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/MachineGunBanned]

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/MalHeartsNutmeg → u/redchris18]

You have been provided links by other people too and just keep refusing reality, Valve fanboys like you are so sad lol. Literally can not see the slightest fault. Hell people like you continue to refuse that Valve is wrong even when they do lose in court.

The good thing is that courts aren't run by blind fan boys like you, and Valve does get pulled in to line.

[u/redchris18 → u/MalHeartsNutmeg]

I just want to start this reply by pointing out that I have actually engaged with the sources people have cited, whereas you have fled from any such analysis as if you were terrified that doing so would reveal your opinions to be unfounded and incorrect. I invite others to draw their own conclusions as to your motives for doing so...

You have been provided links by other people too

Merely dumping a 9000-page document doesn't instantly win you an anonymous internet argument. It just means that you've offered up what you think is evidence supporting your stated position, which anyone else is then free to dispute by discrediting your source. I have shown there to be issues with the sources others have cited, and they are required to explain those issues.

refusing reality

So you think that the mere act of posting a link instantly bans anyone else from ever questioning it, do you?

I think that alone is sufficient to render your opinions invalid.

Valve fanboys like you

Why would you even try to repeat the same fallacy after it has been shown to be wildly inaccurate? Are you hoping that merely claiming something makes it true? Are you so committed to the notion that your ego can't cope with me actually favouring a rival to Steam?

It makes your assertion that:

Valve fanboys like you are so sad lol.

Look like pure projection. It clearly doesn't apply to me because, if anything, I'm a GOG fanboy, so the only plausible conclusion is that you're projecting your own prejudices onto me.

Literally can not see the slightest fault.

There's a difference between not seeing "the slightest fault" and not accepting the baseless, dubious, contentious assertions that seem to be debunked by the sources you're using to try to validate it.

You're now trying to frame any questioning of your prejudicial stance as dogmatic, which, once again, strongly suggests dogmatism on your part, not on that of those who dispute your untenable assertions.

people like you continue to refuse that Valve is wrong even when they do lose in court.

Prove it. Should be easy enough, surely...?

The good thing is that courts aren't run by blind fan boys like you, and Valve does get pulled in to line.

Ah, this is a classic one, too. You're trying to act as though the ongoing lawsuit is a foregone conclusion in your favour, and thus force others to argue as if your own desired judgment is already extant.

People do that kind of thing because they can't make their case on actual evidence, and have to rely on hypothetical future "evidence2 instead. It's a sign of insecurity.

[u/MalHeartsNutmeg → u/redchris18]

They gave you a page and section number. You don't want evidence. I gave you a short article. Too long, too short, nothing is good enough. Gave you the case so you could find evidence you deemed good enough, not good enough.

[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.