• gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            a policy that requires other marketplaces to sell at the same price as on Steam

            or what?

            • Spedwell@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Steam has such a policy. Valve may remove any games from Steam which are sold on other marketplaces for less than they are on Steam.

      • sirdorius@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m also curious what the allegations are. The only ones I ever heard were from Epic, which was basically making a big fuss to promote their own competitive platform (which was so shit it didn’t gain any traction apart from the free games).

        I’ve tried all the online stores ever since the cloudification (remember Impulse?) but none have ever been able to compete with Steam in terms of features and value to the customer. Steam didn’t get to the top by being anti competitive, it got there by being competitive and offering a better product to all stakeholders, not just to shareholders.

        And as you mentioned, there is plenty of competition for Steam. Don’t like the monoply? Get it on GOG or Itch instead.

          • sirdorius@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks. So TLDR:

            1. PMFN (Platform Most-Favored-Nations clause): Valve forces publishers to price games on other platforms at the same price or higher than Steam. This is an anticompetitive monopoly because publishers can’t sell the game at lower prices on platforms with a lower cut than 30%, which would improve competitiveness. Very valid point
            2. Keys that publishers can sell on other storefronts are limited. This point is moot. The fact that Steam allows you to activate a product that was purchased elsewhere and then use their infrastructure to download the game is way more than they have to do. They can completely make the rules here as this is basically a free service that you get from Valve.
            3. Some murky points about Valve policing review bombing that isn’t explained properly.
      • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        humble

        That’s who’s suing Valve here.

        Edit: I’m wrong, they created Humble Bundle but haven’t owned it since 2017.

        • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, humble bundle isn’t run by them anymore. They haven’t been run by the wolfire guys since 2017. If I’m wrong and they are then I’m probably not buying anything from humble again.

          • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year 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?

            • Mossy Feathers (She/They)@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Suing valve. Like, valve is the only company I’m okay with having the amount of marketshare they currently have. I’m legit worried that if they go too hard on the lawsuit, it could result in the monkey’s paw curling (“I wish valve didn’t have so much marketshare” “granted: steam has been spun off into its own company. Without steam, valve goes under and “steamcorp’s” new management goes public”)

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          yeah, i think the 30% is fair enough, given the amount of stuff you get as a user by using steam, like

          • good cross-platform support
          • a working friendlist and chat system
          • remote play together
          • the workshop and community features
          • profile customisation stuff for those that like it
          • whishlists and gifts

          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

        • echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          People don’t buy games on the competitors, but yes may developers did flock to epic, which made everyone hate epic.

    • blue_zephyr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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.