's anvil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not. permalink fedilink source parent [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago Steam version probably uses steam networking and Uplay, with the latter being responsible for basically all the online features, and the former only for interfacing with steam. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (6 children) i was genuinely curious because i didn't know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they're using steam's services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (4 children) okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case. but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago (3 children) It's more complicated than that. Technically, you're right, if the game entirely relies on steamworks for networking you can only play with people on steam. A lot of indies/AA actually just did that for a while because they just connected players P2P (so, no dedicated servers, which would necessarily be "outside" of steam's ecosystem) and crossplay was too complicated, so there are a lot of multiplayer games out there that you literally can't play crossplatform, at least in a user friendly way (shadow warrior 2 comes to mind, where you can actually connect the GOG version to the Steam version by entering a console command and knowing the other guy's IP). Big publishers like Ubisoft definitely had the developers and the money to roll out their own crossplay architecture and code very early though, and they absolutely did. Basically, if the game has dedicated servers it most likely has crossplatform. Nowadays a lot of UE games just rely on Epic Online Services for crossplay. I think you can actually use it with non-UE games too but there might be licensing shenanigans involved. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) r6s isn't unreal though, it's anvil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) r6s isn't unreal though, it's anvil. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 point 4 months ago* (1 child) Yeah but you're not gonna see many AA or indie games made with anvil. My point was that your original assumption that a game using steam networking won't be able to "talk" to the same game using another platform's networking is somewhat correct, and basically still is the case for games that can't afford crossplay solutions, with the notable exception of EOS. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i don't know if that was ever the question. rather it was whether they've chosen to split them up or not. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (8 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago Steam version probably uses steam networking and Uplay, with the latter being responsible for basically all the online features, and the former only for interfacing with steam. permalink fedilink source parent [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (6 children) i was genuinely curious because i didn't know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they're using steam's services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (4 children) okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case. but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Sylvartas@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago Steam version probably uses steam networking and Uplay, with the latter being responsible for basically all the online features, and the former only for interfacing with steam. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (6 children) i was genuinely curious because i didn't know. but it does fall in line with what i thought, which is that: if ubisoft are charging lower amounts for dlc that can also be bought through steam, and that dlc shows up for people who are playing on steam, then they're using steam's services and valve are in the right. if the two versions of the game do not commuticate, then ubisoft are in the right. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (4 children) okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case. but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (4 children) okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case. but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (4 children) okay, and you're sure of this? thanks for clearing it up in that case. but then surely it's against their tos, no? like, if a hat is 50¢ on uplay but 100€ on steam and players on steam can see uplay players wearing the hat, isn't that a case of price disparity in the product? it's not a steam key, true, but if ubisoft were allowed to set prices like that it would almost certainly count as anticompetitive practices, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 1 point 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago (2 children) no, obviously i'm not saying that. i'm saying that by having content in the game that costs different amounts for different players playing together on the same platform (pc), ubisoft aren't following the terms they agreed to for selling on steam. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mabeledo@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lime@feddit.nu 1 point 4 months ago i was reading through the court documents earlier (i linked them in a comment) and while i don't doubt that bloomberg knows better than me, that wasn't the feel i got from the emails. it started with valve employees asking internally if it was a tos violation, then reaching out to ubisoft, then the demand to change the price on steam to match. the docs are heavily redacted so some details escaped me but... idk. permalink fedilink source parent