It’s so clear that so many people here DIDN’T read the article, which is further compounded by the author not understanding the meaning of monopoly vs anti-competitive practices. Just so we are all on the same page:
This isn’t about steam being a better service, (even though it IS a better service,) or being a monopoly, (it isn’t.) The lawsuit is about anti-competitive practices.
The lawsuit pertains to steam allegedly disallowing devs to price games lower on other platforms. If this is true, it’s a move that prevents competition. Maybe other digital storefronts are shittier, but they might make up for it by taking a smaller cut from game devs, which allows them to sell at a lower price on GOG, or EPIC. If Steam is forcing devs to charge the same price on all platforms, or preventing them from offering discounts on those other platforms when they aren’t offered on Steam, then it doesn’t matter where I buy the game. This is a form of price fixing, except it isn’t an agreement being done between digital storefronts behind closed doors, the price fixing is allegedly happening by steam leveraging the developers
Imagine you are going to buy Tide laundry detergent. You can go to Walmart, Target, or your local grocery store. They all carry the same exact same 125 fl oz bottle. Walmart has it for the lowest price, Target is the next highest, and the local grocer has the highest price for the item. Does my local grocery store get to force Walmart to raise their prices to match their own?
My local grocery store might charge a little bit more, but I prefer to shop there because it’s closer to me, and the stores are better organized making it easier for me to find what I want. Personally I LOATHE shopping at Walmart. I happen to be willing to pay more for a better experience when buying the same product. Other people might not give a shit about the shopping experience and just want the lowest price, so they go to Walmart.
I refuse to touch EPIC game store. I think it’s a subpar product. But if my buddy is telling me about a game he got for free through their storefront and raves about what a good game it is, I’m gonna buy it off of steam, instead of getting it for free, because steam is a digital storefront I trust, and provides a good customer experience.
I realize laundry detergent isn’t the same as video game software, but I think my example demonstrates how competition can work and how fucked up it would be if the allegations against steam are true.
To be clear, the only time Valve requires prices match what’s on Steam is if you’re selling Steam keys. Games are sometimes cheaper on GOG and EA and Ubisoft regularly price their games a dollar or two cheaper on their own stores.
This developer says that Valve threatened to remove their game because they were selling the game for cheaper on a non steam platform with non steam games. (This is the same company mentioned in the article)
It seems that most everyone would be fine with what you said as the steam agreement, but it seems like they are in fact acting monopolistically by requiring even non-steam DRM to have price parity. This is the only thing that needs to change, imo. I think this lawsuit is about showing that the “unwritten rule” actually does exist, and they are in fact being anti-competitive.
I remember I got Baldur’s Gate 3 (early access) cheaper on GoG than on steam ($40 on GoG and I think it was $50 on Steam, or maybe even full-price (60), but can’t be sure).
It’s so clear that so many people here DIDN’T read the article, which is further compounded by the author not understanding the meaning of monopoly vs anti-competitive practices. Just so we are all on the same page:
A monopoly is a market structure where a single company or entity is the sole supplier of a specific product or service, with no viable substitutes. Because it lacks competition, a monopolist can dictate prices, prevent new competitors from entering the market, and influence quality.
Anti-competitive behavior refers to actions taken by a business or organization to limit, restrict or eliminate competition in a market, usually in order to gain an unfair advantage or dominate the market. These practices are often considered illegal or unethical and can harm consumers, other businesses and the broader economy. Anti-competitive behavior is used by business and governments to lessen competition within the markets so that monopolies and dominant firms can generate supernormal profit margins and deter competitors from the market. Therefore, it is heavily regulated and punishable by law in cases where it substantially affects the market.
This isn’t about steam being a better service, (even though it IS a better service,) or being a monopoly, (it isn’t.) The lawsuit is about anti-competitive practices.
The lawsuit pertains to steam allegedly disallowing devs to price games lower on other platforms. If this is true, it’s a move that prevents competition. Maybe other digital storefronts are shittier, but they might make up for it by taking a smaller cut from game devs, which allows them to sell at a lower price on GOG, or EPIC. If Steam is forcing devs to charge the same price on all platforms, or preventing them from offering discounts on those other platforms when they aren’t offered on Steam, then it doesn’t matter where I buy the game. This is a form of price fixing, except it isn’t an agreement being done between digital storefronts behind closed doors, the price fixing is allegedly happening by steam leveraging the developers
Imagine you are going to buy Tide laundry detergent. You can go to Walmart, Target, or your local grocery store. They all carry the same exact same 125 fl oz bottle. Walmart has it for the lowest price, Target is the next highest, and the local grocer has the highest price for the item. Does my local grocery store get to force Walmart to raise their prices to match their own?
My local grocery store might charge a little bit more, but I prefer to shop there because it’s closer to me, and the stores are better organized making it easier for me to find what I want. Personally I LOATHE shopping at Walmart. I happen to be willing to pay more for a better experience when buying the same product. Other people might not give a shit about the shopping experience and just want the lowest price, so they go to Walmart.
I refuse to touch EPIC game store. I think it’s a subpar product. But if my buddy is telling me about a game he got for free through their storefront and raves about what a good game it is, I’m gonna buy it off of steam, instead of getting it for free, because steam is a digital storefront I trust, and provides a good customer experience.
I realize laundry detergent isn’t the same as video game software, but I think my example demonstrates how competition can work and how fucked up it would be if the allegations against steam are true.
To be clear, the only time Valve requires prices match what’s on Steam is if you’re selling Steam keys. Games are sometimes cheaper on GOG and EA and Ubisoft regularly price their games a dollar or two cheaper on their own stores.
https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/
This developer says that Valve threatened to remove their game because they were selling the game for cheaper on a non steam platform with non steam games. (This is the same company mentioned in the article)
It seems that most everyone would be fine with what you said as the steam agreement, but it seems like they are in fact acting monopolistically by requiring even non-steam DRM to have price parity. This is the only thing that needs to change, imo. I think this lawsuit is about showing that the “unwritten rule” actually does exist, and they are in fact being anti-competitive.
This makes perfect sense.
I remember I got Baldur’s Gate 3 (early access) cheaper on GoG than on steam ($40 on GoG and I think it was $50 on Steam, or maybe even full-price (60), but can’t be sure).