this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024

123 points (86.4% liked)

PCGaming

6477 readers

175 users here now

Rule 0: Be civil

Rule #1: No spam, porn, or facilitating piracy

Rule #2: No advertisements

Rule #3: No memes, PCMR language, or low-effort posts/comments

Rule #4: No tech support or game help questions

Rule #5: No questions about building/buying computers, hardware, peripherals, furniture, etc.

Rule #6: No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.

Rule #7: No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts

Rule #8: No off-topic posts/comments

Rule #9: Use the original source, no editorialized titles, no duplicates

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

CSFFlame@lemmy.world

123

$843 million lawsuit against Valve already has its own website: "The Steam Claim" accuses the biggest store in PC gaming of "overcharging" players (www.gamesradar.com)

submitted 4 months ago by Dadifer@lemmy.world to c/pcgaming@lemmy.world

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dinckelman@lemmy.world 117 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (31 children)

Every time I see a post with this specific claim, targeted at Valve, i just can't help but laugh.

Yes. They take a cut.

Yes. Everyone else takes the same cut, so you're biased, if you don't understand this.

Yes. They are an undisputed leader in the market, but no, that's not called a monopoly.

The difference is that Valve, while taking this cut, and being as big as they are, are consistently investing that money into improvement of the platform, AND also paying people to directly contribute to OSS, that affects everyone else in the market too.

Not to even mention the regular, very considerable discounts, practically platform-wide. Show me a time when Nintendo have done the same. A 10 year old copy of MK8 is still 50$

This isn't even a bogus claim, but just a waste of everyone's time

[–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 48 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Wait, you're telling me that reinvesting in the business instead of increasing dividends and executive pay increases profits in the long term?

Preposterous!

[–] astrsk@kbin.run 8 points 4 months ago

You misspelled prosperity.

[–] saltesc@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, I don't think they realise Steam is itself a product to pay for. Sure, someone could come up with a free game manager, but that's only a part of Steam's services. There's all the licencing, marketing, communities, features, connecting to other platforms, a console mode, remote play, ongoing security, support for external titles, the workshop, great refund policies, all this stuff and Valve doesn't ask for a sub, pays all the staff involved, and stays on top of it all with premium quality.

No shit they take some off the top. How else could the Steam we love and know exist if they didn't?

The irony of this lawsuit trying to ruin things gamers cherish.

load more comments (29 replies)

[–] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 68 points 4 months ago (5 children)

I see what Vicky is attempting to do. But there's nothing stopping publishers from going over to the Epic Games Store for example and selling their content there. Valve does nothing to suppress competition (it can't really either), the competition is just bad.

[–] snooggums@midwest.social 37 points 4 months ago

Exactly. Epic's complaint is that steam has such a large user base that they can get away with the percentage they charge, but nothing is stopping people from having every game selling storefront at the same time. Steam doesn't do crappy stuff like exclusive deals with other companies to draw people in.

Now I only used Epic for a couple years, but I don't remember them doing sales. They did the free stuff which was mostly shovel ware crap, and their games stayed full price. I get games regularly at a discount on steam, which is a better deal as a user.

Epic is just whining that their terrible approach isn't as good as steam's.

[–] ogeist@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (2 children)

They can and had done it before, see the link at the bottom of the article. Basically, game devs are forced to sell the game at the same retail price in all platforms regardless of the commission cut of the platform according to Steam license. BUT as a customer, usually other platforms are more expensive, so mileage may vary. I like Steam a lot and support it whenever I can but if there is evidence of wrongdoing I would change my mind, however, the complaint from the article smells strongly to cashgrab.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The price parity thing exclusively is for Steam key distribution. If you're going to distribute a steam license key via another platform, it must be priced the same as it is on Steam itself.

Nothing in that says they can't publish on multiple platforms independently and charge different prices on them, as long as the other platform isn't selling you a game you can unlock on your Steam library. It would have to unlock on, say, Epic's store library.

You also have sites like Humble Bundle that either get a special pass from Valve (I mean, isn't that a charity organization?) or the violation of distributing steam keys at different prices isn't enforced.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] stardust@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Do they? As a long time user of /r/gamedeals and isthereanydeals that is focused on game sales I've got tons of games cheaper than they were being sold directly through steam. Humble monthly being one of the best with sometimes price of like 8 game bundles being less than the cost of the cheapest price a single game went on sale.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 45 points 4 months ago

This is a bogus claim. Steam is by far the most compettitive of the bunch

[–] 9point6@lemmy.world 31 points 4 months ago

There's a thread somewhere else on lemmy about this from a couple of days ago, I think the conclusion was that this was a law firm going for a cash grab and the claims were pretty flimsy, they're going after Sony too.

