this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
51 points (79.3% liked)

Games

16800 readers
521 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 23 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Steam very much makes that 30% worthwhile with the support and features they provide for free. They can't be forced to host games, prices are set by publishers/devs, steam takes 0% of steam key sales.

The price parity is the part that might be argued, but I doubt it will go far. I'm not seeing very good arguments for this being anti-consumer, which is the key point.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think 'anti competitive' is here framed as 'anti consumer'

This rule ensures that Steam doesn't have to compete with their 30% cut. If competitor was selling a game for 5$ cheaper, many consumers would rather buy it from that competitor instead, potentially forcing Steam to lower their 30% cut.

Now Steam at the moment is very good for us gamers, but it should not be taken for granted and can change in future.

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Except it's bogus, Steam doesn't require price parity UNLESS you sell a steam key, so as long as you don't want your customers to have the game on Steam you can sell it for cheaper than on Steam.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I had gifted a game while there was a sale but the person i gifted it to never got on their pc within the next month so i just got refunded and they never got the game. I complained that i still want them to have the game and they essentially just said that i need to now pay full price or suck it. They just didn't seem to understand that this was an issue at all and were just fobbing me off. I guess technically since i didn't lose money it's not the worst thing. But it's massively annoying because we were about to play that game together until we realised they never received it due to this so to me it felt very anti consumer.

[–] Cyberspark@sh.itjust.works 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's a fair argument and a decent case, but not one that strongly backs an anti-competition legal action.

[–] MrScottyTay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 months ago

True on the legal front but just wanted to share my anectode on how they're not always the best for customers because usually you just see the good stuff when it comes to steam and valve