Sony patents PlayStation controller that could accept tap-to-pay from phones and credit cards

[u/Nullhitter]

https://www.techspot.com/news/113988-sony-patent-shows-playstation-controller-could-accept-tap.html

[u/DimensionalFruit]

I really needed this the other day when some dumbass was calling valve a monopoly and is bad and should be broken up.

[u/TylerBourbon → u/DimensionalFruit]

If there is one thing confuses the F out of me, it's the "Steam is a monopoly" bs. They do nothing to stop people from selling games on other platforms. How would one even "break them up"?

[u/DimensionalFruit → u/TylerBourbon]

The only way I can rationalise it is that people want to destroy anything that is making lots of money or is doing better than them in life.. just some weird jealousy thing.

On that same thread someone was asking when people were going to start benefitting from all that money valve makes... Like what ? Dude thought he was entitled to some of that money

[u/CatOfTechnology → u/DimensionalFruit]

A lot of it is actually them falling for the bait.

"Steam is a monopoly" wasn't a common sentiment until Sweeney started opening his mouth and a lot of people took the two parts of his strawman at face value.

The entire cohesive thought they have is that "Valve is situated in a position on PC where not releasing on Steam is almost suicidal for you company and Valve abuses that position to charge their 30% without doing anything significant to justify it, beyond simply being the biggest storefront."

Now, I don't have to spend the time explaining exactly why this is a stupid throughline of thought, anyone with half a brain understands that it's a bum's argument.

But without putting any thought in to anything, it's an incredibly easy sale for people who want to believe it's true.

[u/NZObiwan → u/CatOfTechnology]

They are definitely a defacto monopoly, the only question is whether that's a significant problem.

The answer is probably generally no, however they allegedly stop companies from listing their games elsewhere for lower prices (e.g. $100 on steam, $70 if you buy DRM free from the dev's website).

Steam claims not to do this but there have been so many unrelated reports of it happening that their credibility on the issue becomes questionable.

[u/Loinnird → u/CatOfTechnology]

Dude. You don’t have to have literally 100% of the market to be a de facto monopoly.

Take Walmart, for example. Sure it isn’t the ONLY shop in town. At first. But then mom and pop can’t compete so they close up shop, so buyers are left with no choice. Now they’re Walmart shoppers.

So Steam fans should be down on their hands and knees thanking Sweeney for throwing literal billions into the only storefront that keeps Steam as an illusion of choice.

[u/HornsOvBaphomet → u/Loinnird]

There's quite a lot of people who use GOG.

[u/Auno94 → u/HornsOvBaphomet]

Market domination is an issue, while Valve in 2026 is absolutely fine. Any and all market dominations shouldn't be protected or celebrated.

Take the company that bought my company, what did they do with even more market power? Raised prices overall, competition is good for consumers, market domination is always to the financial detroment of the customer

[u/Loinnird → u/HornsOvBaphomet]

There were “quite a lot of people” who had Apple computers in the 1990s, too. Didn’t stop Microsoft getting hit with antitrust suits.

[u/TheWiseAlaundo → u/Loinnird]

Walmart pushes Mom and Pop shops away because they negotiate lower prices for cheaper products and the other shops can't compete without going out of business.

Steam doesn't do that. They just say you can't sell Steam keys for lower prices than on their platform, but don't do anything to prevent lower prices on other platforms. They have the same 30% cut that nearly every other platform has.

It's the equivalent of opening a store next to another and having higher prices (as an example equivalence of less features like the Epic Store) for the exact same items and complaining that the first store is being unfair. It isn't, you just aren't offering a better store.

If Epic wanted to offer the same features as Steam then that's one thing. But saying Steam should be broken up because it is superior is like saying Apple should be broken up because the iPhone is better than other phones.

[u/Loinnird → u/TheWiseAlaundo]

LMAO in your SECOND paragraph you directly describe an anticompetitive practice by Steam that it can only enforce because of its market power.

What the fuck do you think monopolies do?

[u/TheWiseAlaundo → u/Loinnird]

They say you can't sell STEAM keys on other platforms for less than on Steam. Steam is a platform and they offer extra features that users want, and they're saying you can't undercut Valve by selling steam keys for your game for $10 on your website and then $20 on Steam, especially considering that Valve doesn't require the 30% cut for Steam keys.

To my knowledge, their policy is NOT that you can't sell your game for cheaper in general on another platform. You can sell your game for $10 on GOG and $20 on Steam and Valve won't care.

This is just good business practice to prevent someone opening a "Steam-lite" store where Steam keys are sold at a discount by the publisher (I know other sites exist that do this, but those are resellers) to prevent Valve from getting any money

[u/Loinnird → u/TheWiseAlaundo]

When you get technical, Steam sells Steam keys. They don’t “sell” games, because software is licensed between the developer/publisher and the user.

By preventing publishers from reselling Steam keys at a discount, they’re engaging in what’s called Retail Price Management. “Just good business practice” would be to charge their split on Steam keys provided to the publishers and avoid anticompetitive behaviour.

But, seeing as it took literal government intervention to get Valve to regularly issue refunds and stop geoblocking in the EU, avoiding anticompetitive behaviour isn’t Valve’s strong suit.

[u/NZObiwan → u/TheWiseAlaundo]

They just say you can't sell Steam keys for lower prices than on their platform, but don't do anything to prevent lower prices on other platforms.

