• Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ironically this is actually an example of Valve using its dominant marketshare to suppress rivals - Steam’s ToS require devs to have equivalent pricing across all storefronts if they want to sell on Steam at all, so making it harder for cheaper storefront cuts to translate to lower prices to consumers, who might otherwise move to a different storefront.

    Devs aren’t going to drop Steam as a store, so they’re stuck.

    • Aosih@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not ideal, but I’d say the reason they require equivalent pricing is, so that people don’t just use Steam as a marketing platform, while diverting all sales to their personal website where they sell the game for $X cheaper.

      • Paradoxvoid@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah I do understand the reasoning and honestly can’t fault them for it - they are a for-profit company after all.

        Doesn’t mean that it’s not a good example of them throwing their weight around (which is admittedly rare).

      • rambaroo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s a perfect example of them abusing their position in the market. But since you’re a valve cultist, you make up a bunch of weak excuses for it. If epic or ms did the same thing you’d blow a gasket.

      • DrQuint@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Plus, it only applies to base price, not sale price. If a platform states “you can have your game on sale 100% of the time”, and a game undercuts Steam that way, Steam wouldn’t do anything about it. Well, they wouldn’t have to anyways, it’s illegal to have goods on sale 100% of the time, but the point is there.

    • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do you have a source for that claim that doesn’t reference the sale of Steam keys specifically?

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Steam’s “price parity rule” is a policy that ensures that Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.

        Ars Technica tries to spin it in favour of Steam, but if you read between the lines it is there:

        https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fees-dont-lead-to-lower-prices-on-the-epic-games-store/

        • hedgehog@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for sharing that!

          Steam’s “price parity rule” is a policy that ensures that Steam keys cannot be sold on other sites unless the product is also available for purchase on Steam at no higher a price than is offered on any other service or website.

          IMO, it’s reasonable to say “If you want to sell Steam keys off Steam, you need to follow our pricing rules,” but it is not reasonable to say “If you want to sell your game, sans keys, off Steam, you have to follow our pricing rules to keep selling on Steam.” You’re talking about the former here, right? Or does that mean that the following situation is prohibited:

          • Your game is listed at $50 on Steam
          • You sell keys from your own site for $50
          • You sell your game directly from your site for $40

          and if so, that the mitigation is to either stop selling Steam keys entirely or to raise the price on your own site to $50?

          That’s somewhere in between the two but I dislike it. I suspect it’s more legally murky, too, like tied selling.

          The article briefly talks about the latter (emphasis mine):

          Wolfire’s David Rosen expanded on that accusation in a recent blog post, saying that Valve threatened to “remove [Wolfire’s game] Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website, without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.

          However, it also says “Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this ‘parity’ rule only applies to the ‘free’ Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms. Valve hasn’t responded to a request for comment on this story.” I wonder if the lack of comment was because of Wolfire’s lawsuit?

          I’m also now curious if the reason for Steam saying that was related to the in-between situation I talked about above.

          @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works shared this ArsTechnica article from 2022 that covers an update on that lawsuit - I haven’t seen anything more recent. In it, Wolfire makes the same claim, in court, that they’d already made in their blog post, which was sufficient to convince the judge to re-open their case.

          The ruling [to re-open the case] makes particular note of “a Steam account manager [who] informed Plaintiff Wolfire that ‘it would delist any games available for sale at a lower price elsewhere, whether or not using Steam keys [emphasis in original complaint].’” The amended suit also alleges that “this experience is not unique to Wolfire,” which could factor into the developer’s proposed class-action complaint.

          Hopefully we’ll hear more about that soon.