feddit.org

3 points

20 days ago

They don’t offer lower prices on Epic because Valve bullies publishers into matching the price with Steam. Valve threatens to delist the game from Steam if a lower price is available elsewhere, using their market dominance to prevent smaller stores from competing the only way they realistically can – on price.

report

[ - ]

ricecake@sh.itjust.works

1 point

20 days ago

I literally said “companies that don’t use steam”. If a publisher opted to not use steam, it should have lower prices, right?

Except we see games not released on steam still selling for the same $60 for a full feature game that we do everywhere.

report

[ - ]

3 points

20 days ago

The lawsuit already has several public examples of communications between Valve and publishers where Valve is all “whoah whoah you can’t be selling that cheap on another store!”. Publishers want to offer lower prices. The economics make sense, passing on some of the savings to consumers will result in an increase in revenue, this is also what the expert economists in the lawsuit are going to be testifying.

If you’re big enough to not be using Steam, you’re what, Ubisoft or EA? (and even these are using Steam these days.)

report

[ - ]

ricecake@sh.itjust.works

1 point

20 days ago

Or blizzard, riot or epic. All of which are perfectly successful without using steam.

Communication between valve and publishers about TOS violations is only an issue if it’s an anticompetitive clause.
If publishers want to offer lower prices, they can use a different storefront like the others. If they can’t make sufficient revenue without valves advertisement and distribution network, then maybe the service is worth the price valve charges for it.
Valve has done nothing to stop consumers from using other stores, so I’m not particularly sympathetic when the stores are upset about consumer choice.

report

[ - ]

3 points

20 days ago

epic. All of which are perfectly successful without using steam.

This entire lemmy post is about someone being upset that Epic is successful enough to have an exclusive. If a few large players can still succeed without Steam, it’s not proof that Steam’s practices aren’t making the market worse for consumers.

If they can’t make sufficient revenue without valves advertisement and distribution network, then maybe the service is worth the price valve charges for it.

Listing your product on Steam isn’t advertising. They’re not promoting your game unless you pay them.

Let’s make an analogy. Is it reasonable for Nordstrom to go after a company selling the same product at Wal-Mart cheaper?

Valve has done nothing to stop consumers from using other stores

If we lived in a world where Epic was allowed to compete with Steam on the only way it can, with lower prices, we might have cheaper prices on Steam, and a more robust competitive market. This is why Valve is doing this price fixing. They know that consumers are price sensitive, and a $55 price tag on a new game going for $60 on Steam would be a disaster for them. They know their price fixing department would have to become a “watch for prices on other platforms and adjust our prices / cut to be competitive” department.

report

[ - ]

ricecake@sh.itjust.works

1 point

20 days ago

Listing your product on Steam isn’t advertising.

They literally present your product to people as recommendations and make it discoverable by the people likely to buy it. No, it’s not banner ads, but you use them because they get your game in front of consumers likely to buy it. That’s the entire reason the platform has appeal to developers.

This entire lemmy post is about someone being upset that Epic is successful enough to have an exclusive

Yes. Because it’s a worse store. People being upset that a thing they want has a hurdle they’re not willing to jump over doesn’t mean the preferable system is a problem.

Is it reasonable for Nordstrom to go after a company selling the same product at Wal-Mart cheaper?

If they signed a distribution agreement, then yes. It would almost be like a game signing an agreement to sell exclusively on the epic game store and then deciding to sell on steam anyway.

It’s a flawed analogy though, because Nordstrom’s and Walmart buy the product and then resell it, rather than facilitating a sale. Valve doesn’t buy 50k licenses from you for $20 each and then try to sell them while keeping all the revenue for themselves.

They know their price fixing department would have to become a “watch for prices on other platforms and adjust our prices / cut to be competitive” department.

🙄 That would make sense if valve set the prices or adjusted their cut in real time.
Epic is allowed to compete with steam on price. Games don’t have to be on steam to be successful. Valve has no way if stopping you from choosing to use a different store, and as you pointed out in the beginning: This entire lemmy post is about someone being upset that Epic is successful enough to have an exclusive. You can’t be mad epic isn’t “allowed” to compete when they’re actively competing.

report

[ - ]

0 points

20 days ago

🙄 That would make sense if valve set the prices or adjusted their cut in real time.

🙄 I’m well aware that they don’t do this, I’m asserting that the reason is at least partially because they don’t have to, because of their anti-competitive practices.

Games don’t have to be on steam to be successful.

Finding a few examples of successful games not on Steam doesn’t prove that Steam’s market dominance and price fixing aren’t hurting consumers.

You can’t be mad epic isn’t “allowed” to compete when they’re actively competing.

They’re competing so hard they’re not turning a profit after 5 years (Source IGN). They’re competing so hard that social media explodes in a circle jerk about Fortnite or lootboxes or some bullshit every time there’s an Epic exclusive. Epic is despised and not doing so well as a platform. A market without a massive anti competitive juggernaut dictating everyone else’s terms would make Epic’s store better, and it would make Steam better too.

report