This is the one claim that I think needs better verification. There have been reports of steam requiring price parity across separate stores even when it isn't steam keys being sold, and I think that's problematic.

The idea of requiring that developers don't sell generated keys for cheaper that the normal store makes sense though.

[u/CatOfTechnology → u/Loinnird]

Look, Valve and Steam are not perfect.

But I need you to do something for me:

Every time you think "Thanks, Tim Sweeney, for keeping Valve and Steam in check." I want you to remember that the EGS was such a massive, unignorable threat to the Steam ecosystem that it forced Valve to do nothing and win.

And then I want you to internalize that information and mull it over for at least 45 minutes before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself.

[u/Loinnird → u/CatOfTechnology]

LMAO sure thing. Let’s imagine a world without EGS:

EU citizen: Steam is a monopoly!

EU: Yup, let’s break this shit up and fine it a bajillion dollars.

Gaben cockgobblers: WHat aboUT GoG!!??

EU: 0.01 market share is not competition you idiots.

[u/CatOfTechnology → u/Loinnird]

I love this because not only are you forced to pull a hypothetical out of your ass for it, but:

• It's Tim who started the Monopoly accusations.

• Literally no legal entity, the entire EU regulatory body included, agreed with him.

• E.U. Regulatory Bodies have no say over the day to day function of American companies anywhere outside of the E.U., meaning that, while they could levy fines or deny Valve permission to operate within the E.U., they have no ability to break up Valve as a company.

That you're struggling this much is something that I love for you. I think it's very fitting.

[u/Loinnird → u/CatOfTechnology]

1) Tim didn’t start the monopoly allegations; he was just the first one with money and market power.

2) Do you think Apple going to USB-C was by the goodness of their hearts? No, it was an EU mandate. Heck, Steam used to almost never give refunds until they were forced to by Australian law and even lost an antitrust suit in the EU for geocaching.

3) it’s very much within the EU’s power to dictate that Valve needs to create a European subsidiary again to continue doing business in the bloc, and they can dictate any divestments (say, separating the social media aspect from the storefront). They make the fucken laws, dude.

Got any other brain-busters stemming from your lack of regulatory knowledge?

[u/CatOfTechnology → u/Loinnird]

1: It's not a literal "First person ever", but I'll concede this one because you clearly need at least one win in your life.

2: Whataboutisms are hilarious. Apple being forced to convert to USB-C was strictly because of their monopoly over the entire ecosystem, being the only company allowed to make and sell chargers that worked with their phone was an explicit abuse of monopoly power. The rest of this point falls neatly under "Valve and Steam are not perfect by any means."

3: That's not what it means to break up a monopoly, you dolt. Breaking up a monopoly is the act of rendering a company in to sectional institutions that are place under differential leadership and barred from reintegrating. The E.U. does not have the authority to break up Valve, as Valve is a US based company and does not have to abide E.U. rulings in that regard. What you have instead described is what's known as Mandatory Joint Venture and would not serve, form or function as a way to segment Valve, only to give Valve the ultimatum of subjecting itself to E.U. Regulation via Proxy or be barred from access to the E.U. Consumer Base. Because, again, while the E.U. can tell Valve to accept it's terms or fuck off, the E.U. does not have the authority to order a segmentation of a company that falls under another sovereign country's jurisdiction. Otherwise, you'd be seeing shit like China ordering Microsoft to segment itself, or the US ordering Tencent to do the same in the name of protecting their local citizenry from 'hostile foreign influence'. In fact, the lack of a country's ability to directly control foreign assets, like corporations, is why countries like China and Vietnam enforce MJVs and Local Equity Requirements before they grant external companies access to their consumer markets, it's the only way that they can gain leverage on a company without full-stop denying themselves access to desirable goods and services.

But by all means, pat yourself on the back for getting me to teach you about these things. You're today's 1-in-10,000 who learned something new.

[u/TylerBourbon → u/DimensionalFruit]

WTF? Benefiting from the money Valve makes? I mean, while yeah, that's really just dumb, but in a way, we are absolutely benefiting from it because they use that money to make, maintain, and constantly improve the best game store online. Oy vey.

[u/DimensionalFruit → u/TylerBourbon]

Not to mention valve pay taxes :D

[u/Balavadan → u/TylerBourbon]

Like a benevolent king this only works until it doesn’t and we get a shitty leadership. That’s when the competition is supposed to shine. But it could be hard.

[u/FangLargo → u/Balavadan]

We have seen the competition, and I don't want none of that

[u/Yuzumi → u/TylerBourbon]

Also all of their effort into making Linux gaming an actual thing since they funded Proton and have literally hired devs to work on these open source projects. It's let sonmany of us jump ship from microslop and regain some amount of privacy and control with our own devices. 

Even people who don't care about VR will benefit from Proton and FEX. When you can startup your steam library on your phone like you can currently do with Linux: that's valve. 

[u/RAMChYLD → u/TylerBourbon]

Like those money that Valve makes? They have to go out to their server hosting services.

Like Valve don’t own the servers that mirrors their games in any country. Valve doesn’t even own their own servers for hosting their storefront. Given the cloud movement I doubt if they own any on-premise servers at all.

[u/env33e → u/DimensionalFruit]

IT should be partly that, but IMO? its mostly the brand loyalty, and how insulated your average gamer can be from the mechanisms of wealth extraction. how many of y'all grew up with play station, Xbox, Nintendo, etc? pretty sure we ALL did in some form or another.

those people look insane to us because we already realized long ago these companies NEVER had our best interest in mind

[u/DimensionalFruit → u/env33e]

I agree, I had all the playstations except for 5, Wii, Xbox 360, DS Lite, multiple PSPs etc etc. but they're all shit compared to a PC and it's not even close.

