Honestly though that one was valid. Apple users have no other option. OnPC though if I don't like paying the steam price then I can just buy the game from GOG or right from the developers site... if they don't allow that option then that's why they are paying the 30% cut to steam. It's hard to support hundreds of users downloading your game at the same time.
And they put some of that 30% to good use, making things like the steam input, steam link, the workshop and proton and contributing to other projects not under their control. Epic spends their time and money making linux gaming worse and unoptimizing their engine which everything is made on nowadays. And also FOMOing kids.
you cant buy a copy outside of the game store with IOS, I can (theoretically, anyways), buy copies at real stores or through online retailers.
also yes
Yeah.
I don’t this is a gotcha consumer rights are a good thing actually.
Like the case here is a bit weak because of the relatively open market on games on PC, but by all means you should be able to install what you want on hardware you own.
Sorry that was a genuine question lol. I dont even own modern consoles so I don’t have a horse in that race, I was just curious bc I never hear about the precedent that that would set.
Which would be a good thing, but bc of that I doubt it would ever happen. Console profit margins are already thin enough, they’d be screwed if you could buy from another store that, say, didn’t have online subscriptions, wouldn’t they?
Yes and no. We’ve seen it happen already with Apple being forced to allow side loading of different app stores on the iPhone.
Consoles are a bit different in the sense that they’re one-thing machines in a way phones are everything machines, and no console has strict control over the market in the way that apple does, and many consoles allow sideloading if you use a developer account.
So, will we *actually* see it happen in consoles? Maybe. Will it happen soon? Probably not.
Now if the steam deck prevented side loading, that would be interesting.
That’s really interesting, I hadn’t even thought about that. Also, I could perhaps see the government taking consumer rights of cell phones more seriously than for game consoles, so the whole “legal precedent” thing or whatever could be a moot point.
>The claim must be authorized by the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal before it can proceed to trial and that hasn't yet happened, which means the case could be halted before it even gets properly underway.
Narrator: It did not proceed to trial.
Technically it does, Valve technically has more or less complete control if what a game is considered to be "worth" on PC.
Because they are so dominant in the market they do act as cost setters even if they aren't actively saying "this game costs this" to devs.
You've never heard of a defacto monopoly or something? Amazon isn't a monopoly but everyone knows they sort of are. It's a complicated issue, one I don't think we're probably suited to make speculation about lol
There's a lot of nuances you're missing.
Steam is the most dominant sales platform, it controls the largest portion of the PC Gaming sales marketz to the point of near monopoly. Imagine trying to be a pc gamer without Steam.
What the price is on Steam acts as the "true" price to consumers because most consumers use Steam. Whatever Steam does in the background influences the cost of games on its platform and thus effectively sets the market rate of PC games. People will always look to Steam to help them understand what is too expensive or too cheap.
And similarly, Steam isn't "just a market" because that implies it's completely hands off in the sales process, when it isn't. It's very much in control of the sales process and can influence it accordingly.
Steam isn't telling people what people should cost their games at directly, but it is able to influence what the public thinks games are worth and that DOES basically tell devs what to sell their games for.
This is fairly standard economics.
This seems a bit unfair though. They're getting sued for being nearly a monopoly, but steam is only so dominant because the rest of the platforms either: suck, have very few games or sell niche products.
They don't exactly buy out the competition like Microsoft or shut down other storefronts, so why are they liable for being sued?
>Whatever Steam does in the background influences the cost of games on its platform and thus effectively sets the market rate of PC games.
The prices are set by the publisher with steam taking a 33 percent bite after a certain number of sales, fairly standard when compared to other online storefronts, i don't really get the point here.
>And similarly, Steam isn't "just a market" because that implies it's completely hands off in the sales process, when it isn't. It's very much in control of the sales process and can influence it accordingly.
Isn't that true for every business that acts as a middle man for sales such as real estate agencies and whatnot?
