When steam provides substantially more services for a game with achievements, forums, workshop, etc. And then developer wants to list on steam and then funnel people over to a different platform to buy it cheaper. Steam isn’t getting compensated for the services they provided to boost the game’s popularity.
As others have said there’s already ways to get the game cheaper like humble bundle or Green Man gaming. This is literally just steam doing what they can to see a return on investment and not provide these services for free.
The comparison between Google and apple doesn’t really make sense as steam provides a whole bunch of services while epic provides a purchase button
To make the same argument, but to point out the absurdity of your argument, GameStop (or other retailers) put up advertising for products on their window. This has a material cost. However, if you buy it from somewhere else they don’t pay for this cost.
Valve choosing to advertise is a choice they make. They can choose not to, but it makes them more money if they do. Other stores should not have to pay for a different store’s choices. That’s insane.
Valve services do not apply when a game is being sold by Ubisoft in their own platform, with no steam keys included in the purchase. Valve’s infrastructure is not being used. That’s what these lawsuits are about. Not steam key resellers.
Im saying there are other key sellers that have it for less that they don’t stop from doing so, but the things steam had and the publicity it gives are of value and they don’t want to have publishers using steam for publicity and other community and forums what it and directing most of the sales elsewhere. They can by all means list their games elsewhere and price it however they want. But that’s always been the terms of selling on steam. Of they don’t like it they shouldn’t agree to the terms. But it’s not like it’s some new policy that valve implemented out of nowhere. I don’t completely agree with their policy but if publishers have an issue with it then don’t agree to it
So if I go to Amazon searching for a product, read the reviews, check if it’s been returned often, etc., that should be enough for Amazon to set the price of the same product on the manufacturer’s website?
The comparison between Google and apple doesn’t really make sense as steam provides a whole bunch of services while epic provides a purchase button.
Who is talking about Epic here?
Also, both Google and Apple have their own app stores, where they take a cut of the sales, while providing a SDKs for things from push notifications, to payment processing, to analytics. Nowadays they also provide game platforms for things like multiplayer or achievements, among other things. Essentially the same as Steam.
There are other marketplaces to steam. Steam doesn’t prevent you from installing from sources outside of steam. Steam doesn’t regulate your hardware or how you use it. If you want to sell on steam you can still sell elsewhere but it has to be the same price.
This means if you go to steam to find out about a game and then decide to buy it from the manufacturer’s website the manufacturer makes more money because they don’t have to give Valve a cut, and Valve might even authorize you to activate that product on steam.
Expecting valve to offer their marketing and delivery systems without any incentive for you to sell products through it would defeat the purpose of their platform.
Compare that to the other two chuckle fuckers in this mix:
Apple maintains an exclusive platform. Apple has taken specific steps to prevent people from installing software from sources that have not paid them for permission to make software for the hardware you rent from them.
Google maintains an exclusive platform. Google has taken specific steps to prevent people from installing from sources that have not paid them for permission to make software for the hardware you bought from third party vendors and manufacturers.
The ever shrinking accommodation to installing third-party software on your purchased hardware is anti-competitive, and defeats consumer choice.
This means if you go to steam to find out about a game and then decide to buy it from the manufacturer’s website the manufacturer makes more money because they don’t have to give Valve a cut, and Valve might even authorize you to activate that product on steam.
Expecting valve to offer their marketing and delivery systems without any incentive for you to sell products through it would defeat the purpose of their platform.
You can only activate that product in Steam if it’s sold as a Steam key. Also, any game added to Steam from outside the platform has no access to their SDK, so this point is moot.
I’m not defending either Apple nor Google, but their business model is essentially the same, with the exception of the hardware integration, which again, doesn’t even matter that much since Steam is at 75% PC market share. And if you read some of the comments in this thread you’ll find out that for many people, the moat is not the hardware, is the platform itself.
Again, weird to see people defending anti competitive behaviour coming from a multi billion corporation, just because they sympathize with them.
Yeah that doesn’t even vaguely resemble what I’m saying.
Valve isn’t regulating your hardware and they aren’t forcing anybody to do anything.
Valve is not a bully here. They have a contract saying if you sell your product with me you can’t sell it someplace else cheaper just to use me for marketing and delivery.
Apple says you have to pay me to even have the right to sell your product and you can only sell it through me. If you sell it someplace else I want to cut of that too.
Google just keeps changing the nature of what you’re allowed to do with your own stuff and they take a cut.
If you feel bullied by Valve or some developer feels bullied by valve then you have a victim complex.
Based on your take, I agree with you. If valve is providing services, then developers should not be selling steam keys for cheaper elsewhere. It dilutes trust in their business model too if people start assuming that they can get the same services, provided by valve, for cheaper elsewhere.
