Newell had requested a remote deposition in the Wolfire v. Valve case because of concerns about contracting Covid-19.
  • sirdorius@programming.devEnglish
    313·
    11 months ago

    I’m also curious what the allegations are. The only ones I ever heard were from Epic, which was basically making a big fuss to promote their own competitive platform (which was so shit it didn’t gain any traction apart from the free games).

    I’ve tried all the online stores ever since the cloudification (remember Impulse?) but none have ever been able to compete with Steam in terms of features and value to the customer. Steam didn’t get to the top by being anti competitive, it got there by being competitive and offering a better product to all stakeholders, not just to shareholders.

    And as you mentioned, there is plenty of competition for Steam. Don’t like the monoply? Get it on GOG or Itch instead.

    • Rose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      9·
      11 months ago

      You can read the complaint in full here.

      Edit: Updated with a more recent version.

      • sirdorius@programming.devEnglish
        161·
        11 months ago

        Thanks. So TLDR:

        1. PMFN (Platform Most-Favored-Nations clause): Valve forces publishers to price games on other platforms at the same price or higher than Steam. This is an anticompetitive monopoly because publishers can’t sell the game at lower prices on platforms with a lower cut than 30%, which would improve competitiveness. Very valid point
        2. Keys that publishers can sell on other storefronts are limited. This point is moot. The fact that Steam allows you to activate a product that was purchased elsewhere and then use their infrastructure to download the game is way more than they have to do. They can completely make the rules here as this is basically a free service that you get from Valve.
        3. Some murky points about Valve policing review bombing that isn’t explained properly.