Valve Flagrantly Violates Sherman Antitrust Act

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by ikalugin

I think that Origin behaving like a malware may be one of the reasons why people hate it.

Yet when Steam is accused of the same thing, all Gaben has to do is say "we don't care what porn you watch", and everyone forgets all about allegations of Steam spying on users.

Originally Posted by Dowly

Sorry, that was my mistake. Brain said one thing, fingers did something else.

So, Valve is asking for Early Access developers to not price their Steam price higher than available on other places.

Good to see you understand. You've got it.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by ColdFront

Good to see you understand. You've got it.

I understand what Valve is saying, but I don't understand why you have such a big problem with it.

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I understand what Valve is saying, but I don't understand why you have such a big problem with it.

The problem is that if another site is selling the early access game for less than Steam, then that means Steam is selling it for higher, which Valve is prohibiting in its new Early Access policy. So this new policy bans other websites from competing with Steam on price.

[Bilge_Rat]

Woot! the Steam thanksgiving sale is here. Brave New World is 75% off!

Let the shopping begin.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by ColdFront

The problem is that if another site is selling the early access game for less than Steam, then that means Steam is selling it for higher, which Valve is prohibiting in its new Early Access policy. So this new policy bans other websites from competing with Steam on price.

Hmmm.. No it doesn't. It means the policy is designed to insure that Steam can MATCH the price - which brings value (through the reduced price) to the larger customer base.

Lowered prices (matching sale prices elsewhere) with a larger market portion equates to greater sales, which helps the developer pay his/her bills and keep working on the "next big thing".

Quite honestly - having done the "early access" bit a few times I am more against the whole "early access" movement than I am with Steam wanting to stay competitive for its users.

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Hmmm.. No it doesn't. It means the policy is designed to insure that Steam can MATCH the price - which brings value (through the reduced price) to the larger customer base.

Lowered prices (matching sale prices elsewhere) with a larger market portion equates to greater sales, which helps the developer pay his/her bills and keep working on the "next big thing".

Quite honestly - having done the "early access" bit a few times I am more against the whole "early access" movement than I am with Steam wanting to stay competitive for its users.

Hmmm.. No it doesn't. Read the policy again:

We expect Steam customers to get a price for the Early Access game no higher than they are offered on any other service or website. Please make sure that’s the case.

This means that any website that sells the same early access game for less ensures that Steam is selling it for higher, which would violate the new policy. More > Less. Kindergarten math. But my fellow morons on ABT can't even do that. One was so stupid he insisted that the Sherman Antitrust Act hasn't existed since 2005. I had to point him to a antitrust case in 2012 which cited a violation of the Act.

[Gargamel]

I really don't see an issue with this.

They aren't asking for a monopoly on an item, just equal pricing. And it's not permanent equal pricing, it's only for early access.

So if a dev wants to sell their product for a lower price (Why they would makes no sense), they can avoid steam altogether.

How, exactly is this hurting devs? Steam is forcing a higher price point.

If the consumer wants a cheaper price, they only have to wait a bit for the game to be released. There's no way this is an anti-trust issue, as there will always be other options for the consumer. I find it very doubtful the DOJ would consider "Early Access" a 'need' for consumers.

[CaptainHaplo]

OK first of all - the "policy" reads as a request. Note the "please" verbage.

Second - anti-trust means a monopoly - nowhere in there does Valve state that early access sales must be through them only. Instead - they ask only that they be allowed to insure that their price matches that of others.

Price matching. So "More>less" doesn't apply - rather, "price=price" does. So where exactly does "anti-trust" apply?

[Red October1984]

Even if they did violate something.....I like Steam too much. They still get my business...and there's probably a lot of people who are in the same boat.

[Gargamel]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

Even if they did violate something.....I like Steam too much. They still get my business...and there's probably a lot of people who are in the same boat.

That's really not the way to be looking at this. Big Corporations want you to think like this, so they can raise their prices and yet you'll come mindlessly flocking to them (see: TV).

It's the vigilant consumer who will eventually bring the downfall of the mega corps (I hope). While I disagree with CF's OP, I do like his style.

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

OK first of all - the "policy" reads as a request. Note the "please" verbage.

When Steam has a marketshare estimated between 70% and 80%, that "please" becomes "do it, or lose big time."

Second - anti-trust means a monopoly - nowhere in there does Valve state that early access sales must be through them only. Instead - they ask only that they be allowed to insure that their price matches that of others.