Why buy multiple consoles when you can just have one PC and swap out components every 5+ years or whenever we want? Makes no sense.

[u/Answer70 → u/DimensionalFruit]

They want to destroy it, because if it didn't exist there are infinite ways they could extort us.

[u/_le_slap → u/DimensionalFruit]

It's probably astroturfing from competitors. Nearly nothing you read online is organic anymore.

[u/hihowubduin → u/DimensionalFruit]

Lol, LMAO even.

When people are going to start benefiting? How about how Valve has been consistently offering solid value without demanding increasing invasiveness like every damn company seems to be doing these days? Or innovating technologies and letting them be open source like Proton and now the new FEX to open up Linux to PC gaming?

Holy crap that dude was beyond entitled 💀

[u/Yuzumi → u/hihowubduin]

Valve is basically the only gaming company that hasn't kowtowed to the privacy violating ID uploads like others have. They've done the bare minimum they can get away with by law.

And it's made them a target of politicians who sue them over BS claims. I wouldn't be surprised their support of Linux might be another reason they are getting attacked so much.

Like, I am fine to talk about actual issues that valve has,  but but when these people try to single them out for things all the others are doing, and the other platforms are generally doing the thing even worse, I know it's completely BS. 

[u/BurntFlea → u/DimensionalFruit]

These people misdirect their anger in the stupidest ways possible. They need to be focusing that energy on these billionaires fucking up our lives.

[u/MiserySound → u/DimensionalFruit]

Just a bunch of bots on reddit.

There’s a reason why reddit made ”hide post & comment history” a thing because otherwise we’d easily find out who the bots are

[u/4friedchickens8888 → u/DimensionalFruit]

I mean... One could argue that steam sales are that very benefit to the consumer.

[u/Atompunk78 → u/DimensionalFruit]

Some people irrationally* hate capitalism and see steam as an successful example of it, so want it destroyed

It’s no different to the commies in the Malayan emergency, among many other examples

(There are obviously reasons to dislike capitalism, but that’s different from what these people think)

[u/SausageMcMerkin → u/DimensionalFruit]

people want to destroy anything that is making lots of money

There are a whole lot of people out there who think the only way to make money is to exploit other people. Therefore, anyone or anything that's successful got there through nefarious means and should be eliminated.

[u/Mysteoa → u/TylerBourbon]

They can sell on other platforms, but when it comes to pricing Steam doesn't like when it's cheaper elsewhere. There are emails about this found during discovery for one of the lawsuits. This was for the non-Steam version.

[u/MachineGunBanned → u/Mysteoa]

Using steam keys they don't

Selling the exe they don't care

You wanna use steams infrastructure you pay them is their position

[u/MalHeartsNutmeg → u/MachineGunBanned]

They threatened Ubisoft for selling a game cheaper on their own store for something that was completely on Ubis server and infrastructure. Steam controls pricing as much as reddit likes to pretend it doesn't.

[u/randomstranger454 → u/MalHeartsNutmeg]

Currently Watch Dogs 2 is €49.99/€59.99/€79.99 for Standard/Deluxe/Gold in Ubisoft store. Prices in Steam are €59.99/€69.99/€79.99.

So could you post the source about that threat? If it was a threat I don't think it was about lower prices.

[u/MalHeartsNutmeg → u/randomstranger454]

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Valve-reportedly-almost-delisted-Rainbow-Six-Siege-from-Steam-after-Ubisoft-attempted-to-sell-it-cheaper-on-Uplay.1312602.0.html

You can look up the law suit, it's still ongoing and Valve are not in a good place which is why Ubi can now adjust the price.

Reddit has been handwaving away that it's for steam keys only for years but it's not just steam keys.

[u/redchris18 → u/MalHeartsNutmeg]

A few misrepresentations there, so let's clear them up.

The first one is somewhat crucial:

Valve allegedly threatened to delist all editions of the game from Steam [emphasis added]

That's a little vague, wouldn't you say?

This happened after Valve discovered that Ubisoft was marketing a cheaper $15 “starter pack” exclusively through its own Uplay store.

Now that is a little clearer. Valve have always expected feature parity between versions of a game sold on Steam and those sold elsewhere. This is likely intended to serve the same purpose as demanding price parity for Steam keys sold elsewhere - i.e., it is intended to prevent publishers from taking advantage of the visibility and market reach that Steam confers while also avoiding paying their share for that service by compelling people to buy the game elsewhere by offering unique content.

That's precisely what Ubisoft seem to have done in that instance - they're offering a unique package on their own platform in what appears to be an attempt to lure people away from Steam after first gaining attention there. They're basically trying to get out of paying the 30% cut that they agreed to.

Reddit has been handwaving away that it's for steam keys only for years but it's not just steam keys.

Can you cite an example in which Valve have taken issue with a cheaper copy of a game that didn't involve the sale of Steam keys and which also featured the same version of that game? That Ubisoft example you mentioned fails on the latter point.

Valve are not in a good place which is why Ubi can now adjust the price.

Valve has always allowed them to do so because the Ubisoft store isn't selling Steam keys at those lower prices. The only time that has become an issue is when Ubisoft tried to also offer additional content that wasn't available on Steam.

