Gaming

20010 readers

827 users here now

Sub for any gaming related content!

Rules:

1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy "anti-woke" energy, you probably shouldn't be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

149

Google Loses Antitrust Case Brought by Epic Games (archive.ph)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Original (pay-walled): https://www.wsj.com/tech/google-loses-antitrust-case-brought-by-epic-games-651f5987

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Valve's steam provides values to consumer but aren't entirely "consumer friendly". Some of their "give ins" are entirely because of competition.

Examples:

self refund and refund window, directly copy EA's origin.
allow big publisher to negotiate store cut, direct response to Epic's store cut.
linux push is entirely for steam's own survival, not a pro-consumer move.
their policy changes on steam reviews over the years.
the Steam UI revamp multiple times and makes discovery pretty messy when they tried to gamify the discovery process. All for easier marketing campaign pushes. (I found it pretty annoying, but I also don't like the Netflix style on EGS or other store front.)
Valve's market place and their key/lootbox and cross game drops are among the pioneers just shy of the scummy gacha from the mobile space.
Valve's policy dictates that you can not sell at lower price on different store front. Ie. a game dev selling on EGS can take off 18% and get the same amount of revenue from the store front, but they can't price lower because of Valve's policy. That's not consumer friendly.

The fact that Valve can just charge 30% even if a developer didn't use "any" steam feature is simply because they can. And we are all eating the cost cause developers have to factor that in as well.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think "pro consumer" is mutually exclusive with "because of competition". In fact, I would say the two necessarily overlap. If a company does something pro consumer that isn't driven by competition, then it's just charity, not "capitalistic" at all. The point I'm making is that, Epic often seems to be on the other side: taking actions that are driven by competition, but not good for consumers. As I stated above, the linux push by valve is the same fight that Epic is battling in courts vs Apple and Google; the difference is that consumers benefit from the linux push, whereas mostly just Epic benefits from their court battles (and maybe some other companies).

I don't think steam refund was driven by EA offering refunds on EA-exclusives. It was in direct response to Early Access titles being posted that were just obvious scams, with no recourse once you've purchased the game (maybe you read EA as a motivator somewhere and assumed Electronic Arts rather than Early Access?)
I agree valve could afford to take a smaller cut. I do believe Epic is directly to thank for all the Sony exclusive ports to PC.
linux support is 100% motivated by valve's business interests, but also, it's good for consumers
I'd need to know specifics about reviews over the years. I don't read reviews, but I know they have to make a deliberate effort to prevent review bombing. "Curators" are a waste of everyone's time.
TBH I feel like the Steam UI changes at a glacier's pace compared to almost any other UI. It's really not that different from what it was 20 years ago.
Yeah, the key/lootbox stuff is a valid criticism. I don't like any digital economy that's clearly fishing for whales.
AFAIK, steam's price parity policy only requires that free steam keys not be sold off the platform for less than what they're sold for on the steam store. Which makes sense, as that would open the door to just freeloading your game on the platform. I could post my game on steam for $1,000,000, never sell any copies through steam, then generate free steam keys, and sell them over on my own site for $30, keeping 100% of the profits. If allowed, every dev would just do that, and no one would ever purchase through steam. But it sounds like their policy would allow for a game to be $50 on steam, and $40 on EGS.

Meanwhile, EGS is constantly signing exclusivity deals on their platform, preventing them from selling on any other platform at all, which is very clearly anti-consumer.

The fact that Valve can just charge 30% even if a developer didn’t use “any” steam feature

The fact that the Valve is facilitating streamlined distribution of the game (and any updates) to thousands, or millions of players at the same time alone means they are already taking advantage of steam's features. That is a huge amount of bandwidth savings and complexity that the developer just doesn't have to think about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There is actually a case going on regarding the platform pricing parity.

http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action

And there are other articles that checks for if you can sell at lower price(without temp sales) on EGS, only 5 out of 41 did so. I take it with some handful of salt cause ars didn't actually list out the games and who is the publisher behind those 5. That's why I post the first link from a developer's stand point. We will only know details once the case developed more.

Regarding reviews, it's like manage or moderate a forum, but it has huge impact if your changes aren't communicated, I just list this one but if you are more interested you can dig up older/newer changes. Simply put, if it wasn't through backlash and developers pulling teeth to push some odd changes like this back to a more neutral place. (ie. Early Access Reviews, Product received for free, product refunded tags are all much later than this article.) Steam's reviews would be something like youtube shorts that I simply skip. Is it better in the end? I don't know, cause you can still influence how popular a review is by the upvote/found useful from marketing campaign. Extra costs from developer to marketing(and still subject them to exploits), harder to navigate for consumer(like Amazon reviews), it's really messy and not really consumer/producer friendly.

I put my points in simply because there is a overwhelming "worshiping" of Valve/Steam that make the 30% cut seems justifiable, and distribution for digital good seriously can't be more expensive than physicals right? you can go check how much average Amazon charges seller even given it's dominant position as digital market place. Or simply put it this way, youtube/netflix/social bandwidth consumption is bigger than game distributions for average user. It might be a case for triple-As that come at ~45G per game but vast majority of games are about 1~2 hours worth of streaming(<20GB), I'd like Valve simply provide a usage based charge like cloud providers and developers can pick and choose what features they wanted to pay accordingly. 30% cut is not normal just as lootbox is not normal, they did it simply because they can. (as in traditional brick-and-mortar shop like BestBuy charging extras for cables etc, even with Amazon as competitor.)

Sorry if I miss some parts to provide follow ups, simply too tired to focus on stuff. Mark my words, once Gabe passed gamers are gonna have the reckoning coming for them. All my purchases are based on how much money the developers can get at the end. I buy games on store/launcher even if I don't like them, but if more bucks goes to developer, that's where I choose to buy. That's the important part, we buy stuff to support the developer we like/love, not to support the "platform" selling them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I was aware of the case, but I'm confused because it does sound like Valve's policy only explicitly restricts the sale of free keys for less. Obviously, I'm all for Valve being held accountable if they're actually requiring the game be the same price on a completely different platform.

I don't think there's any difference between "justifiable" and "simply because they can". If they can, then they can. Yeah, I do support developers, but I'd be lying if I said steam doesn't add any value to my experience. If it wasn't 30% worth of value, devs wouldn't choose it. And I'm all for EGS undercutting them to attract developers, I think that's the right way to combat it.

If there is any regulation that needs to happen to combat monopolies, then I think it's the same regulation that needs to happen on all content distribution and streaming platforms, which is: there should be a standard API for accessing content in a cross-platform way so that open source front-ends can be trivially developed. If steam (or netflix, or spotify, or google, or whatever) has established too much power, it's because they've locked their users into their user experience, and it's inherently inconvenient to have to switch between different platforms and UIs. But if regulation forced a common API, and open source front-ends were developed, people wouldn't be locked into a specific user experience. You could switch between EGS or Steam or GOG or whoever, and the only thing that would change are the games that show up in your front-end of choice. IMO that's the real way to solve it.