this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
167 points (93.3% liked)

PC Gaming

8781 readers
550 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

  1. Be Respectful.
  2. No Spam or Porn.
  3. No Advertising.
  4. No Memes.
  5. No Tech Support.
  6. No questions about buying/building computers.
  7. No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
  8. No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
  9. No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
  10. Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LouNeko 78 points 6 months ago (7 children)

What the hell are these points?

Steam forces developers to ask for higher prices? Ah, yes, because Activision is so eager to sell Call of Duty for just $20 but big bad Steam is just forcing their hand and they have to sell it for $70. See if you look at their own store where they can set their own prices its… also $70… hmm, that’s weird. Maybe others… nope same prices across all platforms. Almost like publishers can actually freely decide on their prices.

Steam also forces customers to buy DLCs for games on their platform. Well, how else is this going to work? I buy a game on Steam and then call up the devs to venmo them $2 and they send me a DVD in the mail? Or should I make a new account on some other website and get my DLCs seperatly from there? Most games don’t even sell you DLCs, they sell you credits so you can unlock content that’s already in the game. Often times you have to buy those credits trough the devs website and link your account to Steam. That’s already a pain it the ass.

Steam takes 30% of the cut. True, that sound like a lot. Imagine you’re a solo Dev and you’ve been working 9 years on a game. 3 of those years you’ve essentially been working just to pay off Steam. But look at what you get for those 3 years. You get a seperate store page for your product that you can essentially design however you want. You get access to high speed distribution servers all over the world, that also allow you to effortlessly push updates out, the option for regional pricing, the industries most reliable user review system, an integrated discussion and fan art forum, third party controller support (important for people with disabilities), and a refund system. Sure 30% still sounds like a lot, but would you be able to provide all this if you would’ve self publish the game, probably not.

Steam is consistently the cheapest option to buy games on sale. And even if it isn’t the cheapest, at no point in time have I thought, man Steam has this game for $7.49 but EGS has it for $6.99, I better get it on EGS. Maybe on GoG but no where else.

It’s mind boggling to think that through inflation and some shortages almost all groceries have nearly doubled in price over the last 20 years, but a AAA game is still $60, even though the cost of making a game has skyrocketed. Imagine gas prices would’ve stayed the same over the last 20 years and people would complian that gas station sandwiches would tast like shit.

I copied my own comment from a cross post on another instance, so don't @ me.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I thought maybe they were saying regional differences in prices were the cause of concern, but again that's not really a basis for a lawsuit, is it?

[–] LouNeko 26 points 6 months ago (3 children)

As far as I know, regional pricing through Steam is completely controlled by the publisher/dev. It's literally a checkbox for each region and a text field to enter an adjusted price. And Steam has made great efforts to stop regional key trading to prevent people from just buying cheaper keys from 3rd world countries and reselling them.

[–] ashok36 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Literally all pricing is set by the devs and publishers. The guy you're responding to has no idea what he's talking about. The Steam store terms of service are public and easily available to read through. I know, I've done it. The only pricing requirement they have is keys sold off store can't be significantly discounted under the store price. That's it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

As a "theoretical hobby game dev": steam also provides workshop, networking and matchmaking (lobby) tools. For all the stuff you get I personally find this reasonable. If I remember correctly, mobile phone app stores take a big cut too and I can't see how they would come close.

Edit: cloud saves, (proton), dlc handling

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The uk and ubisoft government should be sued for not preserving games like the crew

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Putting my tinfoil hat on here, but Sunak totally called the election because he saw the petition was gaining traction!

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I hold my hand up as someone who hates the Tory scum but even I wouldn't make a claim that bold simply because they're too incompetent to be actively screwing over a market they simply don't care about.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Zahille7 47 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Monopoly, noun: the exclusive possession or control of the supply of or trade in a commodity or service.

Imo this does not apply to Steam. They do not have an exclusive possession or control of the PC gaming market. As is proven in the rest of this thread by just about everyone, there are other online game stores/launchers besides Steam. Literally no one is forcing you to use Steam (because then it would be considered a monopoly), when Epic, GoG, Uplay, Origin, and Rockstar Launchers all exist.

Again, like it was said elsewhere in this thread, they've just crushed the competition so completely that it feels like they have a monopoly.

[–] Badeendje 33 points 6 months ago (1 children)

In the article

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

[–] MeaanBeaan 12 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It wouldn't be the first time the first point has been brought up. If true it does sound pretty anti competition. But so far there's been no proof valve is actually doing this and I'm skeptical that it's happening at all. If it were happening I don't think we would be getting free games on epic (at least not ones that are also sold on steam). Nor do I think we'd have games on gamepass that are also on steam. I also routinely see sales for games on Green Man Gaming, Humble Bundle, and epic that at the time at least make the games cheaper than they are on steam.

Maybe they have agreements with certain publishers to provide a lower platform fee than 30% in exchange for them not providing the games cheaper on other platforms?

[–] Badeendje 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Sure it has been brought up. But that's why these investigations are good. If it's true, slap em with a fine, if it's not.. valve can make a victory lap.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] frankgrimeszz 32 points 6 months ago (7 children)

TL;DR: Entitled parent is angry that Valve makes a profit. Claims they’re a monopoly. They aren’t.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (36 children)

As a consumer, I don't care about this. Even if Valve's cut were lower, the prices would remain the same. I don't get a cheaper game, the publisher just gets a higher cut, so it doesn't directly benefit me.

load more comments (36 replies)
[–] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago (8 children)

Lot of people misunderstanding just how fuckin strict anti-monopoly laws are in parts of Europe

You know how we all laugh at American internet prices? That's only one example of how much more Freedom©®™ we actually have

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Oh boy, German internet prices would like a word.

All jokes aside, it's gotten way better the past few years.

But I'm still paying for texts. Imagine that.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 25 points 6 months ago (11 children)

It's true that Steam is in a dominant market position so I do agree they should be kept in check. At the same time, their value-add is quite reasonable, so I wonder what the "correct" charge is for the service they provide. Or perhaps some system they need to make more open to competition like Steamworks or the Workshop?

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (10 children)

A company that makes a billionaire out of its owner is overcharging you, no matter how much you like the company or the owner.

It's funny because if it was any other companies I'm sure a bunch of you would be happy about it, but it being against Valve you can't help but defend them.

Should I dig in everyone's comment history to show who are the hypocrites that otherwise act like they're left wing?

[–] ashok36 43 points 6 months ago (5 children)

Valve doesn't set the prices for any of the products you buy through their store. The game developers and publishers do.

The exception is valve developed games which are mostly free to play and make money on useless cosmetics. Most of their successful games are built on mods that are only possible because valve takes the very consumer friendly position of supporting and encouraging modding of their games.

Hell, they even allow and promote fan made remakes like Black Mesa and unofficial sequels.

If valve is a monopoly, it's only because they're the only corporation in the pc gaming space (OK maybe include gog too) that respects their customers. They're not perfect but they're orders of magnitude better than the competition.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago

I was shocked when Valve allowed Black Mesa to be monetized on Steam. I respect the fuck out of them since then.

Unlike the shit heads at Nintendo, suing everyone dares to touch their overused decades old IP.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›