Noticed this update got pushed just now.

Edit: Seems they’re doing this to prevent costs from arbitration. Read comment below.

  • bassomitron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    They’re only doing this because of the class action being brought against them. It’s cheaper to let this go to court than to try and settle tens of thousands of individual arbitrations. In fact, there are plenty of companies now reversing course and realizing how badly forcing arbitration can backfire.

    Edit: For those unaware: https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/video-game-giant-valve-hit-with-consumer-class-action-over-pricing-2024-08-12/

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s a little hard to square “steam is over charging for games” with “look at all these games I bought for 80% off ($5) off”, but I guess there’s more to it.

      • Hugucinogens@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        31
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        After a short read, the case is specifically “Steam is prohibiting developers from selling their games to other platforms, at a price lower than that of steam, and then pockets the 30% platform cost, due to effective monopoly power”.

        Which, if true, is super bullshit.

        • Orygin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          68
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          It’s false if I remember correctly. Steam prohibits you from selling steam keys outside the store for less than the price on steam. They don’t forbid you from selling cheaper elsewhere

            • FlowVoid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              21
              ·
              2 months ago

              Why is that reasonable? Storefronts don’t get free keys from Steam, they have to buy them. After they pay Steam, they should be allowed to sell them at any price they want.

              Imagine if Ford said you couldn’t sell your car for less than what Ford dealers charge for used cars.

              • zod000@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                42
                ·
                2 months ago

                I am almost certain that steam keys are actually free to developers, which is the whole reason for the policy.

                • Grenfur@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  14
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Exactly! Pirate Software talked about this a while back. Steam doesn’t want you cutting them out, and then them still being responsible for the bandwidth to download and host your game.

                • woelkchen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I am almost certain that steam keys are actually free to developers, which is the whole reason for the policy.

                  Yes, they are. That’s what many of the Kinguin etc. keys are. People/bots pretend to be game reviewers/streamers and ask for free keys. I have a “Game Press” license for a game because back then I didn’t know of that method. I was under the impression those were keys sold by the developer in foreign markets for adjusted prices. Now I know better.

          • Grenfur@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            2 months ago

            Its this one. And the reason is that if steam sells a game at $10 and humble sells you a steam key at $5, steam gets no profit and is 100% responsible for the bandwidth when you donlload it, for hosting the page, for the market, etc etc. Basically steam doesn’t want to assume all the work with none of the reward. Which I don’t really see an iissue with.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        24
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think part of the issue is steam allows publishers to set region specific prices and lock users into a region.

        You pay $89 for an annual subscription package, somebody in brazil pays equivalent to $32.58.

        By definition it is discriminatory.

        • jerakor@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Discrimination only applies if the two parties are similar. In this case the location makes these parties dissimilar due to the inability to just go from one place to the other legally. Brazil gross national income is 1/3rd the US. It makes sense to price things at 1/3rd the US price.

          Steam taking 30% is a better deal than any other form of media gets by a mile. It’s crazy folks complain when it is so easy to self distribute a video game, people have been doing it for years and years. Steam doesn’t even require you to sign up for exclusivity like basically every other distribution/marketing service does for all media including other video game services.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The game company can afford to sell digital goods and services to Brazil at a fraction of the cost and they profit.

            If they sold redeemable codes on cards and cardboard locally it would solve their issue.

            They should have to offer any two people online the same price when they list things. An American with Brazillian Currency should have the right to buy a digital good with said currency at the price listed.

            A sudden demand for Brazilian Currency certainly does not hurt Brazil, either.

            • jerakor@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              If you do it that way you are importing a good.

              The end of this would not be that Steam relenting enables folks to start using foreign currency to get cheap games on a publicly traded space.

              What will happen if that goes through is a swift increase in taxation of export of digital goods. You’d have countries fighting tariff wars over video games.

              The idea that you can use foreign safe spots to buy and sell goods at a cheaper cost is something that only rich people get to do. As soon as it becomes broadly available to the general populace the governments crack down on it quickly.

        • UnityDevice@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          You realise that if that were to be “fixed”, you wouldn’t end up paying the low price, Brazil would end up paying the high price? One they can’t afford because they make as much in a month as you do in a week, or worse.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            The steam store didnt use to region lock and game companies still had different pricing.

    • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 months ago

      Ah that makes sense, it’s oddly suspicious they’d do this out of the blue. Though I am curious at the arbitration. Can they not include a clause that just says that the forced arbitration can be waived by them when they so choose? I feel like they would make carve outs for these big cases if they could to where they can still arbitrate on smaller cases which costs them less.

      (Also updating my post text, thanks!)