2 ms·

Steam is overwhelmingly popular with users and publishers alike and so it's enjoying default status with both, but that's the fairest play in capitalism. There'

Steam is overwhelmingly popular with users and publishers alike and so it's enjoying default status with both, but that's the fairest play in capitalism. There's little lock-in (non-transferable licenses and network effects are all I can think of) and I haven't heard of any anticompetitive behavior. There are many other outlets for distribution, including the plain Jane internet, on all the platforms it's available for. Notably, this includes SteamOS devices like the Steam Deck, something no other console officially offers, as far as I'm aware. Valve is remarkably fair.

f33d5173 3y ago
Valve copies an approach of amazon that many (including, I believe, the USG) consider anticompetitive. Namely, requiring those who list on their store to not list for a lower price on other platforms. This prevents competition on price, an issue because valve charges a 30% fee, which many consumers might like to save on.
- Clamchop 3y ago
  The best source on this that I could find is from ArsTechnica: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fees-dont-lead-to-lower-prices-on-the-epic-games-store/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe... If it can be believed, then they don't appear to have an actual stipulation on this in their contracts, and Valve claims that the dispute isn't over pricing on other platforms but over selling Steam keys at less than the price on the storefront. That's a pretty big difference, if true. The story also looks at whether publishers pass on savings in platform fees to customers. Naturally, they don't seem to. If this is what you're referring to, it doesn't seem like a big deal. I wonder why these distribution channels are converging on 30% of sales. What's with that number in particular?
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    I actually misread. The lawsuit itself is concerned with selling Steam keys, no claim from "sources close to Valve" necessary.
mr_toad 3y ago
You can’t really exhibit anti-competitive behaviour if you don’t have any competition to speak of.
- Clamchop 3y ago
  But you can, it's what distinguishes an illegal monopoly from a legal one.

f33d5173 3y ago

Valve copies an approach of amazon that many (including, I believe, the USG) consider anticompetitive. Namely, requiring those who list on their store to not list for a lower price on other platforms. This prevents competition on price, an issue because valve charges a 30% fee, which many consumers might like to save on.

Clamchop 3y ago
The best source on this that I could find is from ArsTechnica: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fees-dont-lead-to-lower-prices-on-the-epic-games-store/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2021/05/why-lower-platform-fe... If it can be believed, then they don't appear to have an actual stipulation on this in their contracts, and Valve claims that the dispute isn't over pricing on other platforms but over selling Steam keys at less than the price on the storefront. That's a pretty big difference, if true. The story also looks at whether publishers pass on savings in platform fees to customers. Naturally, they don't seem to. If this is what you're referring to, it doesn't seem like a big deal. I wonder why these distribution channels are converging on 30% of sales. What's with that number in particular?
- Clamchop 3y ago
  I actually misread. The lawsuit itself is concerned with selling Steam keys, no claim from "sources close to Valve" necessary.

mr_toad 3y ago

You can’t really exhibit anti-competitive behaviour if you don’t have any competition to speak of.

Clamchop 3y ago
But you can, it's what distinguishes an illegal monopoly from a legal one.