Steam already is a monopoly, and the Sherman Antitrust Act states anything in restraint of trade is a violation.

Price matching. So "More>less" doesn't apply - rather, "price=price" does. So where exactly does "anti-trust" apply?

Actually, both do. Valve is saying early access can be no higher on Steam, which means "Steam price<=price" and "if you let anyone undercut Steam on price, you're in violation, because if they sell for less, we are selling for higher, which we have outlawed." If Valve wanted to do "Steam price=price" without antitrust violation, they would have said "no higher than Steam", which means "Steam price>=price" and "we don't prohibit prices as long as they aren't higher than us".

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Gargamel

That's really not the way to be looking at this. Big Corporations want you to think like this, so they can raise their prices and yet you'll come mindlessly flocking to them (see: TV).

It's the vigilant consumer who will eventually bring the downfall of the mega corps (I hope). While I disagree with CF's OP, I do like his style.

I agree with you...but Steam is pretty reasonable. Not many other gaming retailers sell stuff for 75-90% off over the holidays and during certain seasons. I really only buy stuff during sales.

I don't buy into the early access/special editions stuff so that's my position. Until they screw over bigtime, i'll stay with them.

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by Red October1984

I agree with you...but Steam is pretty reasonable. Not many other gaming retailers sell stuff for 75-90% off over the holidays and during certain seasons. I really only buy stuff during sales.

I've heard Steam isn't reasonable when it comes to customer support, and that Origin's customer support is way better. In fact, I even heard one guy say he expressed interest in the Titanfall closed beta to an Origin employee, and that employee let him into it. Steam's sales are equaled or beat by Amazon and GamersGate.

I don't buy into the early access/special editions stuff so that's my position. Until they screw over bigtime, i'll stay with them.

Hope you don't regret that like the Order of War: Challenge community is right now. Valve ripped the game wholesale from their libraries after that community tried to keep its multiplayer alive. The tech press covered it up, the story only broke because of Forbes, and even after it broke the tech press refused to report it, except for MaximumPC.

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by ColdFront

I've heard Steam isn't reasonable when it comes to customer support, and that Origin's customer support is way better. In fact, I even heard one guy say he expressed interest in the Titanfall closed beta to an Origin employee, and that employee let him into it.

I used to be pretty "anti-steam", but now I prefer it. So you "heard" stuff a couple of times. I heard Mike Brown in Ferguson was attacked and then shot in the back by a racist cop. Guess what - that wasn't exactly true.... Nor has my experience with steam been anything like what you have "heard", and personal experience trumps rumor and hearsay any day. Origin does have good support - kind of. Its live and always available.... but often times can't fix the issue. The fact Dragon Age Inquisitor runs like crap on a 12 core monster with 48G of ram and a very good (not screaming) vid card shows that the publisher (Origin/Steam/Others) has limited ability to fix problems.

Steam's sales are equaled or beat by Amazon and GamersGate.

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they are not. What has that got to do with anything? Sales are great - regardless of who has them.

Hope you don't regret that like the Order of War: Challenge community is right now. Valve ripped the game wholesale from their libraries after that community tried to keep its multiplayer alive. The tech press covered it up, the story only broke because of Forbes, and even after it broke the tech press refused to report it, except for MaximumPC--3 months later.

Order of War can be purchased and played on Steam right now. The "Challenge" part (multiplayer "expansion" that required always on connection to Square Enix servers) of the game was removed because Square Enix (Not Steam/Valve) shut down the servers that allowed it to function. Steam did not control the servers, nor did they have any decision in the process of shutting them down. To blame Valve for the decisions of another company entirely - is just plain silly.

What should Valve have done - leave a known non-functional game in people's libraries? Oh - and the users that had the game - still had the game installed on their computers. Steam didn't "rip" the game files and data away. The game simply wouldn't work - due to Square Enix. All Steam did was make sure no one tried to run a game that everyone knew wouldn't work, then clog up Steam's support channels over something they had no ability to fix.

Read the ToS with Steam - you know they have the right to dump every game you have if they want. They won't because it will kill the business - but if the users are upset, they need to take it up with Square Enix, not Valve.

[Gargamel]

How exactly is steam a monopoly?

I can digitally order games from a couple online vnedors I know of, and could easily find another dozen if I cared to look. I can also go down to walmart or bestbuy or radioshack or etc etc etc.

You have plenty of other choices for your gaming needs, you just choose to not explore them.

A monopoly is when the consumer has no other choice but to buy a product or service from one company.