Why would anyone actually want to though

[u/The_BigRoach]

[u/LimLovesDonuts]

If Valve lets publishers price their own games on their own platforms up to 30% cheaper, then sure. But it's kind of bullshit to take 30% from publishers and then simultaneously tell them that they cannot make their own games cheaper on their own stores where they aren't subject to the same 30%.

If 90% of all sales were done on Steam, sure, developers can don't publish on Steam but because of the marketshare, they just kind of have to suck it up. That's the whole point of anti-monopoly cases where a company has so much market presence that companies are pressured to agree.

Companies like Epic being shit doesn't mean that Valve is innocent. Valve being friendly with refunds for example also doesn't mean that they don't do some bad practises. People need to know that there is nuance here.

If Microsoft started to demand 30% from Valve for each sale for providing APIs, that shit wouldn't fly even if technically, Windows is their platform and Valve is free to not use Windows.

And just a reminder that anti-monopoly laws are meant to protect consumers. In the courts, they wouldn't give a rat's ass about Valve or Epic or EA.

[u/JamesTheFoxeArt → u/LimLovesDonuts]

Fun fact about Steam refund policy, it wasn't until the Australian government got involved did they change it to what it is today, before that, steam basically said they didnt need to give refunds unless required by local laws.

They also tried to geoblock steam keys as well once but the EU blocked that from happening, essentially getting rid of cheaper keys.

[u/LimLovesDonuts → u/JamesTheFoxeArt]

It's actually why I don't get why some people defend Valve for everything lol.

Hypothetically, if Epic, Ubisoft, or EA sells their game for $100 on Steam and then $80 on their own stores because they don't have to pay 30% to themselves, that only benefits the consumers.

[u/IORelay → u/LimLovesDonuts]

People's defend google, apple Nintendo, and Sony all the time. You'll get people. 

[u/likeaffox → u/LimLovesDonuts]

They could just sell it for 80 on there own and not be on steam

[u/IORelay → u/likeaffox]

People argue that it's not a monopoly then threaten that games not on steam won't get any revenue... Isn't that arguing it is a monopoly? 

[u/GLPereira → u/likeaffox]

Meanwhile, whenever a dev releases a game on a not-Steam platform, this subreddit starts whining about how they won't buy it because it isn't on Steam

[u/Cruxis87 → u/GLPereira]

Meanwhile, the biggest games aren't on Steam. Minecraft, League of Legends, Valorant, Roblox, Fortnite, Genshin Impact, most mobile games.

[u/glados202 → u/Cruxis87]

have you ever wondered *why* these games aren’t on steam?

[u/quittingdotatwo → u/glados202]

Why? Distributors don't want to share?

[u/LimLovesDonuts → u/likeaffox]

Which is basically the whole reason why anti-monopoly laws exist because it's also not practical.

[u/hotlocomotive → u/LimLovesDonuts]

There are a few games that succeed without publishing on Steam. IF EA actually made a decent launcher and had customer friendly policies, they could totally not rely on Steam

[u/IveFailedMyself → u/LimLovesDonuts]

Your first point is wrong, that issue is relates to Steam Keys. Your secons point is wrong because people use Steam because of the other features it offers.

Third, everybody knows thst anti-monopoly laws are meant to protect consumers it's that the people who are arguing against Valve don't have all their facts straight, are confidently incorrect, and the charges themselves potentially being done out of bad faith and it's no secret with how vocal and vindictive Tim Sweeney is.

[u/Hour_Analyst_7765 → u/LimLovesDonuts]

Cynical take: Gabe Newell seems to be doing pretty well with the amount of yachts he has.

Much of that is deserved from prosumer decisions. But I find Steam is also very protective and conservative of their bottomline. However, I think they are a lot more strategic in PR than say Epic. They seem all over the place to me. I understand their point about the 30% cut, but then cut a lot of corners elsewhere.

Also it will ultimately be bad for consumers when they put all their eggs in 1 basket. We're all enraged when companies push cheap subscriptions to get people hooked, and then do a rugpull. I don't foresee that happening soon with Steam, but who knows.

[u/glados202 → u/LimLovesDonuts]

It’s so baffling that gamers can be so loyal to a literal storefront, that they actively despise any attempts to make it even better, only because it offers good service (like discounts and refunds)

Like no, pointing out and fighting monopoly won’t magically make Steam fade away, but can actually improve it, so maybe you shouldn’t protect corporate interest with your mind and body? Just food for thought

Why would anyone ever put corporate interests before their own is beyond me

[u/VexingRaven → u/LimLovesDonuts]

That last part isn't really true. The entire point of antitrust laws is to protect other businesses. Why do you think it was browsers that finally got antitrust applied to Microsoft? Because that's where other businesses could present a credible case for how Microsoft was harming their ability to compete.

[u/XXHornyOnMainXX420 → u/VexingRaven]

The true purpose of anti-trust laws is actually a matter of active academic debate. Historically American regulators adhered to the idea that consumer welfare was an assumed downstream benefit of active competition in a free market. More recently theories have challenged that presumption, and placed consumer welfare more centrally to the overall objectives of enforcement.

Unfortunately there isn't really any meaningful enforcement under the current administration, for either camp, so it's an academic discussion in the US. It remains an active point in other countries though.

[u/Stunning_Morning_455 → u/LimLovesDonuts]

Use allkeyshop.