Suppose you are an European citizen and you live in Egypt. Valve used to block you from purchasing a game available in Europe. Despite the fact that you are European and your store settings were set to Europe. That’s geogblocking. Now valve is not allowed to do that according to EU law. They still deny access and discriminate based on geography with plenty of excuses. But they can’t use the IP geolocation anymore. Mind you, they still claimed not guilty despite the fact they were caught red handed and dragged the whole thing up to appeals. Despite the fact they still pretty much still do it for certain games from time to time.
Cheaper, or banned entirely by the Egyptian government. Valve is sort of in a tough spot here. The EU will fine them, but so will every authoritarian regime that bans anyone in the country from downloading banned items.
I used Egypt just as an example, the countries actually involved are Latvia and other EU countries. This is a really old case, it used to be the case that the steam store wouldn’t even open if your were not from the US. There’s a complex web of financial trade agreements and red tape behind making a global digital store with regional pricing available. There’s also a lot of shenanigans that go on to avoid abuse of regional pricing. Steam limits changing your store region to once every 6 months, for example. Which makes it impossible to exploit the regional pricing model. This case is precisely because Steam and the 5 stooges (Bandai Namco, Capcom, Focus Home, Koch Media and ZeniMax) didn’t want to let EU citizens from one country buy a cheaper version of the same game in another EU country. I think the most egregious thing is that Valve claimed not guilty, not by saying they didn’t do it, but that they did it and they were in their right to do so. The EU said, it’s not abusing the store, EU citizens are in their right to use whatever store from any other EU country under the single digital market law.
Unlike the EU, the rest of the world is still geoblocked, and discriminated by Steam. For instance, I can’t buy Elden Ring, I can’t even see their store webpage at all. Regional pricing is a good thing to make games affordable for different markets with different purchase and income levels (fuck Epic store), but it should be based on currency and payment method, not geographical location. This along with Nintendo’s regional blocking and the bullshit that Hollywood does wolrdwide are just anti-consumer manipulation.
Suppose you are an European citizen and you live in Egypt.
I don't think that is correct. The investigation began in 2015 by Margrethe Vestager. The focus is within the EU. Valve cannot prevent geo-blocking between EU countries. They're free to use IP geo-blocking, but users within the EU must be given the ability to switch to different EU stores. I.e. a Dane must be allowed to log into the Hungary store and purchase games at the local price. This has implications for keys as well, as a Dane must not be prevented from redeeming a Hungarian key, for example.
Within the EU, kind of. This doesn't prevent Steam from offering different prices by region, but they must allow users to log into different regions to make purchases at the localised prices. In practise, like all other products and services in the EU, prices will harmonise. In other words, they'll rise in some countries, and drop in others. There are a litany of benefits for the EU single market, so this law will not change. Valve must adapt.
Valve was fined €1.6 million ($1.7 million) for obstructing the sale of certain PC video games outside Europe. However, the company pleaded not guilty.
Wait, outside Europe?
Some countries make it illegal to buy certain video games. If Valve can't geoblock sale of them outside Europe, how are they supposed to conform with both sets of laws?
I remember that the EU didn't want country-specific pricing inside the EU, and had some case over that. That I get, because I can see the EU having an interest in not wanting it creating problems for mobility around the EU. But I hadn't heard about the EU going after vendors for not selling things outside Europe.
But retail law attaches to a location, not to citizenship. Why would the EU be mandating sale of things in other regions? I mean, it's not like the US says "if an American citizen is living in the EU, then vendors operating in the EU must follow American retail law when selling to him".
Steam specifies in its terms of use that it is prohibited to use a VPN or equivalent to change your location on the platform. Except that it takes the case of the activation of a game given to you by someone and sent to your account. Following Europe’s decision, this should technically change and it would be possible to change region in Steam directly to buy a game then activate it in France. Valve has not made a comment at this time.
Hmm. Okay, if that is an accurate summary -- and I am not sure that it is -- that seems like the EU is saying "you must be able to use a VPN to buy something anywhere in the world, then activate it in Europe". Yeah, I can definitely see Valve objecting to that, because that'd kill their ability to have one price in the (wealthy) EU and one in (poor) Eritrea, say. Someone in France would just VPN to Eritrea, buy at Eritrean prices, and then use it in France. The ability to have region-specific pricing is significant for digital goods, where almost all the costs are the fixed development costs.
thinks
If that is an accurate representation of the situation, that seems like it'd be pretty problematic for not just Valve, but also other digital vendors, since it'd basically force EU prices to be the same as the lowest prices that they could sell a digital product at in the world. I don't know how one would deal with that. I guess that they could make an EU-based company ("Valve Germany") or something that sells in the EU, and have a separate company that does international sales and does not sell in the EU.
I mean, otherwise a vendor is either going to not be able to offer something in Eritrea (using it as a stand-in for random poor countries), is going to have to sell it at a price that is going to be completely unaffordable to Eritreans, or is going to have to take a huge hit on pricing in the EU.
I'm a little suspicious that this isn't a complete summary of the situation, though; that seems like it'd create too many issues.
EDIT2: Though looking at my linked-to article, it seems to be that the author is saying that that's exactly what the situation is.
That's not quite the situation here. The EU is preventing price discrimination within the EU. Price discrimination is generally disallowed in the EU single market. This is intended to foster greater synergies and efficiencies of scale, as opposed to current international trade agreements which are slow to form, and even slower to update as necessary. Part of the single market is the requirement that products and services not discriminate solely on the basis of nationality. Companies are permitted to charge differing amounts based on location and channel, but every consumer in the EU must have the right to purchase that product or service at that location or channel for the same price.
