ltxrtquq

Alright, if you’re not convinced that there ought to naturally be differentiated pricing, and that the uniform pricing we see is artificial, I don’t know where else to go.

I think my point was more that publishers aren't going to do that. Back when digital wasn't the default, it was acknowledged that selling a download was a fair bit cheaper and easier than manufacturing disks or carts that could easily be resold by the customer after they were done with it, but the pricing didn't change to reflect that. This kind of thing has been going on for a long time, and not just with steam.

Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion but I’m going to call it here.

Fair enough, good night.

I don’t know what you envision when you say “stick around”.

I would expect people to start buying games from the epic games store. They'd be using it regularly and have a sense of ownership over the games they have in their libraries.

What evidence would be needed to convince you?

Honestly, I'm mostly just being pedantic. I'm perfectly willing to believe this kind of clause exists, but I want to acknowledge that at least for now there's no actual evidence of it.

What other explanation for the observed behavior can be put forth?

For games being the same price on different store fronts? Whatever the justification for selling digital games at the same price as physical games was back when digital purchases were becoming mainstream, or for the same reason that Nintendo games will rarely go on sale: because there are still people willing to pay.

“Selectively enforced” is the wording used by Valve’s own employee.

Is it? Because I pulled the term from the complaint filed Apr 27, 2021 under the Price Veto Provision section. Where did you see a valve employee saying it?

Not to be nitpicky (because this might be solid counter-evidence), but do we know that in a universe without the Steam MFN policy Ubisoft wouldn’t have listed the games concurrently on Steam for 18% higher?

We can go back and look at the historical prices for The Division 2 and see that Ubisoft didn't have a lower baseline price on their own store compared to the epic store. So either Epic has an MFN policy as well, or Ubisoft would most likely want to keep their prices consistent across platforms and stores.

Strikes me as a little beside the point. A randomly rolled free game once a week isn’t going to change anyone’s purchasing habits or change the landscape of the marketplace. If I want to buy game XYZ, the free weekly does me no good—at most, it gets me to install Epic (which is what they want). But it isn’t going to change the fact that Steam gives more bang for the buck, all else equal.

That's the thing: you're being given a random game every week and that's still not enough to get people to stick around. The games they're giving away are often pretty good too, and yet it's not enough to convince people that the Epic Games Store is worth using. And looking at the store now, it seems they're just giving back 5% of the money you spend, meaning if you opt into their ecosystem, all their games actually are cheaper. At some point you need to admit that people won't abandon steam just because prices are lower somewhere else. Because the alternative would mean that piracy would be everyone's preferred method of getting games.

The fact remains, that Steam is preventing games from being listed for less on Epic. So if price isn’t the most important factor, why does Steam feel the need to impose such a policy?

We also don't really know that they do. The source saying that the MFN policy exists at all is the CEO of Epic Games saying so on twitter. And I'm pretty sure the lawsuit says that it's "selectively enforced", so there aren't any actual examples of Valve vetoing a game's price based on the price in another store.

Sure, let's look at that lawsuit.

Steam Key Price Parity Provision. Valve nominally allows game publishers to make some limited third-party sales of Steam-enabled games through its “Steam Keys” program. Steam Keys are alphanumeric codes that can be submitted to the Steam Gaming Platform by gamers to access a digital copy of the purchased game within the Steam Gaming Platform, even when the game is not purchased through the Steam Store. Steam Keys can be sold by rival distributors including the Humble Store, Amazon, GameStop, and Green Man Gaming.

But Valve has rigged the Steam Keys program so that it serves as a tool to maintain Valve’s dominance. Among other things, Valve imposes a price parity rule (the “Steam Key PriceParity Provision”) on anyone wanting to sell Steam Keys through an alternative distributor. Put explicitly by Valve, “We want to avoid a situation where customers get a worse offer on the Steam store.” But that is equivalent to preventing gamers from obtaining a better offer from a competing distributor. The effect of this rule is to stifle price competition.

Because of this rule, Valve can stop competing game stores from offering consumers a lower price on Steam-enabled games in order to shift volume from the Steam Store to their storefronts. Even if a rival game store were to charge game publishers a lower commission than Valve’s high 30% fee, the distributor would not gain more sales because the game publishers could not charge a lower price in its store. Game publishers and consumers suffer because this rule keeps Valve’s high 30% commission from being subject to competitive pressure.

This Price Parity Provision is one of the reasons why Valve has been able to continue to charge an inflated 30% commission for many years, even as that commission is plainly above the levels that would prevail in a competitive market. Competition would normally force such an inflated commission to come down to competitive levels—but Valve’s restraints prevent those competitive forces from operating as they would in a free market.

Because of Valve’s restraint, publishers cannot utilize alternative distributors to avoid the 30% tax that Valve has set for the market. Thus, they reluctantly market their games primarily through the dominant Steam Store where Valve takes its 30% fee. While several distributors have tried to compete with Valve by charging lower commissions on Steam Keys, those efforts have largely failed to make a dent in the Steam Store’s market share because publishers using those distributors had to charge the same inflated prices they set on the Steam Store.

Moreover, even if a game publisher wanted to scale up its use of Steam Keys to promote competition, Valve has made it clear that it would shut down such efforts. When Valve recognizes that a game publisher is selling a significant volume of Steam Keys relative to its Steam Store sales, Valve can, at its own discretion, threaten the game publisher and refuse to provide more Steam Keys. Thus, Valve uses the Steam Key program as another tool to ensure that the vast majority of sales take place on the Steam Store, where Valve gets its 30% commission on nearly every sale.

