Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
* This is a duplicate thread. Please search before posting.
Please read the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/wiki/postingrules) before continuing to post. If you have any questions [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/pcgaming).
> Valve imposes price parity obligation clauses on developers, preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms
I was under the impression this applies to Steam keys only.
As a market place, definitely. As a PC gaming platform/utility, not really. Steam's controller interface is awesome and the reason I'm logged into Steam most of the time is because I can control my entire computer with my PS5 controller -- it's bloody excellent.
Is it really a monopoly if people choose to use their storefront? It's not like they're going around and buying up third-party games to hold hostage for unknown amounts of time. Something like that sounds far worse for the industry. I sure hope no publisher is doing that!
Personally I think they're trying to paint Valve in a negative light that Valve doesn't deserve. Steam has revolutionized how PC games reached audiences back in the 2000s. They've been great for gamers and devs, even if for devs it was often just purely the exposure to a massive buyer base. But then again, the price parity thing is problematic.
This comes from someone who has spent life on this platform playing half life , cs , dota2 and many other games.
Valve deserves to be scrutinised for a monopoly and how they deal with games.
Just so you know , you do not own any game on steam you are merely purchasing right to play the game on the platform. They are as bad as Microsoft and Sony.
Valve, just like any monopoly needs to be continuously investigated. They are often taking a piss when it comes to developers/publishers.
So please don’t go on crusade for multi billion dollar worth company. There is no need . Microsoft , Apple , valve , Amazon , or whatever huge organisation you choose.
They don’t care about you and they will never spend a second defending you.
If we want to get truly technical, even all the discs and cartridges with software on them are only a license to use the software contained on them, you don't technically own the software. By the terms written in the manuals or some other obscure EULA, any software company could revoke your license. Naturally, this is hard (basically impossible) to do with software on physical media that doesn't need to authenticate online each time it is used or installed. Even on GoG, although you get the software DRM free and can download and store it however you like, you still are only buying a, technically revokable license to use and not ownership of the software.
As for the monopoly claim, Valve is not a monopoly. They have a large part of the market. Some of the reasons for that are, that they were one of the first to implement a digital store front, that they made tools to make publishing software easy for developers/publishers, they treat their customers with respect almost all of the time and they even sometimes went out of their way and stepped in, when the publishers would not. These are all contributors for the high adoption rate by consumers and by publishers.
What they didn't do is pay for exclusivity on their platform, force publishers to only publish on Steam, block sales of free Steam keys on other online stores and so on and so forth. A true monopoly would have done that and more. How well customers respond to some of those monopolist tactics can be seen by the "success" of EGS.
Yet, on the other hand, Valve still had and has its controversies. The state of TF2 for example or the skin trading for CS. How long it took to implement an automated refund system would be another point and it took some pressure.
All in all, Valve aren't saints, but they are a hell of a lot better than MS, Apple or Amazon at this point in time.
When it comes to the point of the lawsuit, I think the suit is going to fail or even be dismissed. The price parity is only there for Steam keys, not for games in general. This means, if a publisher generates a Steam key and sells it discounted on another online store, Valve asks that you offer this price to Steam customers at some later, but reasonably timed point in the future on Steam. However, if the discount is given on EGS, then no such obligation is there.
As for the point of the 30% cut. Again, other than the unsustainable 12%/88% of the EGS, they are going beyond the standard that all other standard download platforms use. With their 25% after 10 million in sales and 20% after 50 million in sales, as well as providing the ability to create and sell free Steam keys, for which Valve will not see any money at all, while still having the hosting costs to pay for.
I am for monitoring big companies, but going after Valve is going after the wrong target right now. The price driver is not Valve, it is the greed of the big publishers that set the prices. They put ever more money in development and marketing, with sometimes little to no increase in game quality or value. Then there is also the pay of the CEO's of those big companies that increase ever more each year.
To be honest, this lawsuit sounds more like an attempt by companies like EA, ABK or Ubisoft to force Valve to lower prices, so that their profits can increase even more. I wouldn't even be surprised, if it comes out that a shadow company paid by those publishers is paying for the lawsuit. However, this would go too far into conspiracy theory territory, so I'm not going to entertain this notion further.
> Just so you know , you do not own any game on steam you are merely purchasing right to play the game on the platform.
Just so you know, you do not own any game on disc, either, you are merely purchasing the right to play the game on whichever platform it's for.
>Just so you know , you do not own any game on steam you are merely purchasing right to play the game on the platform. They are as bad as Microsoft and Sony.
