Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraThey could take 0% and still violate the DMA so no (IE was included for free in Windows, this still violated their monopoly situation in EU). This is about abusing your position as a gatekeeper and not about some specific cut. Funnily enough you have now changed your tune from 30% to (or some other amount) so it seems like you are in agreement that this is not about the 30%.

No, you just have it backwards: It's not like the commission conceived rules & then checked which companies are violating them. No, there were complaints by (European) companies (like Spotify) that Apple is hurting their businesses. It was recognised that some big players are abusing their market power & then constructed rules to counter said effects - like taking 30%. All other concessions by Apple (taking less) became effective after the DMA was already in progress (but nowhere near being passed) or after being in effect (to conform with the DMA).

So yes, the DMA has parts specifically about Apple's (& Google's) cut which was 30% when it was initially conceived.

I think the Internet Explorer was never in dispute for the DMA because it was already dying/dead but yes, there are other provisions to counter different effects, too (like bundling software). Obviously the DMA is not all about Apple.

IE was never part of the DMA because that happened years before DMA was a thing plus that the IE case never needed something like the DMA since Microsoft have a monopoly so the ordinary monopoly laws was applied. The DMA is a way to address market related issues in the technology domain even though each individual company might not have a monopoly as such, hence the new definition of being gatekeepers.

Like monopoly laws the DMA is all about not allowing people with monopoly (or near monopoly) position to abuse their status as monopoly in one area to gain advantages in another area, for Microsoft this was them using their monopoly among Operating Systems to try and get an advantage when it came to Internet Browsers.

Likewise with the DMA this is about gatekeepers not being allowed to use their position, like Apple being gatekeepers of their Appstore, to get advantages in the payment sector. Which have ZERO to do with a specific cut.

That Apple cut back its cut was not part of them being compliant with the DMA, them allowing other payment providers for in-app purchases for apps in their Appstore was what made them compliant. So the single reason that Apple cut back on their cut was to keep people using their payment option instead of moving so some of the 3d parties that they just allowed.

And it is you that have it backwards, Spotify complained about Apple in 2019 but the initial plans for the DMA was made in 2014 during the Juncker Commission, the same commission that gave us the GDPR and that removed the cell phone roaming charges within the EU. It was never about Apples, Google or anyone else:s cut, it was always about regulating the behaviour of the Big Tech firms.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraThere is not a single mentioning about 30% nor about any value of a cut in the DMA, the DMA is entirely about not abusing your position as a gatekeeper, something that Apple violated by forcing in-app payments to be done