So if you want to sell steam keys, you need to offer a similar deal on steam as you would wherever you're selling those steam keys. This doesn't apply to other storefronts like GOG, Epic, the Ubisoft store, the EA store or the Windows store, this is only about selling steam keys. So if you want to avoid giving Valve a cut of the sale while still using their platform to distribute your game, Valve is going to get upset and take action to prevent you from doing that.

There is also a section about

Price Veto Provision. Valve also requires game publishers to agree to give Valve veto power over their pricing in the Steam Store and across the market generally (the “Price Veto Provision”). Valve selectively enforces this provision to review pricing by game publishers on PC Desktop Games that have nothing to do with the Steam Gaming Platform at all. Through this conduct, prices set in the Steam Store serve as a benchmark that leads to inflated prices for virtually all PC Desktop Games.

which I think was the focus of a different lawsuit that mostly talked about a Most Favored Nation clause. This one is a little more complicated, but this lawsuit ended up getting dismissed. I'm not even close to being a lawyer so I don't know why exactly, but this video seems to make a pretty good argument for why this isn't a good legal argument. To summarize: there isn't actually any proof that this kind of clause is actually anti-competitive and violates anti-trust laws. There's also no telling whether or not other storefronts have similar conditions in place, because apparently these kind of Most Favored Nation clauses are fairly standard in some industries.

Also being realistic if Valve were to drop their cut to 20% game prices wouldn’t change, the publishers would just pocket the difference, as we have seen with Epic.

You can’t point to current publisher behavior on EGS, because their behavior at present is influenced by Valve’s price policy (called the “Platform Most Favored Nation” or “PMFN” clause in the court filing) which is the foundation of the anti-competitive case against Valve.

Looking at your other comment, I can say that Ubisoft tried ditching steam, but their prices didn't really change even though they were paying a lower commission to epic than they would have to valve. So they would have had the ability change their prices to whatever they wanted on the epic store without fear of valve vetoing the price, because those games weren't being sold on steam.

Steam clearly wins on features, the only metric to beat them on is price. Epic is trying to do so, but publishers are not actually lowering the cost on their platform because of Valve’s policies—policies which are only effective because a publisher cannot afford to be delisted from Steam due its large market share.

Is there any actual proof of this? Epic is well known for giving games away for free, the best price customers can hope for. Yet they still can't seem to retain a loyal customer base. Maybe the price isn't the most important factor for a digital distribution platform.

What? But they're flushable*, it says so right on the package.

* if your municipality allows it. No municipality does.

Windows 11's Recall feature is on by default on Copilot+ PCs

Disabling the AI snapshotter requires a trip into Settings for ordinary users

Over the weekend, The Verge's Tom Warren posted (on twitter) screenshots showing Microsoft's latest Out-of-Box Experience (OOBE), in which the Recall feature can't be turned off unless the user opens Settings after completing setup.

Now, it's possible things have changed in the last few days, but I wouldn't really expect them to based on the last time I used windows. I also didn't know this before I tried looking it up, so I'll admit I'm a little biased against microsoft.

But the real question is, what documentation are you looking at where you're pulling all this information from? Can you provide a link?

You don't understand why there's so much fear, uncertainty, and doubt about an on-by-default program that records everything you do? Are you being serious right now?

If I'm reading this chart correctly, each penny is only 2.5% copper.

Claims

Claims held by raw food proponents include:

• That heating food above 104–118 °F (40–48 °C) degrades enzymes in raw food that aid digestion, when in fact enzymes in food play no significant role in the digestive process, prior to being digested themselves.
• That raw foods have higher nutrient values than foods that have been cooked,  when in fact cooking affects nutrient contents variably – depending on the plant food and cooking method – and may actually increase availability of fat-based nutrients, such as vitamin E and beta-carotene.
• That foods cooked at high temperatures, especially meat, may contain harmful toxins, including trans fatty acids produced by heating oil, acrylamide produced by frying, advanced glycation end products (AGEs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Not all cooked food contains harmful chemicals, and a diet containing a mix of cooked and raw food is normal. According to the American Cancer Society, it is not clear as of 2019 whether acrylamide consumption affects the risk of cancer. Public health authorities recommend reducing consumption of overly cooked starchy foods or meats.

Health effects

A raw food diet is likely to impair the development of children and infants. Care is required in planning a raw vegan diet, especially for children, as there may not be enough vitamin B12, vitamin D, and calories for a growing child on a totally raw vegan diet.

Food poisoning is a health risk for all people eating raw foods, and increased demand for raw foods is associated with greater incidence of foodborne illness,especially for raw meat, fish, and shellfish. Outbreaks of gastroenteritis among consumers of raw and undercooked animal products (including smoked, pickled or dried animal products) are well-documented, and include raw meat, raw organ meat, raw fish (whether ocean-going or freshwater), shellfish, raw milk and products made from raw milk, and raw eggs.

One review stated that "Many raw foods are toxic and only become safe after they have been cooked. Some raw foods contain substances that destroy vitamins, interfere with digestive enzymes or damage the walls of the intestine. Raw meat can be contaminated with bacteria which would be destroyed by cooking; raw fish can contain substances that interfere with vitamin B1 (anti-thiaminases)"

I don't speak for all of lemmy, but yeah I think I am going to hate on the raw food movement

I don't know how to use this site. Samsung is a Korean company, so I look there, but I don't see anything about samsung or phones. Clicking on "mach & elec" or "consumer goods" doesn't seem to help either.

https://www.gmc.com/electric/hummer-ev/suv

It's not like netflix is the only one that can offer that kind of service. You've still got gamefly, 3D Bluray Rental, cafedvd, redbox (if you're fine with going to a kiosk), your public library, and probably others if you care to search for them.