this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2024
528 points (97.3% liked)
PC Gaming
8071 readers
449 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I suspect wolfire is a useful idiot with a larger company funding this lawsuit. Whether or not the antitrust case has legs, this will cost valve money which is a win for whoever they may be.
Just conjectue o course. I know though that if steam were destroyed tomorrow only terrible more expensive garbage would come in its place.
So go go gaben
I am very ashamed that I own a single wolfire title.
I like Wolfire. Their head (David Rosen) had a really good procedural animation talk at GDC about a decade ago, their games are pretty good, and they started up Humble before it spun off on its own.
Before tarnishing their reputation, I'd suggest reading up on the actual complaints put forth in the lawsuit. I've done so extensively, I think they have very solid grounds to go after Valve (Valve's behaviour is comparable to Amazon's in terms of anticompetitive practices).
I read the complaints and I lost all respect. I will not be spending another cent with that company, nor will I attend any of his future talks.
The entire complaint seems to be centered around the idea that you can't sell the game for different price off platform. That's demonstrably untrue. You can sell the game for a different price of platform as long as they're not using steam keys. Which is hardly an unreasonable onus, It's not hard to generate your own keys.
The other complaint seems to be about the 30% but again you can just distribute yourself. Of course then you have to fund all your own server architecture, that's what the 30% pays for.
If that is demonstrably true, I'd like to see the demonstration. In fact, the case alleges the policy extends to non-key sales (see pts 204, 205, 207, 208).
This has already been raised in the European courts and has basically been beaten down that that there is no basis. Feel free to link to an actual court decision that proves otherwise.
It's an ongoing case, so I don't know what you expect of me here. My reply was to correct your misunderstanding about the focus of the case, which is not limited to the use of steam keys as you originally claimed.
I am not aware of the european case you reference, would you mind pointing me to where I can learn more?
Why are you getting the idea that it extends to non-steam keys as well? That's never been the case because that's not actually true. They have no control over what price you sell a product at off the platform as long as it's not using steam keys. So if they're claiming that it also includes steam keys then that's not true.
The points linked above allege Valve will delist a game from their platform if the price is lower off-platform (even for non-key sales), correct?
This is called a "Platform Most Favored Nation" clause, and it has anti-competitive effects. It is controlling the price off-platform using the leverage of market share to coerce behaviors out of publishers.
Please also link me this European court case, I have been unable to locate it myself.
Again, I am really wanting to see this EU case you reference, because this is an issue I have been reading up on. Do you have a reference for me?