It should be noted that Ubisoft themselves clearly know that Steam's cut is worth it, because they quickly changed their mind about having exclusive content on their own store. They know it's good value, but they think that the brainrotted apologia for Epic Games has produced a scenario in which they might be able to stop paying it.

[u/MalHeartsNutmeg → u/redchris18]

Valve allegedly threatened to delist all editions of the game from Steam [emphasis added]

That's a little vague, wouldn't you say?

How is it vague? The lawsuit is on going, all reporting on an ongoing lawsuit uses the term alleged or allegedly, is it your first day on Earth?

Now that is a little clearer. Valve have always expected feature parity between versions of a game sold on Steam and those sold elsewhere. This is likely intended to serve the same purpose as demanding price parity for Steam keys sold elsewhere - i.e., it is intended to prevent publishers from taking advantage of the visibility and market reach that Steam confers while also avoiding paying their share for that service by compelling people to buy the game elsewhere by offering unique content.

What Valve wants doesn't matter here, hence the law suit.

Valve has always allowed them to do so because the Ubisoft store isn't selling Steam keys at those lower prices.

Flat out wrong, hence the lawsuit.

Valve fanboys will bend over backwards to handwave away anything. You asked for a source, I gave you a source, it also mentions the particular law suit that you can look up. Not interested in providing anything more just for you to excuse it away because it's Valve.

[u/redchris18 → u/MalHeartsNutmeg]

How is it vague? The lawsuit is on going, all reporting on an ongoing lawsuit uses the term alleged or allegedly

That is, by definition, vague. That's fine in the definition of simply describing an ongoing lawsuit, but not when describing it as you did, which was:

They threatened Ubisoft for selling a game cheaper on their own store for something that was completely on Ubis server and infrastructure. Steam controls pricing as much as reddit likes to pretend it doesn't.

And that's besides the fact that you misrepresented what happened in the first place.

What Valve wants doesn't matter here

Yes, it does. If they want feature-parity then they are free to set that term. Why would you say something so ridiculous? Did you really expect to bullshit people that a store has no say in the terms of their own sales?

Valve has always allowed them to do so because the Ubisoft store isn't selling Steam keys at those lower prices.

Flat out wrong, hence the lawsuit.

That's not what it says, though. I quoted the article in question to highlight that fact, so I don't know why you think you can lie about that when the text is right there for anyone to verify. Maybe you just can't read - which would explain why you appear to believe that I'm the person you originally replied to...

To reiterate, Valve demanding price parity for Steam keys and feature parity for the game itself is not anti-competitive. It's actually the opposite; it prevents studios like Ubisoft from trying to make the Uplay version seem more appealing by handicapping the Steam version via either higher pricing or missing content. Ubisoft's ire is due entirely to them not being able to convince people that their own launcher is the better deal even at lower prices. They needed FOMO on top of that to even feel like they had a chance of drawing people away from Steam, and Valve are justified in objecting to that. Besides which, their only response was going to be that that specific game would be removed from Steam.

Valve fanboys

My Steam account is older than either my GOG account or my Itch account, yet I have significantly more games on each of those than I have on Steam. Itch is a little misleading, as many of those games come from those charity bundles containing 500-1750 of them, however. Still, to this day I preferentially buy games on GOG. Somehow that all makes me a "Valve fanboy", does it? It's surely not that you can't stomach the fact that an objective observer pointed out the factual inaccuracies in your emotional outburst and corrected you on them, is it...?

In future, maybe try at least accusing someone of fanboying for something that tend to prefer, rather than something they only begrudgingly engage with.

Not interested in providing anything more just for you to excuse it away because it's Valve.

That's your pre-emptive excuse for not having a source that actually backs up your debunked claims. You hand-wave away me specifically because you can't counterargue what I said.

The fact is that you lied about that lawsuit and are provably wrong on this matter.

[u/Someonevibing1 → u/MachineGunBanned]

Which is a bad position since you should be able to price your game however you like on whatever platform you’re using

[u/Grey-fox-13 → u/Someonevibing1]

They don't take a cut from keys sold on third party sites. "Don't undercut us to use our infrastructure for free" is an absolutely reasonable position. 

[u/Mysteoa → u/Grey-fox-13]

You're confusing this with a different allegations that was for Steam keys.

There was a situation where the dev wanted to sell a NON steam copy on their website for lower price. Steam responded that this will be a worse deal for steam users and they reserved their rights to remove the game. Basically saying if you sell cheap elsewhere, we will remove your game. Just to be clear, it was for non steam version that doesn't use steam infrastructure.

There was also similar complaints from Ubisoft in recent years about been forced to have the same price as their store.

[u/Grey-fox-13 → u/Mysteoa]

I think you got lost a bit, the other comment thread is about the ubisoft situation, this one is about someone replying they should be able to price however they want where they want in response to someone talking about steam keys. 

[u/redchris18 → u/Mysteoa]

There was a situation where the dev wanted to sell a NON steam copy on their website for lower price. Steam responded that this will be a worse deal for steam users and they reserved their rights to remove the game. Basically saying if you sell cheap elsewhere, we will remove your game.

Can you cite a source? Because I picked up a game on Switch a little while back for half its all-time lowest Steam price, which very much contradicts the claim that Valve do not allow games to be sold for less than they are on Steam even when Steam keys are not included.

There was also similar complaints from Ubisoft in recent years about been forced to have the same price as their store.

