• smeg@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      That is addressed by the lawyer:

      According to Shotbolt, the developer and digital distribution company is “shutting out” all competition in the PC gaming market as it “forces” game publishers to sign off on price parity obligations - supposedly preventing them from going on to offer lower prices on other platforms.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        But I thought those are only for steam keys? That’s always been what devs found out when trying to vary their prices on storefronts: Sell the game standalone, Valve sleeps. Sell a steam key or use the steam backend, real shit.

        Epic is good at making it sound like it applies to sales in general though, while technically not being wrong from how they word it: You do sign a price parity obligation, yes. And it does prevent you from offering lower prices on other stores. For, well, steam keys. But they’re not mentioning that last part as that makes it sound like Epic just sells stuff for the same end-user price because they can.

        • smeg@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          I’ve seen some comments agreeing with you and others citing examples of individual developers being told not to sell at lower prices. Don’t know if the prosecutor is citing those cases or they’re just a chancer who hasn’t done their research properly.

          • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            They’re also the prosecutor, they can word it like that if they so desire. It’s on the opposing attorney to correct them.

            And possibly demand sanctions if they can convince the bar that it was willful omission of details.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why would they lower their price if the same game needs to be sold for more on another platform in order to see a RoI?

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        But it doesn’t need to be sold for more? As evidenced by not being sold for more despite the cut Valve takes? If that were an issue the games would cost say 70 on Steam but 60 elsewhere?

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          5 months ago

          It needs to be sold for 70 on Steam in order to bring in the revenue per copy they need for their RoI, why would they go and sell for less elsewhere if Steam with their 30% share sets the bar? People won’t feel ripped off, the price is the same, what they don’t realize is that the only reason the price is that high in the first place is that Valve gets 21$ from each sale! The company needs 49$/copy in their pockets, if the distributor’s share had always been 15% instead of 30% we would be buying games for 58$ instead of 70$ right now.

          • MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I find it absolutely wild that you seem to think Steam’s 30% cut is the sole reason AAA games cost $70. Have you ever looked into how much it costs to sell a game at a retail store? From what I’ve seen Steam takes roughly the same cut as most retailers do and then the publisher still has to produce the physical copies and distribute them. They would make the same amount on Steam if and only if they printed, burned, packaged, and distributed their physical copies for free, not to mention the promotional materials they’re sending out to retailers.

            Everything I’m seeing indicates that compared to a physical copy (which is given for a majority of AAA games) a major publisher would earn far more money per copy on Steam than at GameStop, Target, Walmart, or any other retailer where they’re charging the same $70 price at. But Steam is the real problem that’s hurting their RoI, apparently.

            I’ll agree I think Steam’s cut is high and they could earn a lot of favor by turning it down a bit, but your argument seeming to insinuate that their 30% cut is the sole reason games cost $70 is absolutely wild to me.

            • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              This discussion is about Steam, they have control over the market, all distributors are in the wrong and take too high of a cut, I’ll talk about the other distributors when we have a discussion about them.

              • MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                So companies made due with the same cut from retailers for decades, Steam comes along and offers the same cut with none of the other expenses associated with those retailers (thereby giving them a better RoI than the same retailers they made due with for decades) and suddenly Steam is the reason games are so expensive.

                For all of your talk that Steam’s awful cut sets the bar for the price or else they won’t make their RoI on games sold there, you suddenly don’t seem to care very much about the very many retailers these AAA publishers still regularly sell through that cost them a significantly larger percentage per game sold than Steam does.

                  • MufinMcFlufin@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Oh is that because Steam exists in isolation and can’t be compared to any other platform? If so, tell me what about Steam makes it an apples to oranges comparison with Epic, GOG, Origin, and Battle.Net? If they’re up for discussion then why is it that physical game distribution isn’t allowed to be talked about? If an average consumer is only really concerned about getting the game then why are some forms of getting their game not allowed for discussion? Why should retailers be exempt from this discussion?

                    You also didn’t seem to mind slashing their cut percentage in half, but how can we know that’s a feasible percentage if we’re not allowed to talk about other distributors and see if they’re able to make 15% work? If we’re not considering other distributors at all then who’s to say if 30% is unreasonable? Should it be increased or decreased and by how much?

                    Suppose we were instead talking about Nintendo selling games for too much, how would we decide it’s too much if we couldn’t compare it to other studios, distributors, or platforms that demonstrate they can still run a business and charge less?

                    Face it, talk about and comparison to any other distributor or distribution method is fully relevant and required if you want to have any meaningful discussion. You just don’t seem to want to discuss retailers because they’re hurting your weak argument.