Remix.run Logo
bloomca 4 days ago

Is it allowed to charge more in storefronts which take these cuts? Why nobody does that?

What about Steam? Can a publisher sell a game for ~$45 in their store and $60 in Steam, or is it against some TOC?

pkaye 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

For Steam, I believe the price parity requirement for Steam only applies to Steam Keys. Publishers can sell at a lower prices on other store front as long as it doesn't involve Steam infrastructure.

AndrewPGameDev 4 days ago | parent [-]

There were some comments talking about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45002977

I'll just reproduce FatalLogic's last comment here:

""" In the class action case[0], which was allowed to go forward by the court last year, it is claimed that Valve told someone:

"This includes communications from Valve that “‘the price on Steam [must be] competitive with where it’s being sold elsewhere’” and that Valve “‘wouldn’t be OK with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they didn’t use Steam keys.’” Dkt. No. 343 ¶ 158, 160 (quoting emails produced at VALVE_ANT_0598921, 0605087). "

(This is a new case, not the 2021 suit, which was rejected by the court, then amended and refiled, later with an additional plaintiff added)

[0]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.29... """

So a US court of law has decided that it's at least possible that this isn't true.

somenameforme 4 days ago | parent [-]

Very few people here are going to have a PACER account. Here's a link to the filing itself. [1] It'll be interesting to see where this goes and if it's deemed accurate, because it runs directly contrary to what Steam's stated policy is. This [2] appears to be part of the testimony from the case. It really doesn't look good for Valve as they effectively acknowledge pursuing price parity and implicitly doing something that sounds like a soft shadowban of games where the publishers don't agree.

Their lawyers sure frame it such a friendly and elegant way though: 'We want to make sure our customers are getting the best deal, and we wouldn't want to mislead them into making a poor decision [by promoting the game] if that's not the case.' Undoubtedly the best legal money can buy. I have immense respect for Gabe and I hope he steps in at some point because this sounds like the bean counters are starting to run amuck. Or course it's possible he's complicit to this, but I think he probably deserves the benefit of the doubt, for now.

[1] - https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/washington/...

[2] - https://trellis.law/doc/district/13397794/wolfire-games-llc-...

zdragnar 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Pretty much none of the stores allow that. If my memory is right, Apple and Steam don't, though Google might be a bit more permissive in their store.

oefrha 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Is it allowed to charge more in storefronts which take these cuts? Why nobody does that?

What? There are plenty of apps charging more when you buy currency/subscription on iOS compared to when you buy from their website, or in some cases Android app. Patreon is an example that made the loudest noise recently, but it’s been a widespread practice for years. That said Apple doesn’t (didn’t?) allow you to tell users that a cheaper option exists elsewhere.

echelon 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Games are silly and inessential. And there are a dozen markets to choose from. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, Steam, GOG, Epic, Ubisoft, Humble, Itch, direct download, retro games, ...

Phones are essential. You can't get a job without one. It's impossible to stay connected or navigate without one. You can't even order food in a restaurant these days without your smartphone. Yet two companies control and tax the entirety of mobile computing.

Scratch that. Mobile computing *IS* computing for most people. It's the only computer or internet portal they know.

And two companies own it all. The passport to the modern world is owned and taxed by two trillion dollar companies.

2000's-era DOJ-litigated antitrust abuser Microsoft dreams that they had this much of a monopoly.

The Halloween papers sounded evil. Mobile computing monopolization is evil.

Here's what needs to be done:

1. Web installs. Both companies need to allow web native installs without scare walls or buried settings flags that need to be enabled. First class apps from the web, with no scaring users about it. We have all the technology to make this work safely: permissions, app scanning, signature blacklisting, etc.

2. Defaults. Both companies need to be prevented from pushing their apps as defaults. No more default browsers, default wallets, default app stores, default photo galleries, default search engine, etc.

3. Taxation and control. Apps cannot be taxed on any transactions. Users must not be forced to "sign in" with the monopoly provider's identity system. Apps must not be forced to use the monopoly payment rails. Apps must not be forced to be human reviewed or update to the latest UI changes / SDK on a whim.

Mobile apps and platforms must work like desktop software.

We need this freedom and flexibility for consumers, and we need competition to oxygenate the tech sector and reward innovation. Capitalism shouldn't be easy - it should be hard to keep your spot at the top. Resting on the laurels of easily defended moats for twenty years while reaping some of the most outsized benefits in the industry has created lethargy and held us back.

zdragnar 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

We could have had other competitors, but nobody wanted them.

Windows phones had a very enthusiastic but too-tiny following. Blackberry lost the plot with terrible hardware and software for the app era (developing an app for the Storm was enough to convince me to never get one of their phones). Symbian's S60 was too little too late in the US. Ubuntu, Mozilla, and others all tried various flavors of Linux and web based phones to no success.

I don't think you can really blame Google or Apple for any of these failures in the same way Microsoft could be blamed in the 90's for their abuses.

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if, eventually, Google was forced to change how they handle third party app stores. iPhones will likely never be big enough for Apple to be forced to allow other stores in the US.

echelon 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> We could have had other competitors, but nobody wanted them.

Don't blame individual consumers. Bad things happen at a societal level all the time. Carbon emissions, etc. We're powerless to stop it without governmental intervention.

Your average consumer isn't educated on marketplace behaviors and doesn't understand how a lack of consumer choice leads to increased prices, inflexibility, taxation of smaller marketplace participants, less innovation, less freedom, etc. They simply can't understand the complexities of the case as deep familiarity isn't a part of their daily lives.

The large players that set these rules are squarely to blame.

> I don't think you can really blame Google or Apple for any of these failures in the same way Microsoft could be blamed in the 90's for their abuses.

You can install whatever you want on a Microsoft PC.

thewebguyd 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> We could have had other competitors, but nobody wanted them

People didn't even get a choice. Google bullied Windows Phone out of the market.

People won't switch to a platform without apps. Microsoft tried to fix that, made an HTML5 youtube app. Google threw a fit and blocked it, twice. MS even followed what Google told them to do, and still blocked the app.

Google saw great hardware, and an OS that was gaining media attention (Windows phone at the time had a lot of positive reviews, and the Nokia Lumnia phones were great, and better cameras than any Android at the time) and used their market power to kill it.

echelon 4 days ago | parent [-]

> Google threw a fit and blocked it, twice.

Can we get retroactive regulatory enforcement for that?

Sounds like Google needs to no longer have YouTube. They're wielding it like a blunt instrument to destroy trillions in market value.

andsoitis 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Mobile computing IS computing for most people. It's the only computer or internet portal they know. And two companies own it all. The passport to the modern world is owned and taxed by two trillion dollar companies.

Top smartphone brand global market share: Samsung (20%), Apple (17%), Xiaomi (14%), vivo (9%), OPPO (8%).

https://www.counterpointresearch.com/en/insights/global-smar...

mhh__ 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I bet there are quite a few people out there who actually have a phone with a faster single thread perf than their laptop i.e. latest iPhone + a crappy windows laptop