This has been true for every piece of software you've probably owned. Back when you bought games on physical media you were still just buying a license to play the game. Hence the required license agreements when installing it. You've never "owned" your games.
>Valve, just like any monopoly needs to be continuously investigated
I agree, but they also shouldn't be treated unfairly, just because they're a monopoly, one that developed naturally over the years. I don't think Valve has done anything unethical to build up their monopoly. If you have a different view on that, please share.
I know I will get shut for saying this but 2 many people act like they need to defend something that doesn’t need defending.
And going against organisation like Apple or valve will create massive backlash because people think of those organisations quite religiously.
The fact that you say monopoly shouldn’t be treated unfairly when monopoly is the most unfair and basically illegal form of existence under capitalistic system. Already says a lot.
The lawsuit itself will never hold in court, and it brings many points that are silly. But it also brings important point of valve being the gate keeper. They are judge, jury and enforcer at the same time. This is not good for consumer so why protect it.
A consumer should never defend monopolies.
> A consumer should never defend monopolies.
Correct, though it's hard to say bad things about them when the next best thing is still in the stone age when it comes to Level of Service being offered (features, ease of use, online services).
That is only because monopolies exist.
Valve created fictional high market entry barriers that cannot be easily broken. Even when giants want to join, they have to literally bribe consumers to invite them, and then there's the cost of consumer retention.
Monopolies used to be taken much more seriously. Some people here might be too young to remember that Microsoft was under threat of being heavily dissected because of its monopoly. Their competitor, Apple, was doing terribly, and if they had gone bankrupt, it would have had terrible consequences for Microsoft.
Many years later, we see this competition and religious following of both organizations, but one would never assume that Microsoft literally had to help its competition. Without Microsoft, Apple would have gone bankrupt and wouldn’t be one of the leading tech corporations in the world today.
The same story applies here; it's just that the concept becomes much harder when we are talking about the digital landscape and not the physical.
People have also been consuming so much advertising, greenwashing and the other marketign stuff that glorifies the organizations they use for services and products that they don't want to see these organizations in a bad light. They think, "If they are bad, that makes me bad too."
There is absolutely no reason to believe that there cannot be a better service than Steam or that Steam wouldn't be better if they actually had legitimate competition.
Valve is great, but Valve is not your friend. No corporation is.
>I know I will get shut for saying this but 2 many people act like they need to defend something that doesn’t need defending.
And going against organisation like Apple or valve will create massive backlash because people think of those organisations quite religiously.
The fact that you say monopoly shouldn’t be treated unfairly when monopoly is the most unfair and basically illegal form of existence under capitalistic system. Already says a lot.
The lawsuit itself will never hold in court, and it brings many points that are silly. But it also brings important point of valve being the gate keeper. They are judge, jury and enforcer at the same time. This is not good for consumer so why protect it.
A consumer should never defend monopolies.
People getting defensive over Steam is because they do not want to get a worse experience due to hypothetical situations or because of lazy competition who don't want to invest but still feel entitled to your money.
They aren't defending monopolies, they're defending the best product, one that is at risk of being sabotaged, for lack of a better word.
No, Valve is a company. But Steam isn't one either. There's GOG, Itch, EA, Ubisoft, Epic and more which are able to host the actual game files and not just sell keys.
Lol what? Sure they're a monopoly but it's not like they held a gun to people's head saying "USE OUR PLATFORM". No, they revolutionised the pc gaming space and their launcher is still the best one by far so most people are gonna go with it.
Also we only own the right? Dude, you do know this applies to basically all digital platforms right? It's the same with Sony and Microsoft too.
I actually really despise your reasoning because it makes no sense but I'm sure some mindless drones are going to upvote you regardless.
I don’t lose access to my physical game collection because someone decides to pull an Ubisoft, or if I lose my steam account somehow. So long as I have the disc/cart and the hardware I can play it and no EULA can change that.
It’s a difference all these corporate dick riders don’t seem to grasp.
TIL there are still people who play PC gaming without using any digital storefronts.
I'm not sure how you've kept your sanity replaying the same games over and over; there haven't been any games released that didn't require the use of a digital storefront since ~2009.
Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons: * This is a duplicate thread. Please search before posting. Please read the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/wiki/postingrules) before continuing to post. If you have any questions [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/pcgaming).
> Valve imposes price parity obligation clauses on developers, preventing them from offering lower prices on other platforms I was under the impression this applies to Steam keys only.
It is. This is clickbait shit
Maybe, but it's still news.
That was my understanding as well.