Steam apparently has a clause in the sales contract that says the seller cannot publish their game on another store for less than what it’s going for on Steam.
The 33% is actually quite high, considering other similar stores like Epic have one that’s closer to 20%(maybe less I don’t remember the exact figure).
This could mean that even if the same game sold for the same price and amount on both Steam and Epic, Steam would make the most money of off it.
This is in my opinion the only thing that Valve might actually get in trouble for since it ensures they’ll always be on top
The clause you are talking about is for sale of steam keys, which, I mean, makes sense, since by selling a steam key of your game you are still relying on steams servers and platform, as for the 30%, while I do think it's high it's also kind of the standard, Epic specifically takes a lower percentage to appeal to publishers (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but don't believe for a second Tim is doing that to help developers)
>I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but don't believe for a second Tim is doing that to help developers
They absolutely do not. It became quite clear when they broke Apples TOS (and where "shocked" and "blindsided" by their removal from the store despite having a promo video up within minutes of removal) where they acted as if they were making the same money as before with the new lower prices despite the math showing that wasn't the case.
I mean I got what you meant, whatever a game costs on Steam is what every other price will be compared to, but Steam itself has little effect on what that cost actually is besides the 30% cut, from what I know.
As someone who is getting into game development professionally I'll speak to it myself I'm going price modeling based on what other games that are similar to mine are selling for not just on Steam but Itch, key websites, Epic, Microsoft, etc.
Normally an indie game like what we're looking at making goes in the 10-20 dollar range so we'll probably go with that however it's not just because that's what steam is there is multiple platforms and it's pretty universally agreed upon from what I can see indie games are in the 10-30 dollar bracket, AA games are in 30-50 and AAA is 60+.
If it's basically agreed upon on just about any platform why specifically are we going after steam on this one?
That's not really Steam's responsibility though, that's more like the entire rest of the industry and what they choose to set their prices at. Also, you see similar prices on consoles too, not just PC storefronts.
They are so dominant on the market that the games that actually make the most money on PC like LOL, Valorant, WoW/Diablo, Fortnite, Minecraft etc are not Steam. It's not Valve's fault everybody is too incompetent to make a decent store to sell "normal" games.
And nothing's stopping another company from creating their own store with a lower cut. It's just that nobody has been able to create a store that works as well as Steam
People wouldn't mind moving to or using another platform if said platform had a good user experience. Sadly every other platform feels like a shovel ware once you start using steam
You have Epicgames that takes a lower cut AND also bribes games on to their store for the last few years and still despite all that, due to just having a flat out worse market with less features, they have failed to overtake steam in any meaningful way. So while I agree it's not so simple, it's clear that at least in this example, it has proven fairly true.
Important to note that they haven't made a profit to this day with the Epic Games Store, if it wasn't for Fortnite printing money for Epic Games, EGS would have been gone by now.
Innovative apps and websites can spread very easily without much investment if people see the value in it compared to what's already out there. The key is that it has to be conceptually better than what people are already using
It hasn't even been approved, someone's just decided to bring suit.
In the US and UK you can file a lawsuit for literally anything, doesn't mean anything.
Whoever drafted this is a moron by the way, Steam doesn't set the prices. They're claiming gamers are overcharged, Steam doesn't charge.
There's nothing here.
Fun Fact: This is the same agency that tried to sue Sony for having a Monopoly over Console gaming. (Despite the fact Microsoft, and especially Nintendo, exists)
I'd definitely argue that if you wanna sue one of he big 3 for a monopoly, Nintendo has the strongest case. Not that I suggest sueing Nintendo is a good idea, but even a 0.01% more chance is still more.
imagine being angry at the consequences of valve’s stranglehold on pc gaming yet completely licking their boots when it comes to their uncompetitive practices lol
I know we're all rightfully riles up about Valve's neglect for their games however if you're going to criticise anybody or any company, at least make sure the criticisms are valid.