However, is that what this article is talking about? The games mentioned, specifically R6 Siege and SoM, both appear to run stand alone without steam integration. I’m not intimately familiar with either one, just what I can gather based off the article and a pair of quick online searches.
The article is alleging. We don’t yet have proof of the veracity of the documentation that has been collected. When the trial finishes and the court has determined whether or not those documents and other information gathered during the course of the case have been proven to be true, then and only then do we have something that says that Valve actually did this.
I don’t trust WB and I don’t trust Ubisoft. I’m not sure I trust Valve either but I can say that my distrust for them isn’t as extreme as my distrust for the other two companies.
If Valve did this, throw the book at them. But at the same time, I want to see difinitve proof.
Both games have steam integration, as all games do on steam. They can be run without it, like most games, but that doesn’t change the fact these developers want steam’s audience and integration (since users want steam integration) and thus they voluntarily agreed to this stipulation.
Ubisoft has their own store, if R6S is so good, it should be able to drive traffic and users to that store and they could just set their own price without worrying about what steam is doing. Fortnite proves you don’t need steam integration to make a good game that people want to play. So does minecraft.
So steam isn’t a monopoly, as proven by those two examples, Ubisoft just wants more money without the restriction that comes with that money.
Does R6S use steam integrations if bought through Uplay? Based on what I can find, the answer is no, and therefore valve shouldn’t be setting the price because, at that level, they have no involvement with the product.
It’s the same product. Ubisoft, at any point, can just stop selling on steam and redirect users to their own store and then have full pricing control. Epic did this with Rocket League. This is fully an option a multi-billion dollar company owned by a billionaire can do at any point. Being on steam is voluntary for all parties, because there are alternate streams.
If you want to sell your product in walmart, you will be signing a similar non-compete agreement. If you want to sell your product at any competent store, you will be signing a non-compete agreement.
Because there is no reason for a store to LET you use their platform otherwise. Your product isn’t that good. There’s 3k games released per month. You aren’t that important individually, or even as a developer. If you want to go the easy route, then like literally ALL PRODUCTS SOLD, you will need to sign an agreement like this.
This is the part that is holding me up. Is it actually the same product? The version on Steam comes with server hosting, achievements, voice chat, etc. If I purchased the game through Uplay, would I still have access to those services on Steam? For example, many years ago, I bought “Dungeons and Dragons: Daggerdale” at Walmart, but it basically just came with an asset disc and a code to register the game on Steam. So buying it at Walmart gave me access to the same features as if I’d bought it directly from Steam. Does Uplay do the same thing?
When steam provides substantially more services for a game with achievements, forums, workshop, etc. And then developer wants to list on steam and then funnel people over to a different platform to buy it cheaper. Steam isn’t getting compensated for the services they provided to boost the game’s popularity.
As others have said there’s already ways to get the game cheaper like humble bundle or Green Man gaming. This is literally just steam doing what they can to see a return on investment and not provide these services for free.
The comparison between Google and apple doesn’t really make sense as steam provides a whole bunch of services while epic provides a purchase button
To make the same argument, but to point out the absurdity of your argument, GameStop (or other retailers) put up advertising for products on their window. This has a material cost. However, if you buy it from somewhere else they don’t pay for this cost.
Valve choosing to advertise is a choice they make. They can choose not to, but it makes them more money if they do. Other stores should not have to pay for a different store’s choices. That’s insane.
Valve services do not apply when a game is being sold by Ubisoft in their own platform, with no steam keys included in the purchase. Valve’s infrastructure is not being used. That’s what these lawsuits are about. Not steam key resellers.
Im saying there are other key sellers that have it for less that they don’t stop from doing so, but the things steam had and the publicity it gives are of value and they don’t want to have publishers using steam for publicity and other community and forums what it and directing most of the sales elsewhere. They can by all means list their games elsewhere and price it however they want. But that’s always been the terms of selling on steam. Of they don’t like it they shouldn’t agree to the terms. But it’s not like it’s some new policy that valve implemented out of nowhere. I don’t completely agree with their policy but if publishers have an issue with it then don’t agree to it
So if I go to Amazon searching for a product, read the reviews, check if it’s been returned often, etc., that should be enough for Amazon to set the price of the same product on the manufacturer’s website?
Who is talking about Epic here?
Also, both Google and Apple have their own app stores, where they take a cut of the sales, while providing a SDKs for things from push notifications, to payment processing, to analytics. Nowadays they also provide game platforms for things like multiplayer or achievements, among other things. Essentially the same as Steam.
There are other marketplaces to steam. Steam doesn’t prevent you from installing from sources outside of steam. Steam doesn’t regulate your hardware or how you use it. If you want to sell on steam you can still sell elsewhere but it has to be the same price.
