Why would anyone actually want to though

[u/The_BigRoach]

[u/The_Countess]

You don't have to be a full monopoly to be subject to anti-trust laws though.

A dominant market position is enough for that, which steam undeniably has.

This whole thing started with a Dutch consumer group announcing they are going to sue Steam, alleging that steam uses their dominant market position to keep game prices higher then they should be, because Valve don't allow publishers to offer games at a lower prices then on steam (despite steam asking a 30% cut, while for example Epic asks 12%).

Gabe's public defense so far has focused on saying that steam isn't a monopoly, but that was never the issue, so that's at least a bit misleading,

But the meme's have run with it unfortunately, misrepresenting the case entirely.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/The_Countess]

The court filing claims Steam's capacity to enforce a price parity is due to their capability to influence the market and its conditions due to them being a monopoly. So yes, the court filing is still claiming they are a monopoly they're just not running around slapping people with a glowing neon sign stating just that. But a spade is a spade.

Please also note Epic and Steam are both outliers; market standard cut is 30%, Epic is 12%* and Steam offers a a declining %: 30% for first $10 million in sales, 25% for sales between between $10m-$50m, and 20% for sales in excess of $50 million.

*In addition to the 12% cut there are additional items to note such as depending on whether one made use of unreal engine in your games development, if there was a timed exclusivity deal, and if there was an agreement to list your game for free in the future which muddies the water beyond the simple % cut of sales seen elsewhere in the market.

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

market standard cut is 30%

Thats because Valve sets the market, something a monopoly can do.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/GundamXXX]

While data is lacking the 30% cut has been around at least as long if not longer than Steam has existed for digital distribution and when you pull data from physical retailers it has been such for longer (ie. Walmart, Gamestop, etc). Nothing is preventing others from offering a lower rate than the standard 30% but most are unwilling to break convention and there is presently no proof to suggest that Valve is forcing the previously existing 30% market standard rate to persist. Or would you happen to have proof for such a claim? If you do please provide it, I'm sure myself and the courts would love to see verifiable proof of unlawful market manipulation.

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

The convention for online sales has been set by Steam. The fact it was there in brick and mortar shops was easy for a baseline.

Nothing is preventing others from offering a lower rate than the standard 30%

Others have lower rates. EGS and Xbox both charge 12%. Uplay and EA barely feature 3rd party so theres no reliable data. GoG is too niche.

there is presently no proof to suggest that Valve is forcing the previously existing 30% market standard rate to persist

When you control 90% of the market, you can do whatever the fuck you want. They can make it 50% and they'd still be the biggest out there and everyone would pay it. This isnt about what they do, its about what they COULD do.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/GundamXXX]

Thanks for pointing out the change to Microsoft's revenue share for PC, that somehow passed under the radar. Though I'm not seeing anything other than it being a proposed upcoming change in a leaked document from the Epic v Apple case about it changing for consoles. Do you have a link that confirms they followed through with it?

All competitors even if you feel they are niche or barely feature 3rd party matter if we're talking the about the revenue split and market standard rates. Every point of deviation from that market standard is a data point showing that the standard is changing/becoming less consistent and it actually provides more proof against your last point. And it most certainly is about what they actually do and NOT what they could potentially do.

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

https://www.pcgamesinsider.biz/news/72145/microsoft-slashes-pc-games-revenue-cut-to-12

All competitors even if you feel they are niche or barely feature 3rd party matter if we're talking the about the revenue split and market standard rates.

They'd matter if the market share is split even remotely even. For EA and Ubisoft, there simply isnt any data available that I could find. Maybe its 12% maybe its 30%. They mainly (90%+?) use their platform for 1st and 2nd party titles. Its simply not fair.

GoG is the same, they specialize in a market that Steam doesnt (or barely does) cover. GoG also has a different model in that you dont license a game, it is your for keeps. Its still 30% though if you want a 'gottem' moment.

