The entire complaint seems to be centered around the idea that you can’t sell the game for different price off platform. That’s demonstrably untrue. You can sell the game for a different price of platform as long as they’re not using steam keys. Which is hardly an unreasonable onus, It’s not hard to generate your own keys.
The other complaint seems to be about the 30% but again you can just distribute yourself. Of course then you have to fund all your own server architecture, that’s what the 30% pays for.
If that is demonstrably true, I’d like to see the demonstration. In fact, the case alleges the policy extends to non-key sales (see pts 204, 205, 207, 208).
This has already been raised in the European courts and has basically been beaten down that that there is no basis. Feel free to link to an actual court decision that proves otherwise.
It’s an ongoing case, so I don’t know what you expect of me here. My reply was to correct your misunderstanding about the focus of the case, which is not limited to the use of steam keys as you originally claimed.
I am not aware of the european case you reference, would you mind pointing me to where I can learn more?
Why are you getting the idea that it extends to non-steam keys as well? That’s never been the case because that’s not actually true. They have no control over what price you sell a product at off the platform as long as it’s not using steam keys. So if they’re claiming that it also includes steam keys then that’s not true.
The points linked above allege Valve will delist a game from their platform if the price is lower off-platform (even for non-key sales), correct?
This is called a “Platform Most Favored Nation” clause, and it has anti-competitive effects. It is controlling the price off-platform using the leverage of market share to coerce behaviors out of publishers.
Please also link me this European court case, I have been unable to locate it myself.
The entire complaint seems to be centered around the idea that you can’t sell the game for different price off platform. That’s demonstrably untrue. You can sell the game for a different price of platform as long as they’re not using steam keys. Which is hardly an unreasonable onus, It’s not hard to generate your own keys.
The other complaint seems to be about the 30% but again you can just distribute yourself. Of course then you have to fund all your own server architecture, that’s what the 30% pays for.
If that is demonstrably true, I’d like to see the demonstration. In fact, the case alleges the policy extends to non-key sales (see pts 204, 205, 207, 208).
This has already been raised in the European courts and has basically been beaten down that that there is no basis. Feel free to link to an actual court decision that proves otherwise.
It’s an ongoing case, so I don’t know what you expect of me here. My reply was to correct your misunderstanding about the focus of the case, which is not limited to the use of steam keys as you originally claimed.
I am not aware of the european case you reference, would you mind pointing me to where I can learn more?
Why are you getting the idea that it extends to non-steam keys as well? That’s never been the case because that’s not actually true. They have no control over what price you sell a product at off the platform as long as it’s not using steam keys. So if they’re claiming that it also includes steam keys then that’s not true.
Again, I am really wanting to see this EU case you reference, because this is an issue I have been reading up on. Do you have a reference for me?
The points linked above allege Valve will delist a game from their platform if the price is lower off-platform (even for non-key sales), correct?
This is called a “Platform Most Favored Nation” clause, and it has anti-competitive effects. It is controlling the price off-platform using the leverage of market share to coerce behaviors out of publishers.
Please also link me this European court case, I have been unable to locate it myself.