• bitfucker@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    And that practice is what? Providing value to the consumer? The thing that MAYBE can be used against them is the clause for selling STEAM KEYS outside of steam. But that is it. Take a look at mindustry, the game is free everywhere else but steam. But that did not violate steam ToS since they didn’t sell the steam keys for less than what is listed on steam.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      3 months ago

      It’s in front of a judge right now and information is public if you want to know more, and no they’re not getting sued for providing value to the consumer (but don’t worry, they charge you enough that they can provide value AND make Newell a billionaire… so maybe you should be angry about that if you don’t care about the rest.)

      • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Have you read the filings? The complaints are that steam listings for a game have to match the lowest price for the game, that keys can’t be sold for less than the steam listing (I’m not really sure how this is a different thing from the low pricing), and that steam takes too big a cut of the proceeds. That last one is particularly hilarious, in that they are bringing this lawsuit to a court that respects USA business laws, which pointedly do not hold that ‘being too greedy’ is a problem (outside of price-gouging laws, which are not relevant here…)

        • RxBrad@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          This is an issue because of Steam’s 30% cut.

          Other retailers take a smaller cut. But because Steam mandates that the Steam storefront always gets the lowest price, publishers can’t take advantage of that lower cut to offer lower prices. They can only lower the price to something that doesn’t torpedo them with a 30% cut on Steam.

          • bitfucker@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            The fuck are you talking about? I already gave an example of mindustry being free anywhere but steam. As long as they don’t distribute the steam keys for free somewhere else, they are safe. Steam mandates that you put the lowest/price parity for the steam keys you sold outside of steam. If for example a game is being sold on steam priced at $15 with a 30% cut, the publishers are free to distribute the steam keys on their storefront for the same $15 without any cut. OR they could sell it cheaper BUT they cannot sell the steam keys. Maybe other storefront keys/drm. But the problem is, will the publisher sell it for a lower price knowing that they could sell it for the same price across the board with a higher profit margin?

            If you wanted to argue that it is steam’s fault for taking the 30% cut in the first place so we get where we are now, then I don’t know what to tell you anymore. The problem is not steam but greed. Back to my example mindustry, that is a valid strategy to sell it for free everywhere but steam and is perfectly legal. It’s just no one wanted to follow that model (instead of free, offer a cheaper price).

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Sure, but that’s not a monopolistic practice. That’s just a MAP, which is an incredibly common agreement. Hell, its better than most MAP contracts because they only take a 30% cut of sales thru steam, even if the dev is selling steam keys thru an alternate storefront.