The single market has been one of the major economic drivers for success in the EU, ensuring poor countries have been able to quickly catch up with developed nations. Poor nations can charge developed nation prices for their products and services without risk of systemic barriers or anti-competitive arbitrage. Software is no different. Harmonised access maximises competition, promotes growth, and keeps aggregate prices low. The cost is that prices will rise in some EU nations, as they fall in others.
The EU is preventing price discrimination within the EU.
They do have that requirement as part of the Digital Markets Act, but I don't believe that that's what the case here is addressing. That is not what the article OP posted or the article I linked to is saying: they are specifically saying that what is at issue is sales outside Europe.
EDIT: I am thinking that maybe the article is just in error. I mean, just from an economic standpoint, the EU doing this would create a major mess for international companies.
EDIT2: Okay, here's an archive.ph link of the original Bloomberg article:
Okay this article is shittily worded and the Bloomberg article it links to is paywalled so I found this which goes into much greater detail.
TLDR: Valve and five other publisher's were blocking activation of keys sold to people/distributors from distributors/vendors who purchased them from cheaper regions.
The article is shit. In the official response they talk about the following countries, none of them is outside Europe: Czechia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
I dunno… That seems a like disingenuous to make a game specifically for kids and then take no responsibility for what children are exposed to on said game. I’m all for parents taking responsibility and believe that’s a problem with many families today, but that just seems a shitty thing for him to say, IMHO.
Neo lib western ideals have toxic “personal responsibility” as a virtue.
Everything is your own fault, there are no external influences, pull yourself up by your bootstraps…
OH WAIT! Did my friends multi billion dollar company make many stupid decisions that will cost potentially everything? Better bail them out with the the publics money and tell everyone to not buy fancy things, like a TV or fridge, if they want to get survive.
I disagree I think this is the only answer. It’s the answer law makers should take as well. If parents did their job just because something is made specifically for kids doesn’t mean they are getting on it. There were a ton of things I wasn’t allowed to do as a kid.
This is a a business operating to target children to deliver them content they know is inappropriate for them.
This behaviour is predatory. It shouldn’t be tolerated against children. The content is promoted for children, so it’s reasonable for a parent to assume the content is appropriate for them.
Roblox isn’t so much “a game” but a collection of thousands of player created games (or “experiences” as the company calls them). You can find a bit of everything, from obstacle courses to first person shooters to casinos.
Since Roblox is so heavily targeted at children, it’s very easy to find pedophiles or other people with ill intent. Moderation doesn’t exist, afaik
I agree with you except for the fact that there’s just so much bullshit for kids out there, and parents are so exhausted right now (both are working and working longer). So it’d be nice if there was a system that actually looked out for children and people instead of businesses.
At the end of the day, though, it is still the parents’ responsibility. It just sucks that this person can wipe their hands of things and think that sufficient.
So it’d be nice if there was a system that actually looked out for children
Here’s the rub. Who’s version? Would your universal system protect just against gambling type things? How about sex stuff? Just porn or more? How much more? Should the system block anything related to questions or statements about homosexuality?
How about things that might be against a particular faith?
There’s no one set of rules that all parents can agree on as to what their children should or shouldn’t have access to. Until then, how can one system do what you’re asking?
Since you’re an idiot I’ll break this one down for you. Parents job = protect children. Governments job is to work for the citizens a majority of which are workers.
It’s the children’s parents’ fault they keep falling into the pit. The government should take no responsibility as child after child disappears, never to be seen again. We could fill the hole, but that’s parents job and there’s an acceptable amount of poor people’s children I’m willing to let vanish. It’s only impacting poor people’s children.
As someone who grew up poor with neglectful parents, it’s people like you who would cheer on my death. People would say it would destroy my fathers incentive to provide for me if they helped me. Let me tell you, there’s some people who just won’t provide for their children. It’s supply side Jesus applied exclusively to struggling children.
It is the parents fault, but children will suffer if we do nothing. Parents should tech kids not to get into strangers cars, but when they inevitably do we should still look for them.
How many poor kids is an acceptable sacrifice to you?
Maybe we should take down the orphan crushing machine even if it’s not our job.
Honestly the answer is to punish bad parents. Not all of society and reasonable families. There is no orphan crushing machine, it’s people who shouldn’t be parents not being educated in why they shouldn’t. And abortion being turned into something political instead of the best choice for 99% of pregnant persons.
Terrible abusive parents shouldn’t be forced to have children they don’t want or need isn’t eugenics. Shitty people should know their options and we should celebrate abortion as a moral victory. So much less suffering in the world when unwanted children don’t have to suffer for 18 years.
I agree with everything you say, pal. I wasn’t making fun of the fact that parents are being held accountable, I was making fun of the fact that the one who is holding parents accountable is the head of the platform that is harmful to children. I guess I didn’t make myself clear enough and I’m sorry for that.
I get ya, but it still seems like we’re trying to blame the guy providing the service in this instance. Which is again, giving people a pass to not have willpower or be parents.
We can definitely do both: blame the guy for not providing a healthy environment for his primary users, and blame the parents for not being aware of the dangers their children are exposed to.
Well that’s been my policy so far. Since there are literally no controls whatsoever over the content in Roblox, it looks like my kid will be old enough to play Halo before he’s old enough to play Roblox.
I have no problem with this, there are a lot of games out there.
For my kid it’s too late, I allowed her to play without documenting myself enough. Luckily it offers good parental controls, and I take that as an opportunity to educate her about what’s going on.
If I had kids now, I wouldn’t let them touch Roblox. My ex had a kid that he didn’t pay enough attention to. That was constantly falling in with online predators in Roblox and Discord. I reported a predator on discord and they made me go through and flag every picture the kid sent, not the whole conversation. wtf Discord. Keeping predators away on Roblox was harder.
mezha.media
Najstarsze