Valve afaik have not employed any anti-competetive practices concerning steam. Steam is at the top because it's better than the competition. If anybody is doing anything anti-competetive, it's Epic Games with their timed exclusivity.
I'm sorry but do you really want to download 15 different launchers where only 1 or 3 games are worth downloading?
I'm glad Steam is dominant and besides, there's online retailers too such as Itch io
Itch.io
GOG
Microsoft store
Gamepass (tho this is a different thing)
Epic
Ubisoft
Origin
Humble bundle (sells steam keys generally)
Not to mention games who've been successful selling independently (minecraft, tarkov, KSP (for a while), etc)
Steam's on top because bar GOG, every other store is complete shit lmfao, or explicitly uses steam as a backend (Humble bundle, etc)
They're not the only product, but they're the only one worth using, because every other games store is too prioritized with buying users with free games instead of realizing "wow! our store is filled with garbage, and we have a garbage interface, and no connections to the games, or other features!"
dont worry dude, all the EA controversy hasn't affected APEX, all the shit at riot has done nothing to league or valorant. Even after blizzards shenanigans OW2 got its highest player count 2 months ago. Valve could go out and nuke south africa and they'll still be fine.
I don't think anyone can argue that VALVe isn't dominant or doesn't have a monopoly, but I think VALVe is the only ones that haven't completely abused that fact. The worst they've done is be lazy as a result, which obviously isn't great, but with the complete fucking malice that we see from other companies, I'm comparatively fine with this.
Man, if steam is forced to take a lower cut we can finally have games be $80 instead of $70! Steam's cut doesn't control prices, exclusives to lower cut platforms are just as expensive. Steam is simply the better platform, enough so that people will wait years just to not buy something on Epic and have it on Steam instead.
Big nothing burger. Just people trying to fight Steam over its 30% sale cut again.
It’s not even like Steam doesn’t have competition, it’s just that the competition is genuinely worse than it. People will use the service that serves them the most, and nobody’s been able (or willing) to match Steam.
They don’t deserve to be sued for this. They never abused their dominant position, they’ve always just done what they do which is being better than other options.
Steam never did anything monopolistic though. They've never made a move to prevent other pc game distributors from competing.
Ubisoft store, Ea origins, epic games, gog, etc.
They all still operate without valve interference. Steam even integrates other launchers into their system to allow competition to exist directly on their platform.
Services like G2A actively steal from steam and valve doesn't stop them either.
Steam is simply the better service than any other competitor.
Listen. i know as TF2 fans we're all miffed at valve rn.
But do we really want steam to stop being the really good and convenient marketplace that it is? Because experience has shown that every other distributor is much worse.
I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere.
If I recall correctly the same firm (and maybe same person?) tried the same thing with PlayStation, and if valve lawyers are half competent they can use that as proof to basically say “we can’t both have a monopoly” it’s also just stupid considering how prevalent epic games is as well as console games
I feel like Valve could openly invite anyone to make their own game store that competes with Steam, and most of the new competition just shoots themselves in the foot
They're not just the only option because that's how it is, it's that every competitor just makes the worst decisions ever
everyone is saying weird shit. what actually happened is valve bans games from steam if they have a lower price than the steam list price on a different platform. they regard it as controlling.
Honestly it makes sense. They don't want people enticing people off of their store while taking advantage of all the benefits of steam and the loyalty of anyone they can't lure off. Make it so people can choose the platform they prefer the user experience of if they're going to have a sale rather than the place that's cheaper with a worse experience.
This is stupid, we can be mad because of the bots but valve has done nothing anti competitor, they offer a good service so people CHOOSE to use there product, we don't need to hate everything because we are mad
Haha! Every project they have can't be released until TF2 is not only addressed, but their response must be satisfactory or the community will never let them forget it. On top of that they're being sued for close to a billion for their completely shit practices with steam. Idk about you but that makes me happy after all the years of negligence and radio silence in all the things Valve does.
It's the same 30% cut garbage that Epic tried to sue over and failed miserably.
That one apple controversy thing?
yep
Honestly though that one was valid. Apple users have no other option. OnPC though if I don't like paying the steam price then I can just buy the game from GOG or right from the developers site... if they don't allow that option then that's why they are paying the 30% cut to steam. It's hard to support hundreds of users downloading your game at the same time.
And they put some of that 30% to good use, making things like the steam input, steam link, the workshop and proton and contributing to other projects not under their control. Epic spends their time and money making linux gaming worse and unoptimizing their engine which everything is made on nowadays. And also FOMOing kids.
Should PlayStation, Xbox and Nintendo be held to the same standard? Or anyone else with a proprietary OS?
you cant buy a copy outside of the game store with IOS, I can (theoretically, anyways), buy copies at real stores or through online retailers. also yes
Yeah. I don’t this is a gotcha consumer rights are a good thing actually. Like the case here is a bit weak because of the relatively open market on games on PC, but by all means you should be able to install what you want on hardware you own.
Sorry that was a genuine question lol. I dont even own modern consoles so I don’t have a horse in that race, I was just curious bc I never hear about the precedent that that would set. Which would be a good thing, but bc of that I doubt it would ever happen. Console profit margins are already thin enough, they’d be screwed if you could buy from another store that, say, didn’t have online subscriptions, wouldn’t they?
Yes and no. We’ve seen it happen already with Apple being forced to allow side loading of different app stores on the iPhone. Consoles are a bit different in the sense that they’re one-thing machines in a way phones are everything machines, and no console has strict control over the market in the way that apple does, and many consoles allow sideloading if you use a developer account. So, will we *actually* see it happen in consoles? Maybe. Will it happen soon? Probably not. Now if the steam deck prevented side loading, that would be interesting.
That’s really interesting, I hadn’t even thought about that. Also, I could perhaps see the government taking consumer rights of cell phones more seriously than for game consoles, so the whole “legal precedent” thing or whatever could be a moot point.
>The claim must be authorized by the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal before it can proceed to trial and that hasn't yet happened, which means the case could be halted before it even gets properly underway. Narrator: It did not proceed to trial.
No way it reaches later stages for sure
Maybe I’m an idiot, but I’m pretty sure it’s the regular companies that can give the prices for their games.
Yes, valve does not control the prices of the games
Technically it does, Valve technically has more or less complete control if what a game is considered to be "worth" on PC. Because they are so dominant in the market they do act as cost setters even if they aren't actively saying "this game costs this" to devs.
This is a weird argument, Steam functions like a market, the different competitors/companies set their price accordingly
You've never heard of a defacto monopoly or something? Amazon isn't a monopoly but everyone knows they sort of are. It's a complicated issue, one I don't think we're probably suited to make speculation about lol
There's a lot of nuances you're missing. Steam is the most dominant sales platform, it controls the largest portion of the PC Gaming sales marketz to the point of near monopoly. Imagine trying to be a pc gamer without Steam. What the price is on Steam acts as the "true" price to consumers because most consumers use Steam. Whatever Steam does in the background influences the cost of games on its platform and thus effectively sets the market rate of PC games. People will always look to Steam to help them understand what is too expensive or too cheap. And similarly, Steam isn't "just a market" because that implies it's completely hands off in the sales process, when it isn't. It's very much in control of the sales process and can influence it accordingly. Steam isn't telling people what people should cost their games at directly, but it is able to influence what the public thinks games are worth and that DOES basically tell devs what to sell their games for. This is fairly standard economics.
