sounds like another frivolous lawsuit, one pops up every week

Ya way late to the party of the joke of a lawsuit.
https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/discussions/forum/0/4333106230733877950/

It's on the front page, no idea how ya missed it.

引用自 potato：

sounds like another frivolous lawsuit, one pops up every week

You never know, Valve lost a lawsuit a year ago that resulted in a $1.6 million fine.

Just another lawsuit they will win, nothing burger

By the same people who already sued EPIC and SONY for the same thing and never won a single case.
Complete nothingburger of a story.

引用自 RANGER：

You never know, Valve lost a lawsuit a year ago that resulted in a $1.6 million fine.

the big difference there is it was an eu lawsuit

Claims.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo

It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.

Ms Shotbolt says this has enabled Steam to charge an "excessive commission of up to 30%", making UK consumers pay too much for purchasing PC games and add-on content.

The final price of the product has no bearing on the commission that the platform charges. Epic proved this by charging a lower commission under the guise that it would promote lower prices for gamers. When Epic secured exclusives, titles that wouldn't be subject to price parity obligations on Steam, those lower commissions on those titles did not result in comparatively lower prices. Instead, the end result was simply more profit for the game publisher as they continued to charge the industry standard prices for new releases. When those games eventually migrated to Steam, the prices didn't suddenly shoot up to compensate for the "excessive commission of up to 30%". They remained the same.

You can thank Epic for proving that these two claims are unrelated and basically ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

When publishing houses such as EA and Ubisoft pulled their games off of Steam and released them through their own distribution platforms, prices remained the same. Odd how those games which didn't have price parity agreements at the time, and then no longer subject to the 30% commission fees, remained the same exact prices.....

Could it be that the price of the product is really dictated by how much the market is willing to pay for it, and not by the underlying commission rates?

There's never been any evidence to the contrary although there's been plenty of opportunities for it emerge.

Not to mention that UK prices are not set abnormally high in comparison to other regions. If UK consumers have been paying too much, so has the entire world. And as has been discussed many times on these forums, game prices are actually lower overall if inflation is taken into account. Game prices have not kept pace with inflation.

Depending on who you ask, we are either paying too much, or not enough. Steam's 30% commission has no bearing on the decision.

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Claims.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo

It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.

Ms Shotbolt says this has enabled Steam to charge an "excessive commission of up to 30%", making UK consumers pay too much for purchasing PC games and add-on content.

The final price of the product has no bearing on the commission that the platform charges. Epic proved this by charging a lower commission under the guise that it would promote lower prices for gamers. When Epic secured exclusives, titles that wouldn't be subject to price parity obligations on Steam, those lower commissions on those titles did not result in comparatively lower prices. Instead, the end result was simply more profit for the game publisher as they continued to charge the industry standard prices for new releases. When those games eventually migrated to Steam, the prices didn't suddenly shoot up to compensate for the "excessive commission of up to 30%". They remained the same.

It kinda makes me wonder why people thought that would work any other way.
The game retailors onad any seller plays is to find the highjest price they can reliably move their inventory at .

Just like how the game the consumer plays is to spend the least amount of money to get the most amoyunt of stuff at the highest convenience and lowest risk


There's also the matter of 'perceived value'. If you price something at $60b people see it as a $60 product. If you Price it at $30 people see it as a $30 product. This is why yyou'll get more sales by marking a $60 product down by half as opposed top pricing it at $30 because the consumer will perceive the former as just a $30 game. Where as the latter is a $60 game that they can get for only $30! What a steal!

This was something JCPEnny learned the hard way..

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Claims.
You can thank Epic for proving that these two claims are unrelated and basically ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

When publishing houses such as EA and Ubisoft pulled their games off of Steam and released them through their own distribution platforms, prices remained the same. Odd how those games which didn't have price parity agreements at the time, and then no longer subject to the 30% commission fees, remained the same exact prices.....

Funny how that worked out eh?

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Not to mention that UK prices are not set abnormally high in comparison to other regions. If UK consumers have been paying too much, so has the entire world. And as has been discussed many times on these forums, game prices are actually lower overall if inflation is taken into account. Game prices have not kept pace with inflation.

The do have that VAT though. which many other countries do not have or have an equivalent of...yet.

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Depending on who you ask, we are either paying too much, or not enough. Steam's 30% commission has no bearing on the decision.

Steams 30% reflects what STeam thinks the value of it's services are worth to the dev/pub.
Dev/pubs that feel otherwise arwe free to list elsewhere or incur the costs of setting up and maintaining their own storefront.

They aren't forced to stay and pay. Just like someone hiring you or I isn't oblugated to opay us jack. They are free to go to the next guy. This is the heart of the free market. You're free to take your business elsewhere./. You're free to shop around.

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Claims.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo

It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms.

Ms Shotbolt says this has enabled Steam to charge an "excessive commission of up to 30%", making UK consumers pay too much for purchasing PC games and add-on content.

