Steam was saying that if they want to sell it cheaper elsewhere then they should also sell it cheaper on steam. Steam threatened to delist the game if the prices weren’t consistent because it was comparatively overpriced by a significant amount.
They did not say the publisher needed to raise the price elsewhere, just that it needed to be consistent.
But that’s the whole point of this. Why should steam have a say in it, how expensive or cheap different games are sold on different platforms. They basically prevent price competition. To be fair in this case selling the starter pack only on Ubisoft Connect (exclusivity) is also anti competitive and worth investigating, but the point stands. Why should steam have the power to force Gamedevs to have price parity with other stores, if the versions of the other stores don’t have anything to do with steam? Why can’t some games be cheaper in other stores, where the stores take a smaller cut of the profits?
Yes Ubisoft is evil, but that doesn’t make Valve the good ones.
Yes Steam has more and better features, but that doesn’t mean other stores should be prohibited to compete on price.
Yes Steam has the largest Playerbase by far, but how many people would switch if games where just always 20% cheaper on other platforms? This price competition seems to be the exact thing that Valve tries to block.
And this is not about keys at all. Steam has of course the right to set the price for their steam keys, because they provide the servers, interfaces, etc.
Steam is choosing not to distribute the game at a significantly higher price than elsewhere if the publisher is choosing that pricing structure. The publisher can either choose to distribute on steam with a comparable (not identical) price on steam or not distribute on steam.
Steam isn’t making the publisher do anything on other storefronts and as you pointed out what Ubi was doing was anticompetitive.
Well, the second story in the linked article is about the same version of the game sold at different price points and Valve rejected it because the price was “significantly higher” on steam.
Now the problem is, we don’t know what “significantly higher” means because Valve did not specify it. But the base line for “allowed” cheaper prices should be the 30% steam cut, shouldn’t it? So a game can be 30% cheaper somewhere else, which in turn makes the steam version around ~42% more expensive. Which could very well fall in the category of “significantly higher.”
But I guess this is why we have the lawsuit to figure this out. I’m just a bit annoyed at a lot of people here jumping directly to conclusions without even reading the linked article. I guess my main point is, that it is POSSIBLE that steam is guilty in contrast to a lot of people just saying “Steam Keys!!!” and denying the possibility of wrongdoing. If it turns out Steam is not forcing something of a price parity, I too would be very happy.
On the other side is an assumption that a publisher can just set significantly sifferent prices in different store fronts and are entitled to being on those store fronts. That isn’t the case either, brick and mortar stores have always had the option to not carry an item when the sale price is significantly different than other store fronts.
The 30% thing is also incredibly misrepresented. Regular and online stores always have a significant markup for the vast majority of their stock, with a few high profile items as exceptions to that rule.
Steam was saying that if they want to sell it cheaper elsewhere then they should also sell it cheaper on steam. Steam threatened to delist the game if the prices weren’t consistent because it was comparatively overpriced by a significant amount.
They did not say the publisher needed to raise the price elsewhere, just that it needed to be consistent.
But that’s the whole point of this. Why should steam have a say in it, how expensive or cheap different games are sold on different platforms. They basically prevent price competition. To be fair in this case selling the starter pack only on Ubisoft Connect (exclusivity) is also anti competitive and worth investigating, but the point stands. Why should steam have the power to force Gamedevs to have price parity with other stores, if the versions of the other stores don’t have anything to do with steam? Why can’t some games be cheaper in other stores, where the stores take a smaller cut of the profits?
Yes Ubisoft is evil, but that doesn’t make Valve the good ones.
Yes Steam has more and better features, but that doesn’t mean other stores should be prohibited to compete on price.
Yes Steam has the largest Playerbase by far, but how many people would switch if games where just always 20% cheaper on other platforms? This price competition seems to be the exact thing that Valve tries to block.
And this is not about keys at all. Steam has of course the right to set the price for their steam keys, because they provide the servers, interfaces, etc.
Steam is choosing not to distribute the game at a significantly higher price than elsewhere if the publisher is choosing that pricing structure. The publisher can either choose to distribute on steam with a comparable (not identical) price on steam or not distribute on steam.
Steam isn’t making the publisher do anything on other storefronts and as you pointed out what Ubi was doing was anticompetitive.
Well, the second story in the linked article is about the same version of the game sold at different price points and Valve rejected it because the price was “significantly higher” on steam.
Now the problem is, we don’t know what “significantly higher” means because Valve did not specify it. But the base line for “allowed” cheaper prices should be the 30% steam cut, shouldn’t it? So a game can be 30% cheaper somewhere else, which in turn makes the steam version around ~42% more expensive. Which could very well fall in the category of “significantly higher.”
But I guess this is why we have the lawsuit to figure this out. I’m just a bit annoyed at a lot of people here jumping directly to conclusions without even reading the linked article. I guess my main point is, that it is POSSIBLE that steam is guilty in contrast to a lot of people just saying “Steam Keys!!!” and denying the possibility of wrongdoing. If it turns out Steam is not forcing something of a price parity, I too would be very happy.
Thank you very much for discussing in good faith.
On the other side is an assumption that a publisher can just set significantly sifferent prices in different store fronts and are entitled to being on those store fronts. That isn’t the case either, brick and mortar stores have always had the option to not carry an item when the sale price is significantly different than other store fronts.
The 30% thing is also incredibly misrepresented. Regular and online stores always have a significant markup for the vast majority of their stock, with a few high profile items as exceptions to that rule.