$843 million lawsuit against Valve already has its own website: "The Steam Claim" accuses the biggest store in PC gaming of "overcharging" players : pcgaming

[-] dinckelman@lemmy.world 124 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Every time I see a post with this specific claim, targeted at Valve, i just can't help but laugh.

Yes. They take a cut.

Yes. Everyone else takes the same cut, so you're biased, if you don't understand this.

Yes. They are an undisputed leader in the market, but no, that's not called a monopoly.

The difference is that Valve, while taking this cut, and being as big as they are, are consistently investing that money into improvement of the platform, AND also paying people to directly contribute to OSS, that affects everyone else in the market too.

Not to even mention the regular, very considerable discounts, practically platform-wide. Show me a time when Nintendo have done the same. A 10 year old copy of MK8 is still 50$

This isn't even a bogus claim, but just a waste of everyone's time

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago

And paying yachts for Gaben, you forgot to mention the money also goes to doing that.

Get that in your head people, if someone can sell you stuff and it makes them a billionaire then you got overcharged, you can find all kinds of excuses to defend them, they're still making more a day in interests with 1 billion invested than the median income over four years.

[-] dinckelman@lemmy.world 24 points 4 months ago

What he does with his money is none of my concern. Unlike the vast majority of other CEOs in his market cap tier, he's actually paid fairly, compared to an average worker at Valve

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

He's

A

Billionaire

No, he's not paid fairly, no one should have that kind of wealth.

He makes more from the interest on his fortune than the average salary at Valve even if the average is very high.

There's no reason to defend billionaires, no matter how good they pretend to be.

[-] Abnorc@lemm.ee 12 points 4 months ago

I highly doubt that most people, given the opportunity, would not live like a billionaire. If someone builds a company like Valve, they're going to live very well. That doesn't say as much about the person as it does about the economic system.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

That's the thing though, no one should get to live like that while the majority has a hard time affording basic needs.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 17 points 4 months ago

That doesn't mean you got overcharged. I feel the prices I pay to Valve are fair value for what I receive in return.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 months ago

Because you've been conditioned to undervalue your money. If they can make a billionaire out of someone it's because money is being hoarded instead of being distributed as it should.

[-] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

If you are going to point out that Valve is a capitalist company, I'd say you are picking on one of the rare ones that return more value than many others in the whole capitalist world economy. Gabe having a yatch is an indecent use of wealth? Yeah, no person needs or deserves a yatch while we have famine and wage slaving in the world.

If you believe the company that has the best pro-consumer practices in the industry (maybe tied with GOG thanks to their no-DRM policy) should be the first to take the responsibility to be the one that is even more altruistic, I'd say you are asking for destabilization of an already decent company to give way to the literal vultures waiting for it to die so they can have their fat shares for their shareholders.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

They're not decent if the boss can afford six yachts, they're ripping you off while acting nice and you think you had a deal because of their nice smile.

[-] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

What everyone is debating with you is that you are wrong in picking your target while your base claim of enabling someone, anyone at all, to be a billionaire is correct.

You are wrong in picking Valve or Gaben as exploitative wealthy scum, because Valve is the closest thing to something that is not exploitative corporation, while Gaben as the head and sole person having the final say in which direction to go and which not to go, has been the best guardian of unexploitative gaming entertainment. If you think I'm making these up, please search around to see if you can find the equivalent of these features in any of the meaningfully-accessible companies: Family sharing, Proton, Steam Friends, Steam Network, Steam Workshop, Steam Community Hub.

Steam Family sharing: The current version enables players to have access to the games in other's libraries as long as those accounts are not having access at the same time. The upcoming version allows for access to other's games as long as there are enough copies in the sharing pool. In the age others in the entertainment industry is cracking down accessibility with ever increasing prices, like Netflix' oppression on password sharing or even having access to your own account on multiple devices, please don't tell me this Family sharing improvements by Valve isn't extremely pro-consumer.

Proton: Provides an almost silver bullet, or an easily configurable base template, for gaming on Linux. You can be a Windows or Mac user all you want and never give a thought to Linux, but you can't argue not letting Windows have monopoly over PC gaming by enabling access to gaming on free OS isn't a completely pro-consumer endeavour. It is also open source, so they are not even gatekeeping their own work on this.

Friends and Network: While having no-DRM copies from GOG is great and all, having your games connect to your friend's games, or forming completely random lobbies in seconds, with just a couple clicks requires some always-present middleman. Your no-DRM copies can stay with you till eternity, but you'll have to configure your own methods of connection to your friends outside your local network.

Workshop: Mods hosting for games that support it, and easy installation with 1 click. Yes, there are still free alternatives like Nexus, but they show you ads to meet their hosting needs, so in that sense they are as free as Valve sparing budget from their 30% cut from game sales to Workshop.

Community Hub: A catalogue of all game-related stuff, from guides to memes, troubleshooting threads to feedback, promotion space for developers to knowledge database for players. Open to the whole world wide web and not restricted to account walls or pay walls.

Now, I agree that even providing these services with the best quality-and-features-per-buck option out there, there shouldn't be billionaires while there are starvation and wage slaving ones life this prominent in the world. While these issues persist, having yatches to one person's or a few people's name is an indecent behaviour that should not be allowed in a working social contract. However, when you look at the rest of the companies in the same industry, or even other industries, there are way worse offenders of this wealth inequality that don't even come close to Valve in providing the same quality-and-features-per-buck value, while having billionaires and actually striving to make them more wealthy instead of providing more for the customers and workers.

Case in point: You are not even looking a gift horse in the mouth; you are beating your most hard working horse for eating a hearty meal, claiming you are right in that amount of meal is not needed to survive, all the while letting the rest of your slacking horses raid your pantry without batting an eye. Pressure the others to provide better services per buck, also at a self-sustaining rate so as to not be deprived of it a year later, first.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 2 points 4 months ago

I'm picking at Valve because this is a fucking discussion about Valve, why would I talk about Microsoft or Apple or Tesla or Shell in a discussion about Valve, please tell me.

[-] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

And what you don't understand is that this whole affair about "Valve taking 30% cut is overcharging" is bogus. Valve and whole others can sell fully-fledged carrots at $1M each, with Valve adding better packaging and better preservation while doing discounts regularly, all the while Epic can sell a malnourished and cut-out one at $500k each and give away a stale and cut-out one for free regularly.

Both are expensive if their base prices can be discounted by electing smaller margin of profits. (That is another topic as Steam is doing jackload of live-service that can't be served as an offline service, without any form of subscription or recurring payments.) Even so, picking on the one that offers a sustainable price plan and fully-fledged product with extra benefits just because it is pricey for your wallet while all others in the market do a poorer job at the same prices or price-per-value is just grabbing your pitchfork because someone else started a riot against your cordial and caring overseer while the world around you is rife with jackals who'd like to be your king.

Go bug Gaben to spend more of his personal wealth gained through Valve's distributed earnings on betterment of the product they serve rather than on the yatches. Don't go around asking just Valve to get less cushion for experimentation, being generous in return, lax bout worker load and project development, etc., while they are the sole company doing that. Better yet, push your governments to install blanket resolutions against exorbitant wealth accumulations or uneven wealth distributions so that both better product development is prioritized and all employees are rewarded fairly if any single one is to be rewarded.

Anyway, I'm changing the discussion to be about how Stephen Hawking's name is on Epstein's list. Lets talk about this, I don't care whether there are more concerning people named on that list or whether Hawking is unique for his contributions in some fields. Hell, I am not even interested in if the discussion is worthwhile through the factuality of the claim or the scope of the claim because why, this is a discussion about Stephen Hawking being on Epstein's list now.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They're still overcharging if their owner could make himself a billionaire out of it and you're here defending them while you're overpaying for games that should be much cheaper.

You'll never be one of them, you'll never be close to be one of them, the rich can get fucked, none of them are just or moral, none of their businesses are just or moral, the sooner we burn them down the better.

Edit: Fucking lol, someone from Turkey defending an American billionaire and his company. Average income in your country is going down, it's under 3k€ and you're here defending a fucking billionaire? Wow, you've got your priorities straight mate! People from your country have no purchasing power and you're against people trying to make it so people get more for their money? Are you for real?

[-] Land_Strider@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

They may be overcharging, they are most likely overcharging if it can make a billionaire among them. Is it anti-consumer? In the context of current capitalist economy and comparable, even rival companies present? And if you have reading comprehension, you'll notice that there is a paragraph in all of my comments to you mentioning Gaben's yatches being obscene and shouldn't be. Anyway, skip to the part below, ending it there:

I never had a dream of becoming a billionaire, or dreaming about those yatches. Or being aspired to and been jealous of through riches. As you have noted, I'm from Turkey and we don't have the fucking American Dream here, dude. But what we had is: Cheapest gaming PC game purchases thanks to Steam for all the goddamn years. Even when we had quite a competitive economy before our glorious economist-god-emperor Tayyip fucked our economy, we were able to buy your 60€ all-stores-including-own-store triple-A games for like 5€-10€. Indie games? Man you won:t believe it, but cents. Now you make the calculations about how much Steam exploited us.

Anyway, I, too, can enjoy this criticism-deflection game, so here goes my response to your personal background digging: Go suck Tim Swiney's epic child-addiction-exploitating-Fortnite-whatever-the-fuck-ever-is-exclusive-dick after you find solace that you supported grinding down the best gaming store that is practicing the most pro-customer policies reliably in a stable and self-sustaining capacity over more than a decade and a half.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago

"Is overcharging anti consumer?"

You're a fucking idiot.

[-] Yamayo@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

They're still overcharging if their owner could make himself a billionaire out of it and you're here defending them while you're overpaying for games that should be much cheaper.

Games in PC began to be cheap thanks to Valve, no one offered the huge discounts like they did in the past. I pirated everything for years but I stopped thanks to valve's prices. No one became even close to what they offered, and they have become what they are right now with good practices and good services. They could slash their cut in half and still be profitable? Probably, but they are not an NGO.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

"they are not an NGO"

Sure, but there's a point in-between making billions and being an NGO.