You're conflating two different things. Ubisoft have been forced to run price-parity when selling Steam keys on third-party sites, but have also been required to ensure feature-parity with the same game when sold on both Steam and Uplay. They tried to sell unique content on their own store to compel players to buy there instead of on Steam, which is where they were getting most of the attention for that game. It was an underhanded way of trying to do the same thing as selling Steam keys cheaper than the Steam store price.

[u/Mysteoa → u/redchris18]

Here it's written in the Cort documents document 348 attachment 7 on page 93.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/348/7/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/

and the stamen from the Dev https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/

[u/redchris18 → u/Mysteoa]

Here it's written in the Cort documents document 348 attachment 7 on page 93.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/348/7/in-re-valve-antitrust-litigation/

I can't find anything on that page - or a couple of pages either side of it - which match what you said. Could you quote it directly?

As a fun - and interesting - aside, though, I did happen to find that document trying to argue that Valve's cut should be reduced because Epic offer a 12% cut of sales, even though this has been admitted to be unsustainable for them and is specifically intended to try to lure studios away from Steam.

the stamen from the Dev https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/

Specifically, you're talking about this excerpt:

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 [...] 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.

This is a little suspect for a couple of reasons. Firstly, games have been cheaper on other platforms than on Steam, including the Ubisoft example that you originally alluded to. I've also bought games on other platforms for well below their all-time lowest Steam store price.

Secondly, the wording is a little inconsistent. He starts out by talking about selling Overgrowth via "new video game stores were opening that charged much lower commissions than Valve" (I think we can all guess that this refers to the Epic store), but then goes on to say "even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM", as if those things were previously inconsideration. Obviously that would never have been the case if they were sold via Epic, but even if a different store were in mind, that'd mean he was trying to sell Steam keys cheaper on another site, which Valve are known to take issue with.

I know it's awkward with the redacted text, but I'm going back-and-forth between his blog post and that court document and I'm having a difficult time verifying his timeline. Couple that with the fact that I can cite examples which completely contradict his assertions about Overgrowth's release and I'm finding his account hard to credit.

Just as an example, Rune Factory 4 Special has been less than £4 about a dozen times over the last two years on Switch, but has never been below £7.50 on Steam, and hasn't even been below £6 on keysites. Note, however, that those keysites do sell at lower prices than Steam a lot of the time.

That dev isn't telling the whole story. Based on the evidence, there's some missing context there.

[u/Grey-fox-13 → u/redchris18]

There was an incident not long ago but it looks like it was just an overzealous employee taking things too far or misinterpreting things because that requirement does not exist in documentation or official stance. 

[u/mjm65 → u/TylerBourbon]

>If there is one thing confuses the F out of me, it's the "Steam is a monopoly" bs. They do nothing to stop people from selling games on other platforms

I’m not a “steam is a monopoly” guy, but there is an argument to be made here, and this deposition goes into detail.

Basically the complaint is not about preventing people from selling games on other platforms, but how Valve maintains its price relative to other platforms.

Basically if you sell your game cheaper on other platforms, Valve isn’t going to promote your game, and it’s possible they might threaten to remove your game off steam.

Those practices are not unheard of, Walmart and Costco do similar things all the time, and AppStores do similar things with similar margins.

But they are targets of similar suits as well.

[u/FKJVMMP → u/[deleted]]

I appreciate the irony of you making this statement and choosing not to expand on the idea at all in any way.

[u/redchris18 → u/mjm65]

if you sell your game cheaper on other platforms, Valve isn’t going to promote your game, and it’s possible they might threaten to remove your game off steam.

That's only if you sell Steam keys for less than the Steam price, or if you try to sell additional content that isn't available in the Steam version.

I myself have bought games on other platforms for far less than the all-time lowest Steam price, and that's because I wasn't buying a Steam key and Valve don't police that in the way that certain commentators have claimed.

[u/aFreshFix → u/TylerBourbon]

The break them up is ridiculous, but Valve has many anti-competitive practices. They're a corporation like all the others and they do a lot of stuff that's bad for consumers too until they're forced to stop.

Are they better? Yes. But they're far from perfect

[u/GosuDosu → u/aFreshFix]

Well, they’re not a corporation like all the others. They’re a private company while every other company in that picture is public.

That means Valve can make billions each year and be happy.
The public companies, they need to make more than whatever they made last year to be happy.

[u/bargu → u/TylerBourbon]

Steam is a monopoly, but not because Valve uses their money to destroy the competition, drowning them in endless frivolous lawsuits (cough cough Microsoft cough cough) it's because they are so much better than the competition that no one wants anything else.

[u/KillerSavant202 → u/TylerBourbon]

Steam OS is about to be the only place you can buy games without giving them your personal information under the bullshit excuse of protecting kids when the reality is Microsoft and Sony etc just want to double dip by selling your data.

[u/smellyhippy420 → u/KillerSavant202]

Meanwhile in Australia, they "comply" with age verification rules by making the only option to use a credit card when the laws are they have to have multiple options for age verification.

[u/JJBrazman → u/KillerSavant202]

I’m sure GoG can still be trusted.

[u/Chanax2 → u/TylerBourbon]

They do stop from selling at a lower price on other stores I heard

[u/PunkPirate56364 → u/TylerBourbon]

Competition is good for consumers, and Steam is a monopoly.

The problem is, Steam ended up becoming monopoly because players like to have all their games on one app. So after Steam got a foothold other companies can't establish themselves in the market 

Now we could split Steam into two companies which would compete but...

