For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
Yes, but before Valve you had a lot more choice, because you could buy things in actual shops. I didn't have to wait until the handful of predetermined "sale weeks" a year to actually get games at budget prices.
And it's not just Valve, but if they ever go public or bust, you'll all wonder how you were ever fooled for so long.
This is your weekly reminder at this point that Valve is a corporation and that corporations are not your friends nor your allies.
Once Gaben dies, hell breaks loose.
He is a billionaire and just like all billionaire he can rot. He's not your friend.
lol ok Mao calm down now, just a fya, don't cast such a broad stroke when counting your adversaries in life, even the best waste a lot of time living like that.
Oh yeah, sure.
But if I were to have a death note I'd only be able to use on the very wealthy, I don't think he'd be any of the first names I thought about.
I'm a bit surprised that someone hadn't already posted this
The lawyer should just be able to give this meme to the judge and have the case closed.
GOG sails past the bottom of the screen on a skateboard sipping a juicebox with a straw
Gog doesn't have regional pricing where as steam and even epic does. If a Game on steam will cost me 700rs the GOG will charge me 1400rs and since I am poor I just pirate the game. I ain't paying 700rs for that.
Cheers mate, still not a monopoly
They used to have it but it cost them too much IIRC.
There was a funnier one with GOG enjoying itself in the corner and the complaining party being Epic lol
would be more fitting if epic was creepy guy trying to lure people in a van with candy
Close, but also include the accusation coming from the ones on the left!
Accurate
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.
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).
"Buy" games on Steam? Sure wish they let you own them.
Buying on steam has allowed me to play the same game for a decade on three platforms.
Some are DRM free and can be backed up at your leisure. I'm pretty sure that's up to the developer to implement or not.
It would be neat if steam let you sell a game back, but I'm not sure how to square that with "you have a drm free copy that's trivial to copy"
Obligatory GOG shill?
God forbid people want to own their shit.
Yes it's me, the one, the only who decided nobody will ever own anything.
He’s not wrong. But the price fixing has to go. I shouldn’t have to pay physical prices for a digital product.
Publishers set the price on Steam. Steam doesn't control pricing.
https://www.eurogamer.net/valve-antitrust-lawsuits-ubisoft-warner-bros-report This is the behavior I am referring to.
Billionaires shouldn't exist.
Around the 2010's, both MS and Google were seen as "noble monopolies". Even if Steam is the better video game distributors, always stand on more than one leg when it comes to buying games.
Start with SpaceX
Valve has a monopoly at being the only online gaming storefront that doesn't suck.
I get it but its not like they are buying up competition or doing bad practices to win unless doing what your customers want is being unfare. In this case I blame the competition.
An earned monopoly is still a monopoly. Anyone who feels that the power that Steam wields in the gaming market is not an issue, I urge you to think or learn about why monopolies are harmful -- not in relation to steam. Think about a manufacturer of gizmos completely cornering the gizmo market and what that would mean for the people wanting to buy gizmos, as time passes. Don't think in terms of the laws or definitions of some specific country, just think about the effect it would have on society. Worst case scenario you lose some time and gain some insight on monopolies
Think about a manufacturer of gizmos completely cornering the gizmo market
If your monopoly in the Gizmo market is because you've actively fought other companies, lobbied governments, filed frivilous patent suits, etc... in order to KEEP people from competing with you, than you're a piece of shit.
If your monopoly in the Gizmo market is because despite there being no hinderance to them doing so, no competitor has been able to match your quality, than kudos.
In your example, you're effectively saying that governments should force people to use shittier services just to avoid a monopoly, even if that monopoly is earned.
If people want to buy Gizmos, and that first company is losing their trust, another company will come in and compete successfully because that first company isn't preventing them from doing so. If that second company does it better, great.
An earned monopoly and a forced monopoly are not nearly the same thing, precisely because an earned monopoly is on the whim of the consumers. If your product turns to shit, a replacement will make itself known. Whereas a forced monopoly is on the whim of the government and lobbyists.
Of course it's bad. For decades Valve has shown others why gamers value their game store yet most game stores still do stupid shit that drives gamers away.
The only one making an honest attempt is GOG. And their only issue is low purchasing volume which means they are slow to develop and improve their platform.
This gizmo maker is making the best gizmo that everyone loves, best delivery and best support for people that buys the gizmo. Why would you fault that company for delivering what majority of people wanted. They didn’t corner the gizmo market by buying out smaller gizmo makers, they didn’t block smaller gizmo maker by undercutting them, they didn’t even advertise to cut into other’s profit share. They win the capitalist market by making the best gizmo plus the best experience of buying and owning the gizmo.