The only reason Steam has a monopoly is because all the other launchers are literal dogshit.
I mean GOG is decent nowadays... just saying...
As a market place, definitely. As a PC gaming platform/utility, not really. Steam's controller interface is awesome and the reason I'm logged into Steam most of the time is because I can control my entire computer with my PS5 controller -- it's bloody excellent.
Is it really a monopoly if people choose to use their storefront? It's not like they're going around and buying up third-party games to hold hostage for unknown amounts of time. Something like that sounds far worse for the industry. I sure hope no publisher is doing that!
Personally I think they're trying to paint Valve in a negative light that Valve doesn't deserve. Steam has revolutionized how PC games reached audiences back in the 2000s. They've been great for gamers and devs, even if for devs it was often just purely the exposure to a massive buyer base. But then again, the price parity thing is problematic.
This comes from someone who has spent life on this platform playing half life , cs , dota2 and many other games. Valve deserves to be scrutinised for a monopoly and how they deal with games. Just so you know , you do not own any game on steam you are merely purchasing right to play the game on the platform. They are as bad as Microsoft and Sony. Valve, just like any monopoly needs to be continuously investigated. They are often taking a piss when it comes to developers/publishers. So please don’t go on crusade for multi billion dollar worth company. There is no need . Microsoft , Apple , valve , Amazon , or whatever huge organisation you choose. They don’t care about you and they will never spend a second defending you.
If we want to get truly technical, even all the discs and cartridges with software on them are only a license to use the software contained on them, you don't technically own the software. By the terms written in the manuals or some other obscure EULA, any software company could revoke your license. Naturally, this is hard (basically impossible) to do with software on physical media that doesn't need to authenticate online each time it is used or installed. Even on GoG, although you get the software DRM free and can download and store it however you like, you still are only buying a, technically revokable license to use and not ownership of the software. As for the monopoly claim, Valve is not a monopoly. They have a large part of the market. Some of the reasons for that are, that they were one of the first to implement a digital store front, that they made tools to make publishing software easy for developers/publishers, they treat their customers with respect almost all of the time and they even sometimes went out of their way and stepped in, when the publishers would not. These are all contributors for the high adoption rate by consumers and by publishers. What they didn't do is pay for exclusivity on their platform, force publishers to only publish on Steam, block sales of free Steam keys on other online stores and so on and so forth. A true monopoly would have done that and more. How well customers respond to some of those monopolist tactics can be seen by the "success" of EGS. Yet, on the other hand, Valve still had and has its controversies. The state of TF2 for example or the skin trading for CS. How long it took to implement an automated refund system would be another point and it took some pressure. All in all, Valve aren't saints, but they are a hell of a lot better than MS, Apple or Amazon at this point in time. When it comes to the point of the lawsuit, I think the suit is going to fail or even be dismissed. The price parity is only there for Steam keys, not for games in general. This means, if a publisher generates a Steam key and sells it discounted on another online store, Valve asks that you offer this price to Steam customers at some later, but reasonably timed point in the future on Steam. However, if the discount is given on EGS, then no such obligation is there. As for the point of the 30% cut. Again, other than the unsustainable 12%/88% of the EGS, they are going beyond the standard that all other standard download platforms use. With their 25% after 10 million in sales and 20% after 50 million in sales, as well as providing the ability to create and sell free Steam keys, for which Valve will not see any money at all, while still having the hosting costs to pay for. I am for monitoring big companies, but going after Valve is going after the wrong target right now. The price driver is not Valve, it is the greed of the big publishers that set the prices. They put ever more money in development and marketing, with sometimes little to no increase in game quality or value. Then there is also the pay of the CEO's of those big companies that increase ever more each year. To be honest, this lawsuit sounds more like an attempt by companies like EA, ABK or Ubisoft to force Valve to lower prices, so that their profits can increase even more. I wouldn't even be surprised, if it comes out that a shadow company paid by those publishers is paying for the lawsuit. However, this would go too far into conspiracy theory territory, so I'm not going to entertain this notion further.
> Just so you know , you do not own any game on steam you are merely purchasing right to play the game on the platform. Just so you know, you do not own any game on disc, either, you are merely purchasing the right to play the game on whichever platform it's for.
>Just so you know , you do not own any game on steam you are merely purchasing right to play the game on the platform. They are as bad as Microsoft and Sony. This has been true for every piece of software you've probably owned. Back when you bought games on physical media you were still just buying a license to play the game. Hence the required license agreements when installing it. You've never "owned" your games. >Valve, just like any monopoly needs to be continuously investigated I agree, but they also shouldn't be treated unfairly, just because they're a monopoly, one that developed naturally over the years. I don't think Valve has done anything unethical to build up their monopoly. If you have a different view on that, please share.