Players would still want all their games on a single app.

Soooo... this case is really difficult.

[u/Yuzumi → u/TylerBourbon]

The only thing these people an point to is "not selling a game cheaper on other platforms", but as far as I've been able to find that only applies to steam keys sold on other platforms.

Valve gets nothing from steam keys sold from Amazon or anywhere else. The seller takes the 30% valve  would get if the key is sold through steam, but they still foot the bill for the server costs when customers download the game and updates as well as multi-player if the game integrates into that. 

Meaning that if you sell a game on origin or any other distributor that isn't just giving a steam key you can charge whatever you want. 

[u/kridgellz → u/TylerBourbon]

I mean, preventing any game on your platform from selling at a cheaper price on any other platform is certainly a anti-competitive practice. Then taking 30% of game purchase price AND of any micro-transactions that are made. They do have some great deals from time-time tho.

[u/redchris18 → u/kridgellz]

preventing any game on your platform from selling at a cheaper price on any other platform is certainly a anti-competitive practice.

That's not what happens, though. They only enforce price arity for Steam keys. If you're not selling a Steam key then you're allowed to sell cheaper than the Steam store price.

[u/MrRonski16 → u/TylerBourbon]

Their only argument is ”because some games skip the other stores”

And thats mainly smaller studious

[u/TylerBourbon → u/MrRonski16]

I can see it, and even that doesn't make any sense when "exclusives" exist on Xbox and Playstation. My brain hurts.

[u/MrRonski16 → u/TylerBourbon]

Yep.

Tim sweeney for example likes to say Steam and Apple Stores are just monopolies.

But then literally doesn’t tweet a word about console digital stores.

[u/Cruxis87 → u/MrRonski16]

Or how he bought Rocket League to take it off Steam. Or how he paid to have Alan Wake be exclusive. Or Fortnight being exclusive. He just wants to get Steam broken up so his own shitty launcher can start to compete without having to improve it at all

[u/MrRonski16 → u/Cruxis87]

Yep.

Epic game launcher experience is so poor compared to steam.

[u/TTBurger88 → u/TylerBourbon]

Just because the other store fronts that suck ass doesn't make it a monopoly. Steam is well developed because it was at the ground floor on digital distribution.

When Steam launched buying games digital was a very novel idea at the time.

[u/Agret → u/TylerBourbon]

There has been rumours from a few gamedevs that Steam won't allow you to list at a lower RRP on other platforms than what you're charging on Steam

[u/Furycrab → u/TylerBourbon]

If you believe this fully I'm sorry. They do somethings to stop publishers from putting games on other digital platforms at lower prices than Steam.

So they know the 30% cut is huge and theoretically another platform could take 10 or 15% and still be massively profitable, and to get customers they would pass on the savings to the customer... But Steam says if you sell games on their platform you can't.

When I point this out, the chat bots or whatever just throw up the strawman that 30% is standard on mobile. But don't really answer how Valve doing that is leveraging it's marketshare for an unfair advantage.

[u/NZObiwan → u/TylerBourbon]

The main thing is that they allegedly stop companies from offering their game for lower prices elsewhere. e.g. if steam takes a 30% cut but epic takes 20%, then the company wouldn't be able to lower the price by 10% on epic.

Steam claims not to do this but there have been a lot of reports of it happening, so it's possible that it's not a written policy but is something that a lot of the employees who administer store related stuff believe and/or enforce without instruction to do so.

[u/MultiMarcus → u/TylerBourbon]

Well, you don’t necessarily need to break them up. The issue is much more about them seemingly having a history of saying you can’t charge less for a game on other platforms, like if Epic wants to pay companies to sell their games cheaper on the Epic store, or Ubisoft wants to take a slightly smaller cut because they don’t have to pay Val anything on the Ubisoft store, they should be allowed to do that. Steam says that they are, but have historically said that they aren’t, and that confusion still persists.

Valve basically argues. that they only restrict the price of steam keys because, obviously, you should be paying something for this sort of steam ecosystem, but at least some companies have definitely interpreted that as not being allowed to sell games cheaper elsewhere, at least if we are to believe their lawyers.

[u/TylerBourbon → u/MultiMarcus]

I can understand that argument. But the thing is, Ubisoft can sell their games for whatever price they want, but they don't have a right to sell their games via steam. So that doesn't really seem like a legal case that has any sort of standing as Ubisoft is more than free to sell their games for less on Epic, or even via their own website, but it would be an obviously bad business deal for Valve to sell their games on Steam at the same time.

I get why Epic wants companies to sell their games for cheaper on the Epic Store, so they can undercut and steal customers from Steam. Lord knows they aren't doing it by making a store front that is just as good or better than Steams.

[u/MultiMarcus → u/TylerBourbon]

That’s basically text book how monopolies work.

A monopoly does not mean just being good at business. but it does mean that if you become a big enough player in a market you have to not try and suffocate competition before it can get up.

If steam was less successful and had more viable PC competition, this wouldn’t be a problem because they would not be a place that you practically have to be to be able to sell your games.

Making a storefront as good as steam won’t convince anyone to use it. You need to make winds on cost, but epic is not allowed to undercut steam on games that release on multiple platforms, Epic tried and is one of the largest companies in gaming, but still wasn’t able to make their store a success. Ubisoft and EA both stayed off Steam for many years. And even those huge companies in gaming came crawling back to Steam. Basically, the only company that’s managed to establish huge games outside of Steam would be Blizzard, with Battle.net and arguably Xbox to some extent, but really the big one is Battle.net, where people are buying games in large part because they are not available on Steam, but even they have had to release some of their games on Steam.

