Because why would they provide infrastructure for free when the developer sells keys for less somewhere else?
They don’t. They charge a commission of between 30% to 20% of sales, depending on volume. They also take a cut from digital purchases like skins. This on a 75% PC digital distribution market share.
Their business model is not different from those of Apple, Microsoft, and Google with their respective app stores, yet the public are generally less sympathetic about that.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this article (and case?) has nothing to do with keys.
It’s just about steam saying: If you want to sell on other platforms, even if the other platforms don’t use any of valve services, they need to have the same price as on steam. Which would be clear monopolistic behaviour imo. (-> does rainbow six siege on ubisoft connect use any valve servers/services? You don’t get a steam key on ubisoft connect afaik)
For those who downvote: please explain where I am wrong. Thank you.
Steam was saying that if they want to sell it cheaper elsewhere then they should also sell it cheaper on steam. Steam threatened to delist the game if the prices weren’t consistent because it was comparatively overpriced by a significant amount.
They did not say the publisher needed to raise the price elsewhere, just that it needed to be consistent.
But that’s the whole point of this. Why should steam have a say in it, how expensive or cheap different games are sold on different platforms. They basically prevent price competition. To be fair in this case selling the starter pack only on Ubisoft Connect (exclusivity) is also anti competitive and worth investigating, but the point stands. Why should steam have the power to force Gamedevs to have price parity with other stores, if the versions of the other stores don’t have anything to do with steam? Why can’t some games be cheaper in other stores, where the stores take a smaller cut of the profits?
Yes Ubisoft is evil, but that doesn’t make Valve the good ones.
Yes Steam has more and better features, but that doesn’t mean other stores should be prohibited to compete on price.
Yes Steam has the largest Playerbase by far, but how many people would switch if games where just always 20% cheaper on other platforms? This price competition seems to be the exact thing that Valve tries to block.
And this is not about keys at all. Steam has of course the right to set the price for their steam keys, because they provide the servers, interfaces, etc.
Steam is choosing not to distribute the game at a significantly higher price than elsewhere if the publisher is choosing that pricing structure. The publisher can either choose to distribute on steam with a comparable (not identical) price on steam or not distribute on steam.
Steam isn’t making the publisher do anything on other storefronts and as you pointed out what Ubi was doing was anticompetitive.
Well, the second story in the linked article is about the same version of the game sold at different price points and Valve rejected it because the price was “significantly higher” on steam.
Now the problem is, we don’t know what “significantly higher” means because Valve did not specify it. But the base line for “allowed” cheaper prices should be the 30% steam cut, shouldn’t it? So a game can be 30% cheaper somewhere else, which in turn makes the steam version around ~42% more expensive. Which could very well fall in the category of “significantly higher.”
But I guess this is why we have the lawsuit to figure this out. I’m just a bit annoyed at a lot of people here jumping directly to conclusions without even reading the linked article. I guess my main point is, that it is POSSIBLE that steam is guilty in contrast to a lot of people just saying “Steam Keys!!!” and denying the possibility of wrongdoing. If it turns out Steam is not forcing something of a price parity, I too would be very happy.
On the other side is an assumption that a publisher can just set significantly sifferent prices in different store fronts and are entitled to being on those store fronts. That isn’t the case either, brick and mortar stores have always had the option to not carry an item when the sale price is significantly different than other store fronts.
The 30% thing is also incredibly misrepresented. Regular and online stores always have a significant markup for the vast majority of their stock, with a few high profile items as exceptions to that rule.
If you want to sell the game cheaper, then you lower the price on all plaforms. Valve doesn’t dictate prices, publishers do.
Steam does take a 30% cut when you sell a game on steam, but if you don’t want to pay that, and still provide a steam key, you can sell the game on your platform for the same list price and pocket the 30% yourself. Valve gives keys out for free for this sole purpose.
If you want to sell the game cheaper, and not provide a steam key for your user, you are free to do so at any price too.
The thing you aren’t allowed to do is sell the game for cheaper than on Steam, and still give a free Steam key with the game.
Did Rainbow six siege on ubisoft connect include a steam key at any point? In the article it just states that they had a cheaper version of the game and valve threatened to take R6 out of steam.
Am I missing something?
This has nothing to do with keys. This would be like Sony listing a basic PlayStation on their website that was $100 cheaper than other stores and Walmart threatening to remove PlayStation from their stores. This is about Steam (like many retailers) ensuring that they aren’t being undercut by other retailers.
Read the fucking article. Valve is being sued because they’re explicitly blocking non steam key sellers from selling at lower prices.
Ubisoft was told they couldn’t sell an entirely different version from what was available on steam, at a lower price, ON THEIR OWN STOREFRONT, or else steam would remove their game.
Holy shit, you’re just blindly defending the very practice that you said wasn’t even happening
If valve loses this, they will clamp down on their features.
Because why would they provide infrastructure for free when the developer sells keys for less somewhere else?
If you expect them to provide storefront, infrastructure and community integration for free, I don’t think they will.