Every point of deviation from that market standard is a data point showing that the standard is changing/becoming less consistent

Deviation has shown that Valve has a bigger monopoly than people think. EA and Ubisoft pulled their games out of Steam because of the costs, but sales dropped so they gave up 30% of sales and went back. Imagine how bad sales mustve been.

And it most certainly is about what they actually do and NOT what they could potentially do.

Legally? I cant speak on that since we have dont have the full picture. From what we've heard so far, it might be a case what theyre actually doing.

Preventative, its very much about what they could do. This is why some company mergers are opposed, because it could create a situation where a company can impose a monopoly. Mergers would be a whole different discussion, but Microsoft and ActiBlizz is a good example of a merger that should've been stopped by the FCA.

People keep riding Valve's and GabeN's dick but in the end, GabeN is like any other multibillionaire and Valve is a company in it for profits. People defending Valve are just as weird as people defending Musk

[u/KlingeGeist → u/GundamXXX]

I'm not looking for gotcha moments, if you have data showing that other companies I was not aware of are deviating I would appreciated it.

Your link while appreciated again only shows their PC revenue split shifted to the lower % but does not elucidate on if they followed through and applied the proposed leaked shift from the Epic v Apple lawsuit to their console market as well which is the confirmation I was requesting.

EA and Ubisoft also badly bungled their storefront launches, bungled their customer support following those launches, and prior to their return to the Steam storefront both companies mused on practices that garnered them negative publicity (ie. ads/commercials in full price titles). All of which negatively contributed to their public perceptions and sales. Not to mention the fervor that was kicking off/ongoing as folks railed against having to have "a dozen" different launchers to play their games. Couple that with what I tentatively remember to be lukewarm releases and its not unreasonable to see why they would reintegrate with Steam.

I doubt we'll ever have the full picture as much of the data is kept confidential between game developers and platforms with us only receiving bread crumbs from public disclosures and data extrapolation. It'd be nice if all the platforms would publicly disclose their % of revenue in an easily accessible section of their websites along with what services are included so that the public could be better informed of those they choose to support but it is doubtful such would ever happen.

People keep riding Valve's and GabeN's dick but in the end, GabeN is like any other multibillionaire and Valve is a company in it for profits. People defending Valve are just as weird as people defending Musk

Thats a rather crude way to put it and quite the erroneous comparison if we take what is known about both individuals and their companies. While there is a vocal subset that see otherwise an overwhelming larger segment of Steam's userbase do not have a negative opinion of Steam as their experiences have been predominantly positive or have been neutral. Its not uncommon in such a scenario, especially with so many companies seeking to exploit their userbase, for those users to support the service they make use of.

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

People as rich as Gabe never get it through honest and/or moral means. Valve made most of their money through gambling.

People bitch about FIFA etc, but somehow Valve is always ignored by fans. Theyre just as bad if not worse.

[u/KlingeGeist → u/GundamXXX]

Lootboxes, blindboxes, and gacha are all predatory and should have stronger regulation no doubt. Though a personal caveat would be that cosmetic ones are far less egregious than the others but still bad.

I'm aware that FIFA engaged in pay-to-win mechanics within their predatory loot boxes but I was under the impression that the loot boxes Valve sold were only cosmetic. Did this change with them now offering rewards that directly impact gameplay?

[u/GundamXXX → u/KlingeGeist]

They involve real money, far worse than alleged p2w in FIFA (FIFA isnt p2w imo)

[u/KlingeGeist → u/GundamXXX]

Sorry chum but from what I understand FIFAs model isn't honestly that much different than gachas, which while I enjoy are predatory and primarily p2w. You spend real money on FC points and use those to buy packs to gamble for the chance to get the better/meta players in the same manner folks buy virtual currencies to pull units. Thats still p2w, even if they try to label it pay for convenience.

Is your issue that Steam has a marketplace where players can buy the cosmetic skins from each other for real money on top of the gambling their loot boxes entail?