What's funny is that there's no reason why they couldn't be a non profit.

[-] WarlordSdocy@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The cut they take is just one of the claims they have against Valve. Some of the other ones which another comment mentioned seem like fair arguments against Valve. The whole forcing pricing parity so game devs can't offer the games for cheaper somewhere else and DLC from other platforms isn't compatible with the Steam game and vice versa. And again you can say other platforms are doing that and worse too but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also go after Valve for it. Just cause they're a private company and because of that aren't as profit driven as other companies doesn't mean they still are gonna do things like this to increase their profits and maintain their majority market share on PC games.

[-] CriticalMiss@lemmy.world 70 points 4 months ago

I see what Vicky is attempting to do. But there's nothing stopping publishers from going over to the Epic Games Store for example and selling their content there. Valve does nothing to suppress competition (it can't really either), the competition is just bad.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 39 points 4 months ago

Exactly. Epic's complaint is that steam has such a large user base that they can get away with the percentage they charge, but nothing is stopping people from having every game selling storefront at the same time. Steam doesn't do crappy stuff like exclusive deals with other companies to draw people in.

Now I only used Epic for a couple years, but I don't remember them doing sales. They did the free stuff which was mostly shovel ware crap, and their games stayed full price. I get games regularly at a discount on steam, which is a better deal as a user.

Epic is just whining that their terrible approach isn't as good as steam's.

[-] ogeist@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

They can and had done it before, see the link at the bottom of the article. Basically, game devs are forced to sell the game at the same retail price in all platforms regardless of the commission cut of the platform according to Steam license. BUT as a customer, usually other platforms are more expensive, so mileage may vary. I like Steam a lot and support it whenever I can but if there is evidence of wrongdoing I would change my mind, however, the complaint from the article smells strongly to cashgrab.

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The price parity thing exclusively is for Steam key distribution. If you're going to distribute a steam license key via another platform, it must be priced the same as it is on Steam itself.

Nothing in that says they can't publish on multiple platforms independently and charge different prices on them, as long as the other platform isn't selling you a game you can unlock on your Steam library. It would have to unlock on, say, Epic's store library.

You also have sites like Humble Bundle that either get a special pass from Valve (I mean, isn't that a charity organization?) or the violation of distributing steam keys at different prices isn't enforced.

[-] ogeist@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

See the comment from furikuri

[-] stardust@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 months ago

Do they? As a long time user of /r/gamedeals and isthereanydeals that is focused on game sales I've got tons of games cheaper than they were being sold directly through steam. Humble monthly being one of the best with sometimes price of like 8 game bundles being less than the cost of the cheapest price a single game went on sale.

[-] ogeist@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

See the comment from furikuri

[-] FreeFacts@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Valve does nothing to suppress competition (it can't really either)

They at least used to have a rule that publishers can't sell cheaper on other platforms (outside of timed sales that is), meaning that consumers can't get a better price on other storefronts even when those platforms would take a smaller cut. That was very much suppressing the competition as them taking smaller cuts can't transfer into cheaper prices if the publisher also wanted to sell on Steam.

[-] chaosmarine92@reddthat.com 11 points 4 months ago

My understanding is that valve says publishers can't sell their games steam keys cheaper on other platforms but can charge whatever they want if steam is not the one providing the download. Network infrastructure isn't free and if steam is the one actually facilitating the download they get to take their share.

[-] furikuri@programming.dev 5 points 4 months ago

I'm not too familiar with the details but there is this excerpt from a blog post by Wolfire Games from 2021 where they say this wasn't the case. Haven't checked it's validity or if it's relevant information to this case, but it is something

When new video game stores were opening that charged much lower commissions than Valve, I decided that I would provide my game "Overgrowth" at a lower price to take advantage of the lower commission rates. I intended to write a blog post about the results.

But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.

http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action

[-] vaquedoso@lemmy.world 47 points 4 months ago

This is a bogus claim. Steam is by far the most compettitive of the bunch

[-] 9point6@lemmy.world 32 points 4 months ago

There's a thread somewhere else on lemmy about this from a couple of days ago, I think the conclusion was that this was a law firm going for a cash grab and the claims were pretty flimsy, they're going after Sony too.

[-] CorrodedCranium@leminal.space 29 points 4 months ago

I am not a fan of the title the article uses. It seems more about Steam abusing their near monopoly in a way that hurts publishers. The overcharging aspect seems more like a byproduct

[-] JohnnyH842@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

I bought Skyrim for $9.

[-] Agrivar@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago

I would much rather see this level of dedication aimed at an evil corporation. Save pestering the good guys for WAAAAAY later - like, after we've fixed everything else.

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

What's their claim? With the ridiculous number of sales I've always found steam to be cheap.

[-] Zahille7@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

I literally just bought 3 games for $30 this morning.

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 9 points 4 months ago

I really wanted to see the effect of valve lowering their cut. It would be pretty funny IMHO since currently people are always talking about valve competition, especially Epic taking lower cuts. If valve started taking lower cut and developers flocked from Epic to valve, wouldn't it be epic? (Pun fully intentional)

PCGaming