You can just sort of see here how valve is warping the market around themselves, which is not inherently wrong. The issue is that they are warping the market, and then also telling companies they can’t charge less on other storefronts. You can be doing basically one or the other, not both, because that is the sort of monopoly issue. Valve seemingly agrees because they argue that it’s not actually a policy they have. though whether it’s an unspoken policy is something that’s being covered in current court cases.

[u/drthrax1 → u/MultiMarcus]

I mean buying games and sales is really just the surface layer, steam offers so many other gaming functions like, reviews, workshop, community guides and discussions, VOIP/group chats, cloud saves, controller support, BIG PICTURE mode, game version control, steam family share and probably a bunch more.

None of the other services come anywhere NEAR these features, epic game store showed that just selling/giving away games cheaper is not enough to get people to actually regularly use the platform, steam has created an ecosystem that makes you want to exist in it, and have all your games in one places because it makes forming communities/discussions/servers or mods easier and more accessible, esp once you tie in the social aspect of steam profiles and friends.

And your right, people only use battle net because they need it to play exclusives, if they gave people the choice most people would just use steam because IMO its just a better service(and the bonus of everything being in one launcher) theres also been a bunch of times where I’ve had a game on steam but because my friend owned it on Epic we couldn’t play together, which kinda further isolated their service to me.

[u/MultiMarcus → u/drthrax1]

Yeah, and if that ecosystem is so strong, people would be willing to pay 10 or $20 more to buy their games there, right? Or skip out on the savings of $10 or $20; they might make on another platform, depending on which way you phrase it. Or willing to just add their games as third-party titles, which Steam does support.

I really don’t think it’s that hard. Give people the choice and the ability to buy games cheaper elsewhere if they don’t want to do that, then Steam will probably remain just as dominant as before. If they do want to do it, they’ll probably still remain very dominant, but at least there might be some argument for another platform having something to make them compelling beyond just sort of the user experience or whatever other thing people pretend that epic or anyone else could actually compete with.

[u/Rukir_Gaming → u/TylerBourbon]

Separate Valve (publisher) from Steam (store) but at that point, there's bigger fish to fry

[u/TylerBourbon → u/Rukir_Gaming]

Even that doesn't make sense, because then you'd have to do the same to Epic, Origin, Playstation, and Xbox. They're all publishers and they have their own stores. It's like telling retail stores they can't sell "store brands" of items.

[u/wthulhu → u/Rukir_Gaming]

Do Microsoft first

[u/Lvl100Glurak → u/TylerBourbon]

also steam did nothing extraordinary to get this "monopoly". i'd rather say steam was too slow on some things, but their success comes from not sabotaging themself.

[u/white_lion93 → u/DimensionalFruit]

Let's not forget that this is a campaign driven by the CEO of Epic Games with all his media and financial resources. It didn't come out of nowhere or as something organic.

[u/DarthButtz → u/DimensionalFruit]

It's less "Valve is a monopoly" and more "Everyone else that tries to enter the PC space shoots themselves in the dick"

[u/TPO_Ava → u/DarthButtz]

Frankly its not limited to the PC space unfortunately. Xbox's last decade can be summarized with "and then it got worse", which Sony has clocked and has decided to join the match with a series of terrible decisions as well, because they know they have no competition currently.

Nintendo is off in a corner silently doing their own thing. Though i suppose its easy to be silent when you don't fucking release anything.

[u/redchris18 → u/TPO_Ava]

Nintendo is off in a corner silently doing their own thing. Though i suppose its easy to be silent when you don't fucking release anything.

Are you stoned, or just the most oblivious person to have ever existed?

[u/Arkrobo → u/DarthButtz]

It's also pretty hilarious because Steam isn't even that great a platform. They've become decent, but steam chat is still pretty basic and they really could improve steam streaming. The Web browser is also shit.

Yet everyone joining the space promises the moon, delivers less and makes it all horribly inconvenient.

[u/pink-mallow → u/DimensionalFruit]

They kinda were on PC. Didn’t they have things saying you couldn’t sell your game for more than a certain percentage on any other platform to be on steam to kind of guarantee that they always had the steepest sale prices? Or was that an Epic Games psyop

[u/Ythou- → u/pink-mallow]

it is and was only for the STEAM KEYS. You can’t generate steam key and sell it cheaper on different platforms. You can sell your game on different platform for cheaper if you wish. Take GOG for example there are games available there that go on sales sometimes cheaper than on steam. I bought VTMB for like 2 dollars there while on steam I would pay 8 or whatever it was at the time

[u/AvengerDr → u/Ythou-]

No, you actually can't. Steam doesn't like you selling g the same game for cheaper on other storefronts (ie not steam keys) or not even your own websites.

They say thst if you have a sale on another storefront you must eventually offer the same discount on steam. They just give you the opportunity to not do it in parallel.

But there are emails from steam reps where they say they will stop promoting your games if you don't comply.

[u/RainstickFoDays → u/DimensionalFruit]

Isn’t Valve actually quite a small company by comparison? How would you even break it up if you tried? Also if we are breaking up monopolies I can think of at least a dozen others that need breaking far more.

