By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - Lawsuit claims Valve is abusing its market dominance to keep prices high

VAMatt said:
Dulfite said:

Buying companies is a LOT more complicated than that, especially with what you are suggesting lol. For one thing, people aren't always just waiting around to sell their shares to someone with a bunch of money. Some people own shares that they don't want to sell, no matter how much someone offers. Others who would normally sell won't out of principle to a mega corporation. On top of person choice, let's talk government oversight: A republican administration would be all over one company trying to buy that many competitors out, let alone the current democratic one. Bethesda is one thing. But if Microsoft were to try to "buy the exclusive rights to every game in existence" they would be blocked before they even got to 15% of every IP out there probably lol. The guy in the White House who is constantly asking people where he is, what he is supposed to say next, and refuses to do press conferences probably wouldn't be on top of it, but absolutely this would have Bi-Partisan support to be shut down by Vice President Harris, Congress, and the federal courts.

Obviously, buying rights to everything is an exaggeration. 

You're either deliberately ignoring the obvious point - that MS has the money to handle Valve in multiple ways - or..... well, I don't see any other options.   

I mean, Gamepass was certainly a way to siphon off Valve users. They've tried to make Windows Store a bigger deal. I don't really see what else they could do to try to crush Steam unless they start getting more exclusives on Windows Store/Gamepass? People have tons of games and friends on Steam and many probably are unwilling to move to a new platform because they don't want to have split libraries and there are probably a good chunk who don't want to move simply because they have so many Steam achievements.



Around the Network

On the one hand, Steam can be understood, they may well dictate their own rules. But yes, I agree more that all of this requires regulation.



Abusing of economical power is wrong, that should be point mute.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

This might have been reasonable when everyone was taking the same cut to e.g. prevent publishers from charging more for letting gamers buy games on their store of choice (typically Steam), but right now it seems to be hurting actual competition, so I kind of would like something to be done about it. That said, I do worry it would mean publishers would simply raise their prices on Steam instead of lowering them elsewhere, so there's that. I just can't see publishers lowering prices elsewhere.

Ka-pi96 said:
zero129 said:
:EDIT
Ok after reading more into it, It seems this in no way effects "Discount" Prices. So the is nothing stopping Epic or another developer from having a permanent Discount on their games on the Epic store if they wished to have them at a lower price and take advantage of that less then 30% cut epic takes. That agreement is more about protecting Valve from developers who might "Rise" the price on steam to make up for the 30% cut Valve take.

IIRC some countries have laws in place that require an item to have been on sale for the regular price for a certain amount of time before it's allowed to be discounted from that price. So there is still something stopping them from doing it that way.

Also, @bold than*

I know Finland has this. That said, I don't know how it applies to digital sales because of legislation issues, and I'm also not sure about how well it's enforced.



Zkuq said:

This might have been reasonable when everyone was taking the same cut to e.g. prevent publishers from charging more for letting gamers buy games on their store of choice (typically Steam), but right now it seems to be hurting actual competition, so I kind of would like something to be done about it. That said, I do worry it would mean publishers would simply raise their prices on Steam instead of lowering them elsewhere, so there's that. I just can't see publishers lowering prices elsewhere.

Ka-pi96 said:

IIRC some countries have laws in place that require an item to have been on sale for the regular price for a certain amount of time before it's allowed to be discounted from that price. So there is still something stopping them from doing it that way.

Also, @bold than*

I know Finland has this. That said, I don't know how it applies to digital sales because of legislation issues, and I'm also not sure about how well it's enforced.

Devs raising their price on Steam would either allow them to get the same cut and possibly drive sales away from Steam and make the other stores more competitive (that is the biggest reason to offer things cheaper). But having a big marketshare and preventing that from happening isn`t something cool.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Zkuq said:

This might have been reasonable when everyone was taking the same cut to e.g. prevent publishers from charging more for letting gamers buy games on their store of choice (typically Steam), but right now it seems to be hurting actual competition, so I kind of would like something to be done about it. That said, I do worry it would mean publishers would simply raise their prices on Steam instead of lowering them elsewhere, so there's that. I just can't see publishers lowering prices elsewhere.

Devs raising their price on Steam would either allow them to get the same cut and possibly drive sales away from Steam and make the other stores more competitive (that is the biggest reason to offer things cheaper). But having a big marketshare and preventing that from happening isn`t something cool.

Sure, but from a consumer perspective (i.e. my perspective), raising prices on Steam would not be desirable. Competition should lower prices, not raise them. I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be or if there even is one, but at this point there are definitely some concerns with simply allowing lower prices on competing stores. It's something I would ideally like to see happen, but it's also something that concerns me in the situation we've ended up in.



Zkuq said:
DonFerrari said:

Devs raising their price on Steam would either allow them to get the same cut and possibly drive sales away from Steam and make the other stores more competitive (that is the biggest reason to offer things cheaper). But having a big marketshare and preventing that from happening isn`t something cool.

Sure, but from a consumer perspective (i.e. my perspective), raising prices on Steam would not be desirable. Competition should lower prices, not raise them. I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be or if there even is one, but at this point there are definitely some concerns with simply allowing lower prices on competing stores. It's something I would ideally like to see happen, but it's also something that concerns me in the situation we've ended up in.

Totally agree. But let's say they increase price on Steam, that will have repercutions and probably price going back to normal which would them make the other services price be lower (like an agreement between dev and store for the lesser fee). The problem currently is that they can't do that because of STEAM, they can only offer promotions (which can't be permanent by principle).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Azzanation said:

Not sure what the issue is. If developers don't want to put their games on Steam, their are plenty of other alternatives. Sure they lose the giant audience however this isn't a console, PCs are not locked to one gaming app. Valve profit more yes, however developers also sell more on Steam so both parties win.

The issue is that this is a perfect example of abusing monopoly. There are alternatives sure. But why would anyone be willing to try other platforms if they have nothing to offer compared to Steam which is the go to store for PC gaming by default. It would indeed be interesting to see a fair competition where let's say Epic instead of buying exclusives could have offered games for cheaper prices.



 

DonFerrari said:
Zkuq said:

Sure, but from a consumer perspective (i.e. my perspective), raising prices on Steam would not be desirable. Competition should lower prices, not raise them. I'm not sure what the ideal solution would be or if there even is one, but at this point there are definitely some concerns with simply allowing lower prices on competing stores. It's something I would ideally like to see happen, but it's also something that concerns me in the situation we've ended up in.

Totally agree. But let's say they increase price on Steam, that will have repercutions and probably price going back to normal which would them make the other services price be lower (like an agreement between dev and store for the lesser fee). The problem currently is that they can't do that because of STEAM, they can only offer promotions (which can't be permanent by principle).

I don't share your confidence in there being repercussions. I think people would still buy the games at a higher price, and the higher price would become the new normal.



Zkuq said:
DonFerrari said:

Totally agree. But let's say they increase price on Steam, that will have repercutions and probably price going back to normal which would them make the other services price be lower (like an agreement between dev and store for the lesser fee). The problem currently is that they can't do that because of STEAM, they can only offer promotions (which can't be permanent by principle).

I don't share your confidence in there being repercussions. I think people would still buy the games at a higher price, and the higher price would become the new normal.

Could very well be. But Steam don`t want that to be the case, thus from the lawsuit they demand that the game is sold at the same price on their store as is in others.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."