Comment on Steam is basically a PC gaming monopoly, so why isn’t anyone mad?
savvywolf@pawb.social 3 weeks ago
Valve literally released hardware and said “hey, competitors, feel free to add your own stores and even OS”. None of their competitors even bothered to try.
Valve doesn’t need to resort to underhanded tactics to secure their monopoly like other monopolies. They just know that they provide a good service.
Rose@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Funny because they absolutely use those tactics even to this day. Among other things, they go around and tell developers not to set lower prices or discounts elsewhere if they want to be on Steam (see page 160 here).
bountygiver@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
Not if they want to sell on steam, if they want steam to issue steam keys for purchases made outside of steam. Yes they literally let you use all the steam infrastructure for sales that they don’t get to take a cut out of, with the requirement being you cannot undercut them for those sales.
If you want to sell for cheaper outside of steam you can, you just no longer can ask steam to issue extra keys beyond those sold on steam store.
Rose@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
Did you look at the page I pointed to? It’s done irrespective of Steam key use. Look at the “Type of Product” column.
bountygiver@lemmy.ml 3 weeks ago
It seems a lot of those content type are regarding promotion on the steam store, so it means their games won’t get featured on the front page (essentially steam advertising their game) if they are undercutting the sale of the content. On some it seems to be about in game purchases/DLCs, which also could be a problem if someone could buy those outside the system for far lower price and still use the version launched from steam (particularly if it’s a free to play title)
Womble@piefed.world 3 weeks ago
Most of those conversations seem to be steam asking the vendor to allow them to lower the price it’s being offered on steam to match the lower price it’s being offered elsewhere (or remove the sale from steam). I dont see any threats to kick games off steam (though that could be implied) or demands to remove lower priced sales from elsewhere.
It doesnt look particularly abusive to my eye at least.
Rose@lemmy.zip 3 weeks ago
How explicit does Valve need to be for you to agree that they make the point clear? In one quote further in this thread, they say “we’d just choose to stop selling [the game]”, in another, on p. 161, they say “we’ll be ready to release [once you match the price]”, prompting the dev to raise the price from $7 to $14 elsewhere. It’s highly anticompetitive because it prevents other platforms from competing on price. Great discounts are instrumental as well, as noted by OP’s very article.
Jason@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
I don’t understand. If the price is $7 elsewhere, why try to release on Steam for twice that price?
Why did the dev have to increase the price elsewhere to “match the price”, instead of matching the price to $7 on Steam?
Why would any store stock your product for the twice the price that it can be bought elsewhere? There is no obligation for them to stock a certain product (at any price).
I can’t dictate what other stores price it at, but I can certainly refuse to sell it in mine if it is not profitable for me. How is that anticompetitve?
imetators@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
They constantly telling devs that they wont teach their customers that Steam is more expensive option compared to any other sources of the game. If game goes on sale and elsewhere it has higher discount, they ask devs to allow them to match discount or remove it entirely. Nothing about removing games I found (skimmed, but maybe I am blind).
In other words: They dont force devs to sell games on other stores at the same price they sell on steam. They ask devs to match price of the games they sell on steam with other retailers. E.g. if game is sold at $30 on EGS and $35 on steam, they ask to reduce price on steam to match EGS price. Not the other way.
How much more “pro consumer” can they get?