• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gaming giant Steam accused of ripping off 14m UK gamers

recursive

Member
When was that? I was using this a few years ago, like 5 or so, and both me and my bro could access my library.

Akaik, the only limitation was not being able to play the same game.

"A Steam library can only be used by one user at a time to play one game at a time. The same is true if that library is being accessed by another user via Family Sharing."
 
Main complainant was an until-now anonymous and unknown man known as Jim Breeney.

Jim Ryan's evil twin brother from the shadow realm.

Sounds like a lawsuit by people who have absolutely no clue how Steam or PC gaming work. If anything, this applies more to consoles.

Sounds like a lawsuit by people like SoloKingRober-uh I mean Florian Mueller at the behest of Microso-- idiots.
 
Last edited:

kruis

Exposing the sinister cartel of retailers who allow companies to pay for advertising space.
I guess the PlayStation and Nintendo "huge community" are also doing the same "winning" then

Screenshot-20240612-191650-Chrome.jpg

Screenshot-20240612-191424-PS-App.jpg




Cheapest steam key from a legit key seller is £6.19
 

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
The claim - which has been filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal, in London - accuses Valve of "shutting out" competition in the PC gaming market.

It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.

Ms Shotbolt says this has enabled Steam to charge an "excessive commission of up to 30%", making UK consumers pay too much for purchasing PC games and add-on content.
Same stupid lies as in the initial Wolfire lawsuit, it's Steam keys that have vague price parity terms (which makes sense as Steam still does all the distribution and support and online features etc. for free, plus it isn't even enforced and only there to avoid abuse) so it excludes competing "platforms".

There's always the alternative of not even providing free Steam keys for use on other storefronts (or only specifically allow one or two other partner stores rather than leave it up to the publishers/developers' wishes) like other "platforms" are doing I guess, if people really find these terms offensive.
 
Last edited:

ScHlAuChi

Member
Not really. He is saying this is price fixing. It isn't. Price fixing is collusion between competitors to keep prices high. This clause says a pub or dev can price it however they want as long as they give Steam users the same or better deal as others.
You are correct, price fixing is probably the wrong term.
But It is still market manipulation in their favor to prevent competitiors from competing.
Guess we will find out soon enough how the courts sees this.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
You are correct, price fixing is probably the wrong term.
But It is still market manipulation in their favor to prevent competitiors from competing.
Guess we will find out soon enough how the courts sees this.

How does this policy prevent competitors from competing?
 

ScHlAuChi

Member
How does this policy prevent competitors from competing?
By having price parity, competitors cannot undercut them - they have no way to attract consumers by offering lower prices - like it works in normal markets.
The only way to compete then is either exclusive content or services. But in both cases the market leader has a giant advantage there.
And no, Steam key-resellers are not real competitors to Steam even if they sell keys at lower prices.
Valve is fine with that, becasue those resellers have a tiny market share and the user is still locked into the Steam eco-system.

In my opinion breaking up Steam´s dominance would benefit not just the developers, but also the market as a whole - including the endusers!
But my opinion is unpopular, so I´m out of this thread now, as I have no interest in getting dog piled again by people who think I want to destroy their fav platform!
We will find out soon enough how the court will see this!
 

Topher

Identifies as young
By having price parity, competitors cannot undercut them - they have no way to attract consumers by offering lower prices - like it works in normal markets.
The only way to compete then is either exclusive content or services. But in both cases the market leader has a giant advantage there.
And no, Steam key-resellers are not real competitors to Steam even if they sell keys at lower prices.
Valve is fine with that, becasue those resellers have a tiny market share and the user is still locked into the Steam eco-system.

In my opinion breaking up Steam´s dominance would benefit not just the developers, but also the market as a whole - including the endusers!
But my opinion is unpopular, so I´m out of this thread now, as I have no interest in getting dog piled again by people who think I want to destroy their fav platform!
We will find out soon enough how the court will see this!

Eh....too many exclamation marks my man. It ain't all that. But if you want to exit the conversation then by all means do what you need to do.

The problem with your logic is that no other PC game seller is offering anything comparable to Steam. If this were just a thing that is sold in many stores then your "normal markets" argument would work but here it really does not. How do you solve the problem of the fact that so many games sold on non-Steam stores use Steam for support? You can't just say all these things are equal and Valve is abusing others when they are factually not equal at all.

Why shouldn't there be price parity for Steam when support parity doesn't exist at all?
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
How does this policy prevent competitors from competing?
Keep in mind said policy hasn't even been confirmed. Even in the wolfwire lawsuit they were vague on where exactly this was said.

There is also direct evidence that contradicts the existence of such policy or at least its enforcement, evidence the guy you're answering to ignored and instead pretended to be an idiot when it was pointed out to him.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
Keep in mind said policy hasn't even been confirmed. Even in the wolfwire lawsuit they were vague on where exactly this was said.

There is also direct evidence that contradicts the existence of such policy or at least its enforcement, evidence the guy you're answering to ignored and instead pretended to be an idiot when it was pointed out to him.

Ah....ok. Thanks. Why do people hate Steam? I really just do not get it.

answer: I lied. it's because Steam isn't a console.
 
Last edited:

ScHlAuChi

Member
Ah....ok. Thanks. Why do people hate Steam? I really just do not get it.
See, that is exactly the problem, critizising Valve/Steam automatically means one is hating on it.
By looking at it emotionally or interpreting it that way, any critical argument is an attack.
But that isnt true, as a consumer I have no problem with Steam at all, I have over 600 games on it.

