steam is simply saying, “if you want to sell your product through us you must not sell it elsewhere for cheaper”. don’t like it? don’t sell your product on steam. simple as that.
valve has a fiscal responsibility to ensure that developers aren’t siphoning customers away from the platform and requiring equal pricing for the same product across all platforms ensures a level playing field for both devs and resellers.
ask yourself, why would Ubisoft sell a game on steam for $60 and then attempt to sell the same game on their platform for $40? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not out of the goodness of their heart.
That’s why Ubisoft could sell their games for 30% cheaper on their own platform
good for them. they can fuck off and sell their shit on their platform exclusively.
that 30% that valve takes? that’s the cost of business working with valve. that’s the fee to have access to their delivery platform, their inventory control system, their large consumer base.
it melts my brain to attempt to comprehend how anyone can complain that a company is literally charging for their services AND have TOS to back it up.
the developers that use the platform to sell products
the customers that use the platform to buy products
Valve has a fiscal responsibility to maintain solvency. if they allow their competition to undercut them while at the same time abuse the system to sell products at a higher price, they risk opening a rift for consumers to flood to a cheaper platform and thus weakening their solvency and profitability.
if their competition wants to sell from their own platform at a cheaper rate, they need to make their products exclusive to their own platform.
this is marketing 101.
tired of people claiming Valve has a monopoly when it’s very clear that this is manufactured because competition is unable or unwilling to develop a better solution than Valve. that’s not monopolistic, that’s just business.
Nobody said Netflix had a monopoly when they put blockbuster out of business. nobody claimed monopoly when Walmart put your local grocery chains out of business. nobody claimed monopoly when Nintendo put atari and Sega out of business. know why? because a monopoly requires exclusive rights to sell a commodity or service. can you buy games outside of Steam? YES! then it’s not a monopoly.
antitrust my ass. Google had an antitrust suit. why? because the OS they maintained locked down app access to only their delivery platform. THAT’S a monopoly.
Not that I disagree with the point you are making, but yes, I distinctly remember people complaining about monopolistic practices for each example you gave XD
that’s some fucked up logic.
steam is simply saying, “if you want to sell your product through us you must not sell it elsewhere for cheaper”. don’t like it? don’t sell your product on steam. simple as that.
valve has a fiscal responsibility to ensure that developers aren’t siphoning customers away from the platform and requiring equal pricing for the same product across all platforms ensures a level playing field for both devs and resellers.
ask yourself, why would Ubisoft sell a game on steam for $60 and then attempt to sell the same game on their platform for $40? I’ll give you a hint, it’s not out of the goodness of their heart.
Valve takes 30% of all sales. What’s 30% of $60?
That’s why Ubisoft could sell their games for 30% cheaper on their own platform - they make the same amount of money as selling for $60 on Steam.
good for them. they can fuck off and sell their shit on their platform exclusively.
that 30% that valve takes? that’s the cost of business working with valve. that’s the fee to have access to their delivery platform, their inventory control system, their large consumer base.
it melts my brain to attempt to comprehend how anyone can complain that a company is literally charging for their services AND have TOS to back it up.
Oh, that’s easy: valve takes a cut on their platform. So Ubisoft can sell it lower on their platform because they do not have to pay valve.
A fiscal responsibility to who?
Valve has a fiscal responsibility to maintain solvency. if they allow their competition to undercut them while at the same time abuse the system to sell products at a higher price, they risk opening a rift for consumers to flood to a cheaper platform and thus weakening their solvency and profitability.
if their competition wants to sell from their own platform at a cheaper rate, they need to make their products exclusive to their own platform.
this is marketing 101.
tired of people claiming Valve has a monopoly when it’s very clear that this is manufactured because competition is unable or unwilling to develop a better solution than Valve. that’s not monopolistic, that’s just business.
Nobody said Netflix had a monopoly when they put blockbuster out of business. nobody claimed monopoly when Walmart put your local grocery chains out of business. nobody claimed monopoly when Nintendo put atari and Sega out of business. know why? because a monopoly requires exclusive rights to sell a commodity or service. can you buy games outside of Steam? YES! then it’s not a monopoly.
antitrust my ass. Google had an antitrust suit. why? because the OS they maintained locked down app access to only their delivery platform. THAT’S a monopoly.
Not that I disagree with the point you are making, but yes, I distinctly remember people complaining about monopolistic practices for each example you gave XD