This means if you go to steam to find out about a game and then decide to buy it from the manufacturer’s website the manufacturer makes more money because they don’t have to give Valve a cut, and Valve might even authorize you to activate that product on steam.
Expecting valve to offer their marketing and delivery systems without any incentive for you to sell products through it would defeat the purpose of their platform.
Compare that to the other two chuckle fuckers in this mix:
Apple maintains an exclusive platform. Apple has taken specific steps to prevent people from installing software from sources that have not paid them for permission to make software for the hardware you rent from them.
Google maintains an exclusive platform. Google has taken specific steps to prevent people from installing from sources that have not paid them for permission to make software for the hardware you bought from third party vendors and manufacturers.
The ever shrinking accommodation to installing third-party software on your purchased hardware is anti-competitive, and defeats consumer choice.
You can only activate that product in Steam if it’s sold as a Steam key. Also, any game added to Steam from outside the platform has no access to their SDK, so this point is moot.
I’m not defending either Apple nor Google, but their business model is essentially the same, with the exception of the hardware integration, which again, doesn’t even matter that much since Steam is at 75% PC market share. And if you read some of the comments in this thread you’ll find out that for many people, the moat is not the hardware, is the platform itself.
Again, weird to see people defending anti competitive behaviour coming from a multi billion corporation, just because they sympathize with them.
“Those bullies are meaner, so you’re not actually get bullied” is some abuser-grade gaslighting there, pal
Yeah that doesn’t even vaguely resemble what I’m saying.
Valve isn’t regulating your hardware and they aren’t forcing anybody to do anything.
Valve is not a bully here. They have a contract saying if you sell your product with me you can’t sell it someplace else cheaper just to use me for marketing and delivery.
Apple says you have to pay me to even have the right to sell your product and you can only sell it through me. If you sell it someplace else I want to cut of that too.
Google just keeps changing the nature of what you’re allowed to do with your own stuff and they take a cut.
If you feel bullied by Valve or some developer feels bullied by valve then you have a victim complex.
Do you think all the sellers to whom Amazon put exactly the same ultimatum have a victim complex too?
Based on your take, I agree with you. If valve is providing services, then developers should not be selling steam keys for cheaper elsewhere. It dilutes trust in their business model too if people start assuming that they can get the same services, provided by valve, for cheaper elsewhere.
However, is that what this article is talking about? The games mentioned, specifically R6 Siege and SoM, both appear to run stand alone without steam integration. I’m not intimately familiar with either one, just what I can gather based off the article and a pair of quick online searches.
The article is alleging. We don’t yet have proof of the veracity of the documentation that has been collected. When the trial finishes and the court has determined whether or not those documents and other information gathered during the course of the case have been proven to be true, then and only then do we have something that says that Valve actually did this.
I don’t trust WB and I don’t trust Ubisoft. I’m not sure I trust Valve either but I can say that my distrust for them isn’t as extreme as my distrust for the other two companies.
If Valve did this, throw the book at them. But at the same time, I want to see difinitve proof.
Both games have steam integration, as all games do on steam. They can be run without it, like most games, but that doesn’t change the fact these developers want steam’s audience and integration (since users want steam integration) and thus they voluntarily agreed to this stipulation.
Ubisoft has their own store, if R6S is so good, it should be able to drive traffic and users to that store and they could just set their own price without worrying about what steam is doing. Fortnite proves you don’t need steam integration to make a good game that people want to play. So does minecraft.
So steam isn’t a monopoly, as proven by those two examples, Ubisoft just wants more money without the restriction that comes with that money.
Does R6S use steam integrations if bought through Uplay? Based on what I can find, the answer is no, and therefore valve shouldn’t be setting the price because, at that level, they have no involvement with the product.
It’s the same product. Ubisoft, at any point, can just stop selling on steam and redirect users to their own store and then have full pricing control. Epic did this with Rocket League. This is fully an option a multi-billion dollar company owned by a billionaire can do at any point. Being on steam is voluntary for all parties, because there are alternate streams.
If you want to sell your product in walmart, you will be signing a similar non-compete agreement. If you want to sell your product at any competent store, you will be signing a non-compete agreement.
Because there is no reason for a store to LET you use their platform otherwise. Your product isn’t that good. There’s 3k games released per month. You aren’t that important individually, or even as a developer. If you want to go the easy route, then like literally ALL PRODUCTS SOLD, you will need to sign an agreement like this.
This is the part that is holding me up. Is it actually the same product? The version on Steam comes with server hosting, achievements, voice chat, etc. If I purchased the game through Uplay, would I still have access to those services on Steam? For example, many years ago, I bought “Dungeons and Dragons: Daggerdale” at Walmart, but it basically just came with an asset disc and a code to register the game on Steam. So buying it at Walmart gave me access to the same features as if I’d bought it directly from Steam. Does Uplay do the same thing?