They don’t. They charge a commission of between 30% to 20% of sales, depending on volume. They also take a cut from digital purchases like skins. This on a 75% PC digital distribution market share.
Their business model is not different from those of Apple, Microsoft, and Google with their respective app stores, yet the public are generally less sympathetic about that.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but this article (and case?) has nothing to do with keys. It’s just about steam saying: If you want to sell on other platforms, even if the other platforms don’t use any of valve services, they need to have the same price as on steam. Which would be clear monopolistic behaviour imo. (-> does rainbow six siege on ubisoft connect use any valve servers/services? You don’t get a steam key on ubisoft connect afaik)
For those who downvote: please explain where I am wrong. Thank you.
Steam was saying that if they want to sell it cheaper elsewhere then they should also sell it cheaper on steam. Steam threatened to delist the game if the prices weren’t consistent because it was comparatively overpriced by a significant amount.
They did not say the publisher needed to raise the price elsewhere, just that it needed to be consistent.
But that’s the whole point of this. Why should steam have a say in it, how expensive or cheap different games are sold on different platforms. They basically prevent price competition. To be fair in this case selling the starter pack only on Ubisoft Connect (exclusivity) is also anti competitive and worth investigating, but the point stands. Why should steam have the power to force Gamedevs to have price parity with other stores, if the versions of the other stores don’t have anything to do with steam? Why can’t some games be cheaper in other stores, where the stores take a smaller cut of the profits?
Yes Ubisoft is evil, but that doesn’t make Valve the good ones.
Yes Steam has more and better features, but that doesn’t mean other stores should be prohibited to compete on price.
Yes Steam has the largest Playerbase by far, but how many people would switch if games where just always 20% cheaper on other platforms? This price competition seems to be the exact thing that Valve tries to block.
And this is not about keys at all. Steam has of course the right to set the price for their steam keys, because they provide the servers, interfaces, etc.
Steam is choosing not to distribute the game at a significantly higher price than elsewhere if the publisher is choosing that pricing structure. The publisher can either choose to distribute on steam with a comparable (not identical) price on steam or not distribute on steam.
Steam isn’t making the publisher do anything on other storefronts and as you pointed out what Ubi was doing was anticompetitive.
Well, the second story in the linked article is about the same version of the game sold at different price points and Valve rejected it because the price was “significantly higher” on steam.
Now the problem is, we don’t know what “significantly higher” means because Valve did not specify it. But the base line for “allowed” cheaper prices should be the 30% steam cut, shouldn’t it? So a game can be 30% cheaper somewhere else, which in turn makes the steam version around ~42% more expensive. Which could very well fall in the category of “significantly higher.”
But I guess this is why we have the lawsuit to figure this out. I’m just a bit annoyed at a lot of people here jumping directly to conclusions without even reading the linked article. I guess my main point is, that it is POSSIBLE that steam is guilty in contrast to a lot of people just saying “Steam Keys!!!” and denying the possibility of wrongdoing. If it turns out Steam is not forcing something of a price parity, I too would be very happy.
Thank you very much for discussing in good faith.
On the other side is an assumption that a publisher can just set significantly sifferent prices in different store fronts and are entitled to being on those store fronts. That isn’t the case either, brick and mortar stores have always had the option to not carry an item when the sale price is significantly different than other store fronts.
The 30% thing is also incredibly misrepresented. Regular and online stores always have a significant markup for the vast majority of their stock, with a few high profile items as exceptions to that rule.
This is not about other sites selling steam keys. This is about other stores fronts entirely.
Steam it’s abusing it’s monopoly like position to keep prices artificially high across the board. Stop licking their boots.
If you want to sell the game cheaper, then you lower the price on all plaforms. Valve doesn’t dictate prices, publishers do.
Steam does take a 30% cut when you sell a game on steam, but if you don’t want to pay that, and still provide a steam key, you can sell the game on your platform for the same list price and pocket the 30% yourself. Valve gives keys out for free for this sole purpose.
If you want to sell the game cheaper, and not provide a steam key for your user, you are free to do so at any price too.
The thing you aren’t allowed to do is sell the game for cheaper than on Steam, and still give a free Steam key with the game.
Did Rainbow six siege on ubisoft connect include a steam key at any point? In the article it just states that they had a cheaper version of the game and valve threatened to take R6 out of steam. Am I missing something?
This has nothing to do with keys. This would be like Sony listing a basic PlayStation on their website that was $100 cheaper than other stores and Walmart threatening to remove PlayStation from their stores. This is about Steam (like many retailers) ensuring that they aren’t being undercut by other retailers.
Read the fucking article. Valve is being sued because they’re explicitly blocking non steam key sellers from selling at lower prices.
Ubisoft was told they couldn’t sell an entirely different version from what was available on steam, at a lower price, ON THEIR OWN STOREFRONT, or else steam would remove their game.
Holy shit, you’re just blindly defending the very practice that you said wasn’t even happening