[–] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 24 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I am not a fan of the title the article uses. It seems more about Steam abusing their near monopoly in a way that hurts publishers. The overcharging aspect seems more like a byproduct

[–] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Except steam doesnt abuse their monopoly.

If they did, Epic wouldn't be allowed to use Fortnite and CCP blood money to bribe games to their shit store.

[–] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean abuse in the way where they are taking advantage of their position in the market.

There are several online game retailers publishers can utilize and being profitable is always going to be part of their business model. Epic would do it in their own way no matter what Steam did.

Even Humble Bundle isn't perfect. You can read this article for more information but they trialed removing the slider that decides where your money goes in 2021 and even now the Default Donation and Extra to Charity options still only give the charity a small percentage.

It's just an unfortunate reality.

[–] kbin_space_program@kbin.run 11 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

That would be the Windows Store that is taking advantage of things.

Steam, for its faults, is where it is because it is the best application to do what it does.

Yes others exist, and they're all vastly inferior.

[–] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 1 points 4 months ago

Steam, for its faults, is where it is because it is the best application to do what it does.

Yes others exist, and they’re all vastly inferior.

I'm not denying that. As a consumer I like a lot of what Steam does. I am a big fan of what they've done for the Linux gaming community for example. I am saying because they are so dominant in the market they can do things like keep their commissions high and push publishers to sign price parity obligations.

I imagine a lot of publishers feel like if they don't have a choice but to list their games on Steam. The alternative would greatly limit their reach.

My initial point was Steam isn't directly overcharging players like the title of the article implies. I feel like the title should have been about the cause and not the effect.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] JohnnyH842@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

I bought Skyrim for $9.

[–] Agrivar@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago

I would much rather see this level of dedication aimed at an evil corporation. Save pestering the good guys for WAAAAAY later - like, after we've fixed everything else.

[–] Mango@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't feel overcharged. I've got hundreds of games!

[–] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What's their claim? With the ridiculous number of sales I've always found steam to be cheap.

[–] Zahille7@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

I literally just bought 3 games for $30 this morning.

[–] bitfucker@programming.dev 7 points 4 months ago

I really wanted to see the effect of valve lowering their cut. It would be pretty funny IMHO since currently people are always talking about valve competition, especially Epic taking lower cuts. If valve started taking lower cut and developers flocked from Epic to valve, wouldn't it be epic? (Pun fully intentional)

[–] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

What a pointless claim. Developers get charged, not the end user. You pay the same price as elsewhere, in fact Steam requires developers to price the same if am not mistaken. Besides what's the charge? People are willing to pay more for product they enjoy? If that's the precedent then Apple will go bankrupt day after this lawsuit is won.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

in fact Steam requires developers to price the same if am not mistaken.

That practice is the whole point of the lawsuit. The lawsuit claims they're Anti-Competitive because of that.

And it doesn't sound too far fetched imo. They're stiffling other platforms by this.

But then, Sony and Epic and Microsoft have to pay as well because of exclusive deals.

This case might be good for customers .

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] Badeendje@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

https://lemmy.world/comment/10610894

The issues at hand:

Price parity obligation clauses: We say that Valve Corporation imposes price parity clauses that restrict and prevent game developers from offering better prices on PC-games on rival platforms, limiting consumer choice and harming competition.

This seems to be common practice, but is anti competitive. If another platform would charge 20 instead of 30 pct and the publisher would give half this discount to the customers this would be against these clauses. Good that these are looked at.

Tying: We say that the restrictions Valve Corporation imposes, that mean the add-on content for games must also be purchased from Steam, restricts competition in the market.

And vice versa, steam dlc does not work with games on epic. Interesting case here too.

Excessive pricing: We argue that Valve Corporation has imposed an excessive commission, of up to 30%, charged to publishers, that resulted in inflated prices on its Steam platform.

The 30% market standard seems to be under fire across the board, so if there is a solid case to be made that this is excessive, I'm glad the watchdog is trying to make it.

In all good that this is investigated, cause just paying for another yaght or house for Gabe is not nessecary.

[–] madcaesar@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The part about another platform charging less and they passing the savings on to the consumer... Yea I'll believe it when I see it. All these "pro consumer" arguments are usually just a masked way to keep more profits.

Now, a middleman keeping 30% or even 20% seems high to me all over so it will be interesting to see it play out.

The part about dlc purchased from competitors being incompatible is definitely anti consumer and should be challenged.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] cristo@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

All of these same points can be made about microsoft, sony, nintendo. I agree that all these things could change and be better for the consumer but they should have gone after the mega corporation who lock content not only behind a platform but also a special computer you have to buy.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments