they’re saying that publishers can’t take a higher price on steam than on other platforms. basically they don’t want their customers to pay a premium for using their platform.
Not exactly. If you buy a game on Steam, Valve takes a 30% cut of the first $10Mn in sales of that game and then lowers that cut as the game makes more sales.
BUT that 30% cut does not include Steam Keys. Steam Keys are free to generate and for use on non-Steam e-retailers. Valve do not make a 30% cut from Steam Keys.
Allegedly, WB and Ubisoft and Wolfire/Dark Catt have stated that they were told they can’t sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than the same game is sold on Steam.
So the question is, do WB and Ubisoft and Dark Catt/Wolfire actually have proof that Valve is forcing them to sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than they do on Steam.
Or, do they specifically mean Steam Keys can’t be sold for cheaper on other store fronts (which makes a whole lot of sense).
Steam isn’t just the retailer in this scenario but the manufacturer. The companies/devs who own the game license Steam to produce their product at scale.
the deal the publishers make with valve is that steam versions of games need to be priced the same everywhere. if they’re not offering steam keys they’re free to set any price.
also, if a publisher “wanted” to sell it for a lower price all they needed to do was lower the price everywhere. that’s not what’s happening.
if they’re not offering steam keys they’re free to set any price.
Read the fucking article. They’re being sued BECAUSE they threatened to remove a game because a different version that isn’t on steam (no steam key) was being sold elsewhere for cheaper.
The thing you said isn’t happening is EXACTLY THE THINGS THEY’RE BEING SUED FOR DOING.
the starter pack was not available on steam. that means it’s a collection of dlc. the online nature of the game means that dlc is also available on steam, it’s just the package deal that isn’t. that’s textbook the thing they outline in their policy.
Yup. It would simply be more fair if this rule would be applied after distributors took their cut. Let devs make their games cheaper when platforms ask for a smaller share. That‘d only be reasonable.
they’re saying that publishers can’t take a higher price on steam than on other platforms. basically they don’t want their customers to pay a premium for using their platform.
But steam is taking an additional 30% for themselves. So the customer is always paying that premium.
Not exactly. If you buy a game on Steam, Valve takes a 30% cut of the first $10Mn in sales of that game and then lowers that cut as the game makes more sales.
BUT that 30% cut does not include Steam Keys. Steam Keys are free to generate and for use on non-Steam e-retailers. Valve do not make a 30% cut from Steam Keys.
Allegedly, WB and Ubisoft and Wolfire/Dark Catt have stated that they were told they can’t sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than the same game is sold on Steam.
So the question is, do WB and Ubisoft and Dark Catt/Wolfire actually have proof that Valve is forcing them to sell non-Steam Keys at other retailers for cheaper than they do on Steam.
Or, do they specifically mean Steam Keys can’t be sold for cheaper on other store fronts (which makes a whole lot of sense).
Steam isn’t just the retailer in this scenario but the manufacturer. The companies/devs who own the game license Steam to produce their product at scale.
if prices are the same, then the publisher is the one paying the premium.
Not of the publisher is just pricing it 30% higher. Remember: they wanted to sell it for a lower price on their own stores and valve was against that.
So now the consumer has to pay more everywhere
the deal the publishers make with valve is that steam versions of games need to be priced the same everywhere. if they’re not offering steam keys they’re free to set any price.
also, if a publisher “wanted” to sell it for a lower price all they needed to do was lower the price everywhere. that’s not what’s happening.
Read the fucking article. They’re being sued BECAUSE they threatened to remove a game because a different version that isn’t on steam (no steam key) was being sold elsewhere for cheaper.
The thing you said isn’t happening is EXACTLY THE THINGS THEY’RE BEING SUED FOR DOING.
Stop it
the starter pack was not available on steam. that means it’s a collection of dlc. the online nature of the game means that dlc is also available on steam, it’s just the package deal that isn’t. that’s textbook the thing they outline in their policy.
That is not what will happen in practice.
Yup. It would simply be more fair if this rule would be applied after distributors took their cut. Let devs make their games cheaper when platforms ask for a smaller share. That‘d only be reasonable.