Valve is being sued because they are forcing others to follow policies that further entrenches Steam as the largest store.
Since Epic bought the game developer, it only applies to themselves. It is much harder to sue someone over a decision that only applies to something they own. How can a company be sued for not selling their product at a store? Should Valve be sued for not selling their own games on Epic or GOG?
Is Epic’s decision to only sell their games on their store annoying for users? Yes. But unfortunately, there is nothing illegal about. There would be a better chance of a lawsuit of Epic paying other game developers for exclusivity, but that would still not be easy as game exclusivity is still a significant factor on game consoles as well. Albeit much less than in the past.
Not allowing devs to sell steam download codes on other stores, But the ban only applies if they are selling the download code for cheaper than Steam
Not allowing devs to sell steam DLC download codes on other stores
I don’t think 1 or 2 puts other stores at any disadvantage. If a store wants to sell steam download codes then Valve has to get their normal cut. If they don’t want to pay the valve tax, then they don’t need to offer a Steam download code.
There are laws that say that abusing a monopoly is illegal. Steam is objectively a monopoly in pc games. Sure, you don’t have to use it, but it is basically impossible for indie developers to make a living without it.
Now, the question is if valve’s actions are actually abusing the monopoly, or normal business practices.
It only applies to Steam product keys though, so developers cannot sell cheap Steam keys on other platforms while still taking advantage of Steam's services.
As per my understanding (which isn’t saying much), Steam takes a 30% cut of each sale. In UK, someone with a specific agenda claimed to represent gamers as a class and sued reasoning that the 30% cut inflates the price of games globally even beyond Steam’s store, harming everyone.
Did i understand it right? No idea. What’s the actual goal here? Also no idea. Is Steam the “good guy” in all this? Of course not.
I think devs actually get quite a bit for that 30%. Let’s present a hypothetical. What if Valve offered an option where you could list your game on Steam with no restrictions and they’d only take a 10% cut, but the tradeoff is, they won’t promote your game at all? Like, it won’t show up in any Steam storefront advertisements, can’t participate in sales, etc. - it’s still there if it’s linked to from off-Steam or if someone searches for it, but it won’t be promoted, period.
How do you think that would work out for developers? I’d argue not well, especially for small studios.
The promotion those games get applies to the game as a whole, not only through Steam - someone can see the promotion on Steam, then go shop around and buy it elsewhere. Why should Valve promote a game if they aren’t getting a cut of the sales?
Yeah, it’s no longer for sale. If you bought it before it was delisted, you can still download/play it through steam. What is fucking atrocious is that I had to go and make an account with epic to play. Well, they can spam and sell my ‘nannerbanner’sfakeemailforepiccunts@proton.me’ all they want. Fucking cunts. .
I had Nebula for a while, I did the $6 monthly plan. I got rid of it because I’m a broke bitch, but I really enjoyed the platform and there are many creators on there.
If Epic spent half as much money as they are suing organisations and instead funded developing their shop into a gaming community platform like Steam, they’d probably have caught up by now.
To be honest, Epic is doing a good job of tearing down walled gardens in places like mobile, and we’ll probably be better off for it. But yeah, they’ve done a terrible job of competing with Steam.
it’s often more risky and expensive to hire, train and develop systems and communities like that, especially when doing it against the tide, than to just try to trip up the competition. It’s not just that it’s dificult and it costs money, but it’s not preferred because investors abhor risks.
Isn’t this seen in global politics all the time. When US says China is too dominant in X and we need to fight it. They are not saying that US will invest in shit that will help them compete. All or 90% of the actions is to try to trip up, sabotage and sanction the competition.
It also offers a Lifetime membership, currently $300. Nebula is very transparent that this is not intended to be a good deal for customers. You should only do this if you strongly dislike recurring costs, and/or if you want to support Nebula. The CEO has stated that this is their alternative to seeking venture funding. It allows them to raise large amounts of money for more expensive investments (such as Nebula Originals, including Jason Slaughter’s upcoming “Day Pass”), without selling out their ownership to corporate interests.
The Horse Armor is definitely an early form of microtransations, but it’s not the first type. A lot of people think of it as the first “paid for dlc”, but that’s not quite right either. Because it didn’t really add any new content, it just altered existing content. It was the first kind of paid “mod” of game. But even that’s not quite accurate either. Because “Mods” include things that enhance gameplay, add/improve features, etc. What the horse armor really showed is that people would spend money for different “Skins”. Horse armor was the first paid for “skin”. Character skins, weapon skins, gun charms, etc etc.
But even given all that, the horse armor still isn’t the start of microtransactions in games.
Crystals/EnergyShards/Feathers/etcetcetc. The price wall/gatekeep bullshit meant to restrict play unless you paid. Those are the first real “microtranscations”. And for that you can thank casual games that predate the SmartPhone era. Like FarmVille.
bin.pol.social
Aktywne