I also shop at Amazon, use Google and Android, and yet I still think that those dominant companies should be regulated or broken up!
We know from history that such companies are always detrimental for the market in the long term.
Valve willingly broke Australian and EU consumer laws before, so please excuse me for not drinking their corporate cool aid.
I dont critizise Steam/Valve becasue I hate them, I critizise them becasue I want them to be better for devs and consumers!

But now im out!
 

Three

Gold Member
Last edited:

Zathalus

Member
By having price parity, competitors cannot undercut them - they have no way to attract consumers by offering lower prices - like it works in normal markets.
The only way to compete then is either exclusive content or services. But in both cases the market leader has a giant advantage there.
And no, Steam key-resellers are not real competitors to Steam even if they sell keys at lower prices.
Valve is fine with that, becasue those resellers have a tiny market share and the user is still locked into the Steam eco-system.

In my opinion breaking up Steam´s dominance would benefit not just the developers, but also the market as a whole - including the endusers!
But my opinion is unpopular, so I´m out of this thread now, as I have no interest in getting dog piled again by people who think I want to destroy their fav platform!
We will find out soon enough how the court will see this!
I'm pretty sure the policy only applies to Steam Keys being sold elsewhere. You are free to have your game on Epic/GoG as well and have different discounts and prices there.
 

chikydee

Member
Steam definitely does dominate the PC gaming scene which I find unfortunate, as competition would certainly help the industry and gamers specifically. But until the other corporations come up with something as feature rich and useful as the steam launcher, nothing is likely to change. I personally prefer GOG because of the absence of DRM but there's no denying the GOG launcher is nowhere near as sophisticated and convenient as the steam launcher.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
See, that is exactly the problem, critizising Valve/Steam automatically means one is hating on it.
By looking at it emotionally or interpreting it that way, any critical argument is an attack.
But that isnt true, as a consumer I have no problem with Steam at all, I have over 600 games on it.

I also shop at Amazon, use Google and Android, and yet I still think that those dominant companies should be regulated or broken up!
We know from history that such companies are always detrimental for the market in the long term.
Valve willingly broke Australian and EU consumer laws before, so please excuse me for not drinking their corporate cool aid.
I dont critizise Steam/Valve becasue I hate them, I critizise them becasue I want them to be better for devs and consumers!

Did you read what I was responding to? Ignoring evidence that suggests there is no such policy at all but criticizing Valve for it anyway is clearly hating. Your purchases don't mean a thing. You can't buy objectivity.

But now im out!

Disagree Season 3 GIF by The Lonely Island
 
Last edited:
I keep seeing people saying 30% is a fair cut - but man, taking 30% of someone else's profits just seems excessive to me. Even half that seems like a lot but ok, but 30% - come on.
 

Sentenza

Member
I keep seeing people saying 30% is a fair cut - but man, taking 30% of someone else's profits just seems excessive to me. Even half that seems like a lot but ok, but 30% - come on.
It's not just "taking", though. They are selling developers something and getting their share.

As a developer you are getting a lot for that cut.
- access to a very large user base, for one. And occasionally if the stars align some store visibility.
- their bandwidth, server hosting, etc.
- full feature integration (family sharing, steam input, proton compatibility layer, you name, their online multiplayer infrastructure if you choose to make use of it, etc).

If you are a brand selling on stores, you are going to pay them a cut.
If you are a company offering goods or services and you have "free agents" finding you clients (i.e. selling your houses, cars, insurance policies, etc) you are going to pay them a cut.
And so on.

The whining about paying said cut is as old as the market itself, but it never went anywhere because in the end most will recognize it's fair. "We are helping each other make more money, you'll get your cut".

Somehow, it's only developers who seem to increasingly have this toddler mentality for which "I should pay no one for anything, I did all the things myself" (except all the ones they didn't).
The publishers that invest heavily (and blindly) on their work? "They are evil because they want to see a ROI and have these pesky things called deadlines.
The stores/service providers? "They are profiting from MY work without doing anything".
They should try to go solo and see how that works out for them.
 

Magic Carpet

Gold Member
I keep seeing people saying 30% is a fair cut - but man, taking 30% of someone else's profits just seems excessive to me. Even half that seems like a lot but ok, but 30% - come on.
Would be nice to see a difference that wasn't some dark backroom behind the scene deal.
AAA pays 30 percent and gets front page adverts in the store.
Poor indy pays 30 percent and gets a thumbnail somewhere in a doom scroll.
GTA pays secretly a 5 percent but gets front page headlines for years and years and years.

All hypopathetical of course.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
I keep seeing people saying 30% is a fair cut - but man, taking 30% of someone else's profits just seems excessive to me. Even half that seems like a lot but ok, but 30% - come on.
You think that's a lot? Wait until you see how much of the sale gets taken by government taxes.
 

hidaaan

Neo Member
lmao so that shithole still exists, they should just merge with r/pcgaming and r/steam since it's the same deranged circlejerk.
more than 5 years now since EGS launched and it still triggers
The different breeds you find on that sub are on a whole new level. If pettiness and loneliness could be manifested into a community, that subreddit comes into mind 🤣

Also I'm sure that clown subreddit was formed from r/pcgaming
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom