• 0 Posts
  • 37 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 5th, 2023

help-circle







  • Spedwell@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldSteam :: Introducing Steam Families
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    This is demonstrably wrong. The 30% cut is standard because Steam has used the same strategy as Amazon to fix prices across the market (a “Platform Most Favored Nation” clause—see the Wolfire Games v. Valve class action, specifically items 204 and 205 on pg 55). Competing storefronts cannot undercut Steam, so why would they take less than a 30% cut?

    Epic Games Store—which is trying to undercut steam at a 12% fee—still list games at the same price as on Steam because of Valve has strongarmed publishers into fixing the prices. If Epic is charging 18% less but Valve is stopping publishers from reducing the game cost by that much, how is that not blatantly anti-competitive and anti-consumer?

    enshitifies

    Oh good, you are familiar with Cory Doctorow. He has an article on how Amazon abuses their position using the exact same playbook Valve uses.



  • Spedwell@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldSteam :: Introducing Steam Families
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    You have to have never seriously engaged with the details of the Valve monopoly if you think that’s what we are upset about.

    We know Steam is an amazing storefront—I buy my games there because it’s the best experience for the cost. But Steam charges a premium. And despite taking smaller cuts, competing platforms like Epic cannot actual pass those cost savings to consumers because Valve is strongarming game publishers into fixing prices.


  • Spedwell@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldSteam :: Introducing Steam Families
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    Yep. Because honestly, Steam is better than Epic in almost every way. When you want to buy a particular game X, you get a lot more from your purchase if it’s on Steam (workshop, friends, multiplayer, etc.). There is strong inertia and network effects that keep us all preferring Steam.

    Epic can’t compete with the Steam experience. But if Epic was able to list everything 18% cheaper (the difference in fees between Epic and Steam)—then they would rightly be able to compete on price.


  • Spedwell@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldSteam :: Introducing Steam Families
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    “Platform Most Favored Nation”. It’s a type of clause in platform/marketplace agreements that prohibit a seller from listing their product for a lower price on a different sales platform. Specifically, it prevents selling on a different marketplace with lower fees (e.g. Epic Games or a publishers own website) and passing the difference as savings to the consumer.



  • Spedwell@lemmy.worldtoGames@lemmy.worldSteam :: Introducing Steam Families
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Sigh… I’m getting tired of the Valve apologetics in every thread. They make good products, yes. They also abuse their market share to implement anticompetitive policies. The first doesn’t absolve them of the second.

    Truth is, no one has any idea what it would look like if there were actual competition among the PC games platforms. Steam may be the best possible world, or maybe we don’t know what we’re missing.


    To learn more about Steam’s anticompetitive practices:


  • Additionally, there’s the usability hurdle of interacting with non-home instances from outside mastodon. If I pull up someone’s blog and click the little mastodon social media icon, it may very well link to mastodon.world. If my home instance is mastodon.social, now I have to launch into my own server, search up the account, and then begin interacting.

    It’s trivial to do but it is an extra step, but for your less-tech-literate friends and family it can be a point of confusion. Mastodon handles federation great in-ecosystem, but the broader web is still going to treat each instance as a different site.




  • That kind of model is unfortunately common for university courses. I had it for my language courses, and a couple of the core maths courses.

    The online platform justifies a subscription by providing additional resources, homework grading, etc. Fair enough, honestly, if they want to charge you $15 or something reasonable. But when textbook access gets rolled into the bundle, it tends to inflate the subscription cost and also have the convenient-for-the-publisher side effect of temporary access to the text. Lose-lose, from a student perspective.

    I had a course that required we buy a license to Pearson’s service in order to submit homework. $100+ to view a pdf for a semester and submit homework through a buggy form interface. I still hold a grudge against everyone in the department for that decision.