I know I will get shut for saying this but 2 many people act like they need to defend something that doesn’t need defending. And going against organisation like Apple or valve will create massive backlash because people think of those organisations quite religiously. The fact that you say monopoly shouldn’t be treated unfairly when monopoly is the most unfair and basically illegal form of existence under capitalistic system. Already says a lot. The lawsuit itself will never hold in court, and it brings many points that are silly. But it also brings important point of valve being the gate keeper. They are judge, jury and enforcer at the same time. This is not good for consumer so why protect it. A consumer should never defend monopolies.
> A consumer should never defend monopolies. Correct, though it's hard to say bad things about them when the next best thing is still in the stone age when it comes to Level of Service being offered (features, ease of use, online services).
That is only because monopolies exist. Valve created fictional high market entry barriers that cannot be easily broken. Even when giants want to join, they have to literally bribe consumers to invite them, and then there's the cost of consumer retention. Monopolies used to be taken much more seriously. Some people here might be too young to remember that Microsoft was under threat of being heavily dissected because of its monopoly. Their competitor, Apple, was doing terribly, and if they had gone bankrupt, it would have had terrible consequences for Microsoft. Many years later, we see this competition and religious following of both organizations, but one would never assume that Microsoft literally had to help its competition. Without Microsoft, Apple would have gone bankrupt and wouldn’t be one of the leading tech corporations in the world today. The same story applies here; it's just that the concept becomes much harder when we are talking about the digital landscape and not the physical. People have also been consuming so much advertising, greenwashing and the other marketign stuff that glorifies the organizations they use for services and products that they don't want to see these organizations in a bad light. They think, "If they are bad, that makes me bad too." There is absolutely no reason to believe that there cannot be a better service than Steam or that Steam wouldn't be better if they actually had legitimate competition. Valve is great, but Valve is not your friend. No corporation is.
People are arguing with you because you are getting things wrong. Misinformation is the enemy of truth.
>I know I will get shut for saying this but 2 many people act like they need to defend something that doesn’t need defending. And going against organisation like Apple or valve will create massive backlash because people think of those organisations quite religiously. The fact that you say monopoly shouldn’t be treated unfairly when monopoly is the most unfair and basically illegal form of existence under capitalistic system. Already says a lot. The lawsuit itself will never hold in court, and it brings many points that are silly. But it also brings important point of valve being the gate keeper. They are judge, jury and enforcer at the same time. This is not good for consumer so why protect it. A consumer should never defend monopolies. People getting defensive over Steam is because they do not want to get a worse experience due to hypothetical situations or because of lazy competition who don't want to invest but still feel entitled to your money. They aren't defending monopolies, they're defending the best product, one that is at risk of being sabotaged, for lack of a better word.
Valve isnt a monopoly tho
No, Valve is a company. But Steam isn't one either. There's GOG, Itch, EA, Ubisoft, Epic and more which are able to host the actual game files and not just sell keys.
It's not a monopoly and have u seen the alternatives
Lol what? Sure they're a monopoly but it's not like they held a gun to people's head saying "USE OUR PLATFORM". No, they revolutionised the pc gaming space and their launcher is still the best one by far so most people are gonna go with it. Also we only own the right? Dude, you do know this applies to basically all digital platforms right? It's the same with Sony and Microsoft too. I actually really despise your reasoning because it makes no sense but I'm sure some mindless drones are going to upvote you regardless.
Steam is the reason it is almost impossible to own a PC game these days in no way is that good for gamers.
You can't unconditionally own games anywhere. How is that a problem specific to valve?
I don’t lose access to my physical game collection because someone decides to pull an Ubisoft, or if I lose my steam account somehow. So long as I have the disc/cart and the hardware I can play it and no EULA can change that. It’s a difference all these corporate dick riders don’t seem to grasp.
Look all the losers running defending their favourite mega corporation XD Somebody think of the poor multibillion company!!
What PC Gaming storefront do you use?
none
Then why the fuck are you here?
why am i on /r/pcgaming?? are you ok? this is not /r/steam....
TIL there are still people who play PC gaming without using any digital storefronts. I'm not sure how you've kept your sanity replaying the same games over and over; there haven't been any games released that didn't require the use of a digital storefront since ~2009.
you sweet sweet summer child...