Comment on Court rules Gabe Newell must appear in person to testify in Steam anti-trust lawsuit

• Maalus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Does it though? It seems like Valve is targetting the fact, that you can’t run the same game on a different platform for different amounts. So if Valve gets 30%, and some other store gets less, then they ask you to not run it cheaper. I.e. you can’t sell on both stores for $40, and then set a permanent -30% sale there.

  source

  • spark947@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    What right does valve have to discriminate against devs and publishers who are selling their game on other platforms? They have to compete for their business, not punish them for having a game that is more successful on another store that gives a higher revenue cut to the dev and a lower price to the customer.

    source

    • MossyFeathers@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      I think the reason why valve is doing this is because people might buy a game at a higher price, either on Steam or another storefront, and then complain that it was cheaper on Steam or another storefront and start demanding refunds or demand that Valve reduce the game’s price on steam.

      What do you do then?

      If you don’t address it, you’re automatically seen as the asshole even if it was the developer’s choice.

      You can give out refunds, which makes you look like the good guy, but that also looks bad to companies like Visa or PayPal (my understanding is that large numbers of refunds tend to look bad to payment processors, even if the refund was initiated from the company and not the consumer). Granted, Valve is a big enough company that they shouldn’t have issues with that kinda thing, especially since they already offer refunds, but my understanding is that it still doesn’t look good to payment processors and can make them upset.

      You can ask the developer to reduce the price on steam, but what if the dev says no?

      You can force the dev to reduce the price, but now you’re even more of an asshole.

      You can lower the cost on your storefront and cover the difference yourself, but now you’re potentially losing money. That, if I’m not mistaken, is actually anti-competative from a legal standpoint.

      You’re kinda screwed if you’re trying to be the good guy.

      That’s not even getting into how bad it looks if it’s cheaper on steam than somewhere else when you have a marketshare as large as Valve’s.

      source

      • spark947@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        So what? Who cares if it “looks bad”? They have to compete on service. They need to find out why devs want to sell on steam at a higher price.

        If other platforms want to compete in ways that make prices lower for customers lower for customers, so be it.

        source
    • Maalus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      The same right as epic games has to prevent a game from going on Steam, or anywhere else, for the first year.

      source

      • spark947@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        They usually sign an exclusivity deal in exchange for funding the development of the game. David is alleging that steam pressured him in ways not covered by steam ToS. It’s not like valve funded development of receiver.

        source
  • Spedwell@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    Yes, that is problematic. Not by itself, but coupled with a large captive userbase it is. As an example:

    Let’s say you want to start a game marketplace, which simply runs a storefront and content distribution—you specifically don’t want to run a workshop, friends network, video streaming, or peer multiplayer. Because you don’t offer these other services, you keep costs down, and can charge a 5% fee instead of a 30%.

    With Steam’s policy, publishers may choose to:

    1. List on your platform at $45, and forego the userbase of Steam
    2. List on Steam and your platform at $60, and forego the reduced costs your platform could offer

    Obviously, pricing is much more sophisticated than this. You’d have to account for change in sales volume and all. Point is, though, that publishers (and consumers!) cannot take advantage of alternate services that offer fewer services at lower cost.

    The question the court has to answer is whether the userbase/market share captured by Steam causes choice (2) to be de-facto necessary for a game to succeed commercially. If so, then the policy would be the misuse of market dominance to stifle competition.

    And I think Wolfire might be able to successfully argue that.

    source

    • Maalus@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Yeah they can, they just don’t have to sell on steam.

      source

      • Spedwell@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        This… misses the point? Of course the can not sell on Steam. That’s always an option.

        The antitrust aspect of all of this is that Steam is the de-facto marketplace, consumers are stubborn and habitual and aren’t as likely purchase games less-known platforms, and that a publisher opting not to sell on Steam might have a negative influence on the games success.

        If that consumer inertia gives Steam an undue advantage that wouldn’t be present in a properly competitive market, then it there is an antitrust case to be made, full stop. The court will decide if the advantage is significant enough to warrant any action.

        But I really don’t like seeing Wolfire—which is a great pro-consumer and pro-open-source studio—having their reputation tarnished just because Lemmyites have a knee-jerk reaction to bend over and take it from Valve just because Steam is a good platform.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • spark947@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

        Steam runs weekly deals and daily sales all the time. I doubt they have to check with gog.

        source