Games

31990 readers

1 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

634

Steam keeps on winning (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

344 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From the opinion piece:

Last year, I pointed out how many big publishers came crawlin' back to Steam after trying their own things: EA, Activision, Microsoft. This year, for the first time ever, two Blizzard games released on Steam: Overwatch and Diablo 4.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't see a problem with it. Steam provides a ton of service as a marketplace and distributor. The social aspect of steam friends seeing what games you're playing translates into advertising for your game. They allow for regional pricing adjustments so it's not about blocking players from poorer countries from affording the game. And they have huge frameworks for digital item trading, achievement management, community discussion, modding and more. Their 30% cut of each sale policy is unilaterally enforced and in line with the fees charged by the VAST majority of other distributors. They don't make exclusivity deals in exchange for taking a smaller cut, unlike some much less consumer-friendly markets. Their market is completely fair across the board. I think it's also pretty fair to ask publishers not to push that 30% fee onto the consumer, by requiring the price on Steam to not exceed the price on any other marketplace.

That policy is to the benefit of steam customers, because they can be reasonably sure the steam price is the best price (currently) available. It's not about exclusivity, it's about protecting the value that Steam offers to the consumer.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't see how any of that justifies that valve prohibits publishers from selling their games for cheaper on a platform other than steam.

If anything, the 30% cut is significant and if a developer finds a cheaper platform elsewhere, why wouldn't he also be allowed to sell his game for cheaper there too?

It's really dubious to see valve try to control developers market strategies on platforms other than steam.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I think it only prohibits them from selling steam keys for cheaper elsewhere. It serves to protect steam from bad actor publishers that would try to cut steam out by selling keys on their own website, not paying the 30% platform fee while still using steam's infrastructure to deliver the game to players. Source

It's amazing that steam offers this functionality at all, not even mentioning they don't charge anything for generating keys.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago

Reddit is not a source, but the source linked in that post isn't really clear.

However, in this Ars Technica article they state 'Sources close to Valve suggested to Ars that this "parity" rule only applies to the "free" Steam keys publishers can sell on other storefronts and not to Steam-free versions of those games sold on competing platforms. Valve hasn't responded to a request for comment on this story.'