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 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.