Yes. They sued Valve with allegation that they are too successful by providing good service. Sure 30% for some developers, but solution is quite simple… don’t sell on Steam. Problem solved. Go to Epic, GoG, bunch of others. Hell every company now has its own launcher and store.
Comment on Court rules Gabe Newell must appear in person to testify in Steam anti-trust lawsuit
blazera@kbin.social 2 years ago
So is the allegation just that Steam is too successful?
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Nah, it’s mean old valve making it so people aren’t flocking to publish their games on UPlay.
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 2 years ago
What’s saddest of all is the fact they are willing to throw millions on this litigation instead of spending that money on improving the service. They claim it’s for the good of all users, but their actions tell different story.
Wilzax@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Or even just make it more expensive on steam, if you really want 100% of the revenue for every sale. Pass the cost of using steam on to the user and offer the game on other (worse) markets at a markdown.
MeanEYE@lemmy.world 2 years ago
There could be a clause in terms of use that Steam won’t allow developers to make their games most expensive on Steam, or at least cheaper than elsewhere.
Fosheze@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Developers already do that fairly often. Typically indie devs. They will sell their game directly for lower prices than listed on steam.
blue_zephyr@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Pretty much. Meanwhile other stores engage in actual behaviour that deserves an anti-trust lawsuit like buying up developer studio’s and making their games exclusive to their own platforms. Or paying devs to make games exclusive to their store temporarily. You know, things that actually screw the consumer over.
Rose@lemmy.world 2 years ago
How’s In the Valley of Gods doing?
gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 years ago
Legit, I’ve never heard of anti-competetive practices from Valve. Anti-consumer? Sometimes, yeah, though they do a lot more right than most
The argument seems to be that “30% cut is too high” but it’s not like there aren’t other options if you think that’s too high. Epic loves to pay for games to be exclusive there, humble and gog exist, one could even go the retro route and set up their own website (though that’s prolly the dumb idea), itch.io comes to mind…
If Valve HAS done some shady shit to ensure their major market share I’d be down to hear it, but to me as a PC gamer since '10ish (and had PC gamer friends since 06) it seems they got there through being a not complete garbage heap of a company that actually improved over the years on user feedback, which is supposed to be the good example of capitalism innit?
blazera@kbin.social 2 years ago
Taking a high cut is the opposite of anti-competitive, that makes it easier for competitors to offer a better deal
Spedwell@lemmy.world 2 years ago
…unless you have a policy that requires other marketplaces to sell at the same price as on Steam, undercutting the ability for “better deals” to exist at all.
Which is what the lawsuit is actually arguing is going on.
blazera@kbin.social 2 years ago
or what?
Carighan@lemmy.world 2 years ago
If 30% we’re too high, surely just by offering a competitor that takes a lot less if a cut (say, 12,%), developers would flock to thst competitor because it saves them so much money, right?
Right, Sweeney?
yukijoou@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 years ago
yeah, i think the 30% is fair enough, given the amount of stuff you get as a user by using steam, like
i honestly feel like while they’re a monopoly, they don’t do anything other companies can’t do, their cut goes to fund features others simply don’t provide, so it’s entierly fair for them to be more expensive than the competition
Maalus@lemmy.world 2 years ago
echo64@lemmy.world 2 years ago
People don’t buy games on the competitors, but yes may developers did flock to epic, which made everyone hate epic.
Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 years ago
Eh, more like Epic approached them with a suitcase full of money, that’s very different.
hypna@lemmy.world 2 years ago
People don’t hate on Epic because their store has content. They hate on Epic because they tried to buy market share with exclusivity deals. Nobody wants PC gaming to turn into the streaming services.
blahsay@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Hah if 30% is deemed too much the apple app store and pretty much any retail is going to be next. Steam is popular because they don’t pull this nonsense. At 70% growth p/a why bother too
iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 2 years ago
As a consumer, the worst days of Steam were in its early years. It took hours to download the HL2 day 1 patch. But those days are long behind us.
JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Escape from Tarkov has been very successful with their own site and launcher. I don’t see it ever going to steam and it’s regularly in the top 10 of twitch
Rose@lemmy.world 2 years ago
That’s like saying racism doesn’t exist because there are black people in power.
JJROKCZ@lemmy.world 2 years ago
No, it’s saying if you make a good game and launcher then you don’t need to rely on one of the storefront that take 30% like epic or Valve. Idk what GoGs cut is but I’ve also never bought anything from there
Tier1BuildABear@lemmy.world 2 years ago
🤮
echo64@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Valve hasn’t done anything shady, but monopolies are still bad and unhealthy. Both things are true. And there are no other options for less of a cut if you want to actually make sales, pc gamers won’t purchase from other platforms.
Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Monopolies are bad, but is it a monopoly if they naturally gained market share because their product was first and better?
Honestly I’d be fine with them removing the “PMFN” clause, but I’d rather it be a law that it can’t be enforced because you know Valve isn’t the only one to include it. But even if they did get rid of it, I don’t think they’d see a major shift away from their platform.
echo64@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Yes, its unhealthy foe the undustry even if you enjoy it today. Gabe newel is old, he’s going to retire soon and likely sell the company. You won’t like what happens after that.
PapstJL4U@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Yes. Yes it is. It doesnot matter how a monopoly was created. It’s the definition of a current market state, not behaviour.
In many countries it although does not have be a true monopoly (aka a single object), but a undisputed, sizeable market portion.
PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
They’ve had some shady situations, but they tend to walk them back when we lose our shit.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
That’s who’s suing Valve here.
MossyFeathers@pawb.social 2 years ago
No, humble bundle isn’t run by them anymore. They haven’t been run by the wolfire guys since 2017. If they are then I’m probably not buying anything from humble again.
ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 2 years ago
You’re right and I’m wrong. I guess I’m out of touch - what did the Wolfire guys do since then that makes you dislike them?
brawleryukon@lemmy.world 2 years ago
I think there was some cross-pollination for a couple years beyond that. Sounds like they sold Humble off to be its own thing, but the Wolfire guys were still running it until 2019 (see Wikipedia quote below). Either way, they’ve got out of Humble well before they filed this suit.
NateSwift@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Is Wolfire Games associated with Humble at all or am I missing something?
brawleryukon@lemmy.world 2 years ago
Wolfire Games created the original Humble Indie Bundle, but they’ve been divested from it for a few years now. From Wikipedia:
The comment above that Humble’s the ones suing Valve here is inaccurate.
Romanmir@lemmy.today 2 years ago
Yeah, I’m pretty sure both are run by the same dude. He got butt hurt by valve’s cut about the time he started Humble Bundle.
bastion@feddit.nl 2 years ago
I think this should be admissible in court.