Some interesting industry news for you here. Epic Games have announced a change to the revenue model of the Epic Games Store, as they try to pull in more developers and more gamers to actually purchase things.
I mean that’s good for developers I suppose but I’m still not going to be buying from Epic.
Well it would be great if Steam (allegedly) didn’t pressure devs to force price parity with their store. In other words, selling at game at 30% less than Steam on some other storefront could (allegedly) get one delisted. It’s blatantly anticompetitive/anticonsumer and should be illegal.
I know you said allegedly, but the article explicitly says that a policy like that doesn’t exist, and the only thing that would happen (if the game is cheaper somewhere else) is that the game wouldn’t be advertised during a sale.
When pushed on official policy in his deposition, DJ Powers claims that the ‘if else’ is normally this: “If we get to a situation where a partner is telling us that the price needs to be lower on other platforms than it is on Steam, then we will typically choose not to run curated marketing during times where that game is being discounted.”
He also notes that suggesting a game can’t be on the store at all - if not at parity - is “not our typical process”. Which is semi-believable, because a) it’s not in the contract and b) nobody at Valve has time to check and enforce that. But has it happened before, multiple times? Sure. And Wolfire’s lawyers will use that in the case.
Price parity is pro consumer. This is what consumer cares about. What they shouldn’t care about is developers’ revenue split because it doesn’t affect them.
No one would be selling on Epic for a lower “discount-like” price, even if it would be allowed. This notion was never about “hey dev, get your users a cheaper price”, it was always about “hey dev, get yourself more revenue if you choose our platform” (a lie too though since Epic is simply not a good selling platform). Else, you would have seen cheaper games amongst those Epic exclusives that never hit other stores.
When I buy something, I don’t want to be stressed about whether or not it is available elsewhere cheaper. The only case where I think price parity is meaningless is worldwide, but that’s only because regional pricing should be a thing, so that’s a different matter.
I’m pro competition. However a lot of people are deceived into thinking Epic is a competitor to Valve. They do not deliver similar levels of value and service.
Price competition is silly in digital marketplace, where you know any product can go on sale randomly at a very high discount. Thinking “I’ll buy it here now because it’s 30% cheaper, cool” sounds like a recipe for selling your loyalty, for cheap. Though in reality it would never really be 30%, so you’re aiming to sell yourself even cheaper.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
Well it would be great if Steam (allegedly) didn’t pressure devs to force price parity with their store. In other words, selling at game at 30% less than Steam on some other storefront could (allegedly) get one delisted. It’s blatantly anticompetitive/anticonsumer and should be illegal.
https://newsletter.gamediscover.co/p/does-steam-price-fix-and-does-that
It would be like Amazon threatening to pull a brand from their store if it was cheaper somewhere else.
Prefer Steam? Totally fine. But personally I would take a 30% discount for the extra hassle, barring some game-specific benefit.
I know you said allegedly, but the article explicitly says that a policy like that doesn’t exist, and the only thing that would happen (if the game is cheaper somewhere else) is that the game wouldn’t be advertised during a sale.
Dude is just a loser shill. Imagine being that far up Epic’s ass.
Price parity is pro consumer. This is what consumer cares about. What they shouldn’t care about is developers’ revenue split because it doesn’t affect them.
No one would be selling on Epic for a lower “discount-like” price, even if it would be allowed. This notion was never about “hey dev, get your users a cheaper price”, it was always about “hey dev, get yourself more revenue if you choose our platform” (a lie too though since Epic is simply not a good selling platform). Else, you would have seen cheaper games amongst those Epic exclusives that never hit other stores.
Price parity is anti competitive, the fuck you’re talking about???
When I buy something, I don’t want to be stressed about whether or not it is available elsewhere cheaper. The only case where I think price parity is meaningless is worldwide, but that’s only because regional pricing should be a thing, so that’s a different matter.
So you’re anti competition and anti consumer in a capitalist system.
I’m pro competition. However a lot of people are deceived into thinking Epic is a competitor to Valve. They do not deliver similar levels of value and service.
Price competition is silly in digital marketplace, where you know any product can go on sale randomly at a very high discount. Thinking “I’ll buy it here now because it’s 30% cheaper, cool” sounds like a recipe for selling your loyalty, for cheap. Though in reality it would never really be 30%, so you’re aiming to sell yourself even cheaper.
That’s some Mickey mouse logic is I’ve ever seen it
I wouldn’t play games from Epic’s storefront if I were paid to.