[u/drthrax1 → u/RainstickFoDays]

Break off the storefront from the software/hardware. Or make one company for the social aspect of steam and another for the sale of games.

[u/RainstickFoDays → u/drthrax1]

You’d still end up with one company with the vast majority market share of game sales…

[u/MartiniPolice21 → u/RainstickFoDays]

Monopolies are decided by market share, and Steam (whether that expands to Valve or not is debatable) is absolutely a monopoly

[u/RainstickFoDays → u/MartiniPolice21]

Yeah, but how would you even “break it up” lol

[u/MartiniPolice21 → u/RainstickFoDays]

It would probably just regulations what they do now, and limiting what they can do in the future. Forcing higher % cuts for developers/publishers on there, and stopping them from having in game purchases going through Steam, are what comes to mind

[u/Darolaho → u/DimensionalFruit]

How do you even break up steam lol. Break off their video game dev side? What video game dev side. It has been non existent for years.

Their hardware side? What good would that do.

[u/Symphonic7 → u/DimensionalFruit]

Some people just loved getting bent over everytime they game. Just because some people love being pay piggies doesn't mean that everyone wants to do that.

[u/jimmycarr1 → u/DimensionalFruit]

[u/Material_Shine401 → u/DimensionalFruit]

You guys really want to start this discussion under post about Sony? Should I remind you what was public image of Sony before PS5 era? Probably the same as Steam. Problem with Valve being monopoly is not about their current actions but unhealthy market share that can lead into very grim future the moment they decide to use their advantage. It will be interesting to see if all of you will be as sure about steam future in moment of Gaben death. You paint this discussion in black-white manner but it really is not. Many of us just think we could really use some serious competition. Epic Games seems more like free games machine, while GOG is niche.

[u/drthrax1 → u/Material_Shine401]

I mean he isn’t some medieval king where the moment he dies they immediately scrounge around for a heir to take over, Gabe has been training/ bringing up a successor for years(and it’s been stated that he has a very minor role at valve now)

Do you really think someone has smart and forward thinking as Gabe doesn’t have a plan to ensure his legacy and intent for steam continuing after his death? Because he has been very clear on what/how he wants steam to be as a service since like 2003, it’s part of the reason he didn’t buckle when VISA went after 18+ games. It’s really not that crazy an idea for someone new to take over and run it the same way Gabe did for the next 20+ years, especially since valve is a private company and basically never need to worry about cash flow.

[u/AvengerDr → u/drthrax1]

Do you really think someone has smart and forward thinking as Gabe

He is an oligarch like all the rest. He owns a fleet of superyachts worth a billion dollars. He is just as greedy as all the rest, otherwise he'd have lowered the 30% fees already.

[u/drthrax1 → u/AvengerDr]

You can be all those things and still properly plan for a successor for your life’s work though?… like they aren’t mutually exclusive

[u/Avalonians → u/DimensionalFruit]

Also it's literally not a monopoly.

[u/SandIsYellow → u/DimensionalFruit]

He’s right though, monopolies are bad for the people and should be split up.

Valve should be forced to split steam’s shares and give parts of it to other companies

[u/DimensionalFruit → u/SandIsYellow]

Monopolies are NOT inheritly bad, you're trying to punish a company for being successful.. successful because they DO benefit the people and are a great company.

🤦‍♂️

[u/SandIsYellow → u/DimensionalFruit]

There are no ethical billionaires, once a CEO has $1b of value, all his assets should be split up until he has $100m

But sure boy keep licking that Gabe Newell boot

[u/Cruxis87 → u/SandIsYellow]

Can you explain who Notch exploited when he made Minecraft by himself and then sold it to Microsoft for $2.5 billion

[u/DimensionalFruit → u/SandIsYellow]

There are ethical billionaires and Gabe is one of them. It's called having a successful product and business and they pay their taxes and owe you nothing.

It's the governments screwing you over not Gabe or valve. You are beyond help.

Good luck getting any company to do good enacting stupid shit like that.. further more they will just not in your country 😂😂

[u/_10032 → u/DimensionalFruit]

There are ethical billionaires and Gabe is one of them.

saying this because you like video games is so fucking cringe

like csgo/dota lootboxes aren't extremely predatory and a pipeline to getting children into gambling (and banned in some european countries, because they're obviously gambling)

like csgo hasn't had a major gambling problem for over a decade

like valve aren't being sued because of their lootboxes

what a fucking embarrassing comment

[u/couldhaveebeen → u/DimensionalFruit]

I don't agree that valve or steam are monopolies but there are NO ethical billionaires. Existence of billionaires means there are some workers whose surplus value has been taken by the bilionaire.

The company just giving the money to other companies idea is of course bullshit and childish but that doesn't make it ethical

[u/DimensionalFruit → u/couldhaveebeen]

Not true, you could be a millionaire that simply trades stocks or buys & sells land/property and you end up a billionaire, or it's simply assets that have risen in value over decades.. life is not that black and white.

[u/couldhaveebeen → u/DimensionalFruit]

Yes, all of those things are unethical too

[u/DimensionalFruit → u/couldhaveebeen]

No they aren't lol, they pay their taxes and that's the end of it

[u/couldhaveebeen → u/DimensionalFruit]

Yes, they are. Taxes dont determine something being ethical or not.

And also billionaires FAMOUSLY pay their fair share in taxes lmao /s

[u/RobinHood303 → u/SandIsYellow]

That's the route to enshittification.