The final price of the product has no bearing on the commission that the platform charges. Epic proved this by charging a lower commission under the guise that it would promote lower prices for gamers. When Epic secured exclusives, titles that wouldn't be subject to price parity obligations on Steam, those lower commissions on those titles did not result in comparatively lower prices. Instead, the end result was simply more profit for the game publisher as they continued to charge the industry standard prices for new releases. When those games eventually migrated to Steam, the prices didn't suddenly shoot up to compensate for the "excessive commission of up to 30%". They remained the same.

You can thank Epic for proving that these two claims are unrelated and basically ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

When publishing houses such as EA and Ubisoft pulled their games off of Steam and released them through their own distribution platforms, prices remained the same. Odd how those games which didn't have price parity agreements at the time, and then no longer subject to the 30% commission fees, remained the same exact prices.....

Could it be that the price of the product is really dictated by how much the market is willing to pay for it, and not by the underlying commission rates?

There's never been any evidence to the contrary although there's been plenty of opportunities for it emerge.

Not to mention that UK prices are not set abnormally high in comparison to other regions. If UK consumers have been paying too much, so has the entire world. And as has been discussed many times on these forums, game prices are actually lower overall if inflation is taken into account. Game prices have not kept pace with inflation.

Depending on who you ask, we are either paying too much, or not enough. Steam's 30% commission has no bearing on the decision.

I like your response, very professional.

引用自 Start_Running：

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Claims.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo


The final price of the product has no bearing on the commission that the platform charges. Epic proved this by charging a lower commission under the guise that it would promote lower prices for gamers. When Epic secured exclusives, titles that wouldn't be subject to price parity obligations on Steam, those lower commissions on those titles did not result in comparatively lower prices. Instead, the end result was simply more profit for the game publisher as they continued to charge the industry standard prices for new releases. When those games eventually migrated to Steam, the prices didn't suddenly shoot up to compensate for the "excessive commission of up to 30%". They remained the same.

It kinda makes me wonder why people thought that would work any other way.
The game retailors onad any seller plays is to find the highjest price they can reliably move their inventory at .

Just like how the game the consumer plays is to spend the least amount of money to get the most amoyunt of stuff at the highest convenience and lowest risk


There's also the matter of 'perceived value'. If you price something at $60b people see it as a $60 product. If you Price it at $30 people see it as a $30 product. This is why yyou'll get more sales by marking a $60 product down by half as opposed top pricing it at $30 because the consumer will perceive the former as just a $30 game. Where as the latter is a $60 game that they can get for only $30! What a steal!

This was something JCPEnny learned the hard way..

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Claims.
You can thank Epic for proving that these two claims are unrelated and basically ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

When publishing houses such as EA and Ubisoft pulled their games off of Steam and released them through their own distribution platforms, prices remained the same. Odd how those games which didn't have price parity agreements at the time, and then no longer subject to the 30% commission fees, remained the same exact prices.....

Funny how that worked out eh?

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Not to mention that UK prices are not set abnormally high in comparison to other regions. If UK consumers have been paying too much, so has the entire world. And as has been discussed many times on these forums, game prices are actually lower overall if inflation is taken into account. Game prices have not kept pace with inflation.

The do have that VAT though. which many other countries do not have or have an equivalent of...yet.

引用自 rawWwRrr：

Depending on who you ask, we are either paying too much, or not enough. Steam's 30% commission has no bearing on the decision.

Steams 30% reflects what STeam thinks the value of it's services are worth to the dev/pub.
Dev/pubs that feel otherwise arwe free to list elsewhere or incur the costs of setting up and maintaining their own storefront.

They aren't forced to stay and pay. Just like someone hiring you or I isn't oblugated to opay us jack. They are free to go to the next guy. This is the heart of the free market. You're free to take your business elsewhere./. You're free to shop around.

Too bad devs/pubs are "hostages" of Steam fans...

If your game is not on Steam, I'll not buy it!

Only someone very naive would believe that devs/pubs actually like Steam and its cut. Steam is a "necessary evil", not something good for them.

you buy xbox you buy xbox games....

steam just did pc games bigger without making a pc...

whats the real problem...

Oh no, the poor little multi-billion dollar megacorporation could lose some pocket change if one of its army of lawyers makes a mistake. Let's all hold hands and pray for it.

引用自 Bloodwyrm Wildheart：

Oh no, the poor little multi-billion dollar megacorporation could lose some pocket change if one of its army of lawyers makes a mistake. Let's all hold hands and pray for it.

引用自 Bloodwyrm Wildheart：

Oh no, the poor little multi-billion dollar megacorporation could lose some pocket change if one of its army of lawyers makes a mistake. Let's all hold hands and pray for it.

ok you can start

引用自 Bloodwyrm Wildheart：

Oh no, the poor little multi-billion dollar megacorporation could lose some pocket change if one of its army of lawyers makes a mistake. Let's all hold hands and pray for it.

Typically a lawsuit like this isn't about money, but about changing a companies policies.

Though, in this case, it is all about a law firm trying to get money since the lawsuit is meritless as has been shown by others such as:

https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/discussions/forum/0/6725643618948286754/?tscn=1718287050#c6725643618948429614

and

https://psteamcommunity.yuanyoumao.com/discussions/forum/0/4333106230733877950/?ctp=3#c6725643618948147442