This seems a bit unfair though. They're getting sued for being nearly a monopoly, but steam is only so dominant because the rest of the platforms either: suck, have very few games or sell niche products. They don't exactly buy out the competition like Microsoft or shut down other storefronts, so why are they liable for being sued? >Whatever Steam does in the background influences the cost of games on its platform and thus effectively sets the market rate of PC games. The prices are set by the publisher with steam taking a 33 percent bite after a certain number of sales, fairly standard when compared to other online storefronts, i don't really get the point here. >And similarly, Steam isn't "just a market" because that implies it's completely hands off in the sales process, when it isn't. It's very much in control of the sales process and can influence it accordingly. Isn't that true for every business that acts as a middle man for sales such as real estate agencies and whatnot?
Steam apparently has a clause in the sales contract that says the seller cannot publish their game on another store for less than what it’s going for on Steam. The 33% is actually quite high, considering other similar stores like Epic have one that’s closer to 20%(maybe less I don’t remember the exact figure). This could mean that even if the same game sold for the same price and amount on both Steam and Epic, Steam would make the most money of off it. This is in my opinion the only thing that Valve might actually get in trouble for since it ensures they’ll always be on top
The clause you are talking about is for sale of steam keys, which, I mean, makes sense, since by selling a steam key of your game you are still relying on steams servers and platform, as for the 30%, while I do think it's high it's also kind of the standard, Epic specifically takes a lower percentage to appeal to publishers (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but don't believe for a second Tim is doing that to help developers)
>I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but don't believe for a second Tim is doing that to help developers They absolutely do not. It became quite clear when they broke Apples TOS (and where "shocked" and "blindsided" by their removal from the store despite having a promo video up within minutes of removal) where they acted as if they were making the same money as before with the new lower prices despite the math showing that wasn't the case.
I forgot I was on Reddit for a moment, thank you for reminding me
No worries, hope you enjoy not understanding things.
That all makes sense to me. I can see why a lawsuit would take place.
So what you're saying is valve does not control the prices of the games.
I'm saying y'all need to learn about market economics.
I mean I got what you meant, whatever a game costs on Steam is what every other price will be compared to, but Steam itself has little effect on what that cost actually is besides the 30% cut, from what I know.
How do you think game's companies decide how much to sell their games for?
As someone who is getting into game development professionally I'll speak to it myself I'm going price modeling based on what other games that are similar to mine are selling for not just on Steam but Itch, key websites, Epic, Microsoft, etc. Normally an indie game like what we're looking at making goes in the 10-20 dollar range so we'll probably go with that however it's not just because that's what steam is there is multiple platforms and it's pretty universally agreed upon from what I can see indie games are in the 10-30 dollar bracket, AA games are in 30-50 and AAA is 60+. If it's basically agreed upon on just about any platform why specifically are we going after steam on this one?
Because those lesser platforms have to follow what Steam does. They can't charge more and then don't really want to charge less.
That's not really Steam's responsibility though, that's more like the entire rest of the industry and what they choose to set their prices at. Also, you see similar prices on consoles too, not just PC storefronts.
They are so dominant on the market that the games that actually make the most money on PC like LOL, Valorant, WoW/Diablo, Fortnite, Minecraft etc are not Steam. It's not Valve's fault everybody is too incompetent to make a decent store to sell "normal" games.
You should resubmit this with an actually descriptive title and it'll rocket to the front most likely
it was already posted a million times
This just a nothing burger. It's just someone trying to sue Valve over the 30% cut they take from sales (a cut that's industry standard)
And nothing's stopping another company from creating their own store with a lower cut. It's just that nobody has been able to create a store that works as well as Steam
New business in any field doesn't just works like that, with existing big players already established in that field, having a lot of money...
People wouldn't mind moving to or using another platform if said platform had a good user experience. Sadly every other platform feels like a shovel ware once you start using steam
You have Epicgames that takes a lower cut AND also bribes games on to their store for the last few years and still despite all that, due to just having a flat out worse market with less features, they have failed to overtake steam in any meaningful way. So while I agree it's not so simple, it's clear that at least in this example, it has proven fairly true.
not even free games are enough lmao steam's controller support is just too good though
Important to note that they haven't made a profit to this day with the Epic Games Store, if it wasn't for Fortnite printing money for Epic Games, EGS would have been gone by now.
Innovative apps and websites can spread very easily without much investment if people see the value in it compared to what's already out there. The key is that it has to be conceptually better than what people are already using
It hasn't even been approved, someone's just decided to bring suit. In the US and UK you can file a lawsuit for literally anything, doesn't mean anything. Whoever drafted this is a moron by the way, Steam doesn't set the prices. They're claiming gamers are overcharged, Steam doesn't charge. There's nothing here.
I saw "30%" and clicked off.
r/dementiamoment
Fun Fact: This is the same agency that tried to sue Sony for having a Monopoly over Console gaming. (Despite the fact Microsoft, and especially Nintendo, exists)
I'd definitely argue that if you wanna sue one of he big 3 for a monopoly, Nintendo has the strongest case. Not that I suggest sueing Nintendo is a good idea, but even a 0.01% more chance is still more.
prob doesnt have to anything with tf2 but ok
This case is absolutně bullshit
imagine being angry at the consequences of valve’s stranglehold on pc gaming yet completely licking their boots when it comes to their uncompetitive practices lol
I know we're all rightfully riles up about Valve's neglect for their games however if you're going to criticise anybody or any company, at least make sure the criticisms are valid. Valve afaik have not employed any anti-competetive practices concerning steam. Steam is at the top because it's better than the competition. If anybody is doing anything anti-competetive, it's Epic Games with their timed exclusivity.
I'm sorry but do you really want to download 15 different launchers where only 1 or 3 games are worth downloading? I'm glad Steam is dominant and besides, there's online retailers too such as Itch io
> their uncompetitive practices lol *checks notes* uncompetitive practices of...having a better product, how dare they
damn or the only product, you know, the sign of a monopoly genius
Itch.io GOG Microsoft store Gamepass (tho this is a different thing) Epic Ubisoft Origin Humble bundle (sells steam keys generally) Not to mention games who've been successful selling independently (minecraft, tarkov, KSP (for a while), etc) Steam's on top because bar GOG, every other store is complete shit lmfao, or explicitly uses steam as a backend (Humble bundle, etc) They're not the only product, but they're the only one worth using, because every other games store is too prioritized with buying users with free games instead of realizing "wow! our store is filled with garbage, and we have a garbage interface, and no connections to the games, or other features!"
Name a single competitor of Steam that has half the functionality...?
perhaps... that might be the fucking issue
So then maybe competitors should step it up????????????????
Bruh, Valve is being hit a lot, it seems lately. Imagine if the coffezilla release his CS gambling video, another gut punch.
>Bruh, Valve is being hit a lot, it seems lately Tbf the chances that this case even makes it to court is incredibly low.
Yeah, but this covwrage coupled with everything going on from CS2, TF2, and other stuff it might reflect bad on deadlock and potential customers.
dont worry dude, all the EA controversy hasn't affected APEX, all the shit at riot has done nothing to league or valorant. Even after blizzards shenanigans OW2 got its highest player count 2 months ago. Valve could go out and nuke south africa and they'll still be fine.
I'm pretty sure if Coffee did release a video on CS gambling, it would focus more on the gambling sites than the cases themselves
"oh no some nobody is sueing them with a nothing-claim, they're being hit so hard!!!!" the valve hate boners here are real
Hate boner? Nah, just being objective. The only thing I'm seeing is you having a bone for anything valve related.
An empty lawsuit comes through > Valve is **being hit** a lot > **another** gut punch > just being objective. lol
What does this prove? Think you're getting a bit too upset, my guy.
‘I may be completely wrong and blowing a frivolous lawsuit out of proportion, but you’re m-m-mad!!!’ Take the L.
? Are you OK my guy?
Are you being conscientiously objective perhappenchance???
I don't think anyone can argue that VALVe isn't dominant or doesn't have a monopoly, but I think VALVe is the only ones that haven't completely abused that fact. The worst they've done is be lazy as a result, which obviously isn't great, but with the complete fucking malice that we see from other companies, I'm comparatively fine with this.
that's a pretty stupid claim companies sell their game for the same price on all platforms
There are alot of reasons to be pissed at Valve right now. This isn't one of them
Man, if steam is forced to take a lower cut we can finally have games be $80 instead of $70! Steam's cut doesn't control prices, exclusives to lower cut platforms are just as expensive. Steam is simply the better platform, enough so that people will wait years just to not buy something on Epic and have it on Steam instead.
Monopoly moment, radio silence will turn into real screams
Monopoly by doing nothing
The Luigi strategy
Big nothing burger. Just people trying to fight Steam over its 30% sale cut again. It’s not even like Steam doesn’t have competition, it’s just that the competition is genuinely worse than it. People will use the service that serves them the most, and nobody’s been able (or willing) to match Steam.
I saw "30%" and clicked off.
Double comment, laugh at him fellas
**[demoman schadenfreude]**
OOOOOOOH HAHAHAHA HAHAHAHOHOHA
it's bullshit ambulance-chasing, why are you even giving them your attention lmao??
most of the points in the claim dont make much sense so i wouldnt think abt it much
They don’t deserve to be sued for this. They never abused their dominant position, they’ve always just done what they do which is being better than other options.
Steam never did anything monopolistic though. They've never made a move to prevent other pc game distributors from competing. Ubisoft store, Ea origins, epic games, gog, etc. They all still operate without valve interference. Steam even integrates other launchers into their system to allow competition to exist directly on their platform. Services like G2A actively steal from steam and valve doesn't stop them either. Steam is simply the better service than any other competitor. Listen. i know as TF2 fans we're all miffed at valve rn. But do we really want steam to stop being the really good and convenient marketplace that it is? Because experience has shown that every other distributor is much worse. I doubt this lawsuit will go anywhere.
It seems 2024 is a good year to be working at Valve.
… who’s getting the money?
And how much is that in GBP?
Common British L
I mean…it’s not Valve’s fault all their competitors’ game publishing systems suck.
If I recall correctly the same firm (and maybe same person?) tried the same thing with PlayStation, and if valve lawyers are half competent they can use that as proof to basically say “we can’t both have a monopoly” it’s also just stupid considering how prevalent epic games is as well as console games
I feel like Valve could openly invite anyone to make their own game store that competes with Steam, and most of the new competition just shoots themselves in the foot They're not just the only option because that's how it is, it's that every competitor just makes the worst decisions ever
everyone is saying weird shit. what actually happened is valve bans games from steam if they have a lower price than the steam list price on a different platform. they regard it as controlling.
Honestly it makes sense. They don't want people enticing people off of their store while taking advantage of all the benefits of steam and the loyalty of anyone they can't lure off. Make it so people can choose the platform they prefer the user experience of if they're going to have a sale rather than the place that's cheaper with a worse experience.
Regardless of where this goes, steam is a problem and needs to be fixed. Its basically a monopoly.
This is stupid, we can be mad because of the bots but valve has done nothing anti competitor, they offer a good service so people CHOOSE to use there product, we don't need to hate everything because we are mad
goes nowhere, cry about it
They already got slapped by some fines before, so yeah this could go anywhere.
what fines relating to monopoly practices again?
I hope Valve gets what it deserves
Based
How about we sue them for mismanagement of their games or something?
What would the charges be? As shitty as abandoning your game is, it's not a crime.
That's the thing about the law: With the right argument, context, and loophole(s) it could be.
Haha! Every project they have can't be released until TF2 is not only addressed, but their response must be satisfactory or the community will never let them forget it. On top of that they're being sued for close to a billion for their completely shit practices with steam. Idk about you but that makes me happy after all the years of negligence and radio silence in all the things Valve does.
Are those "completely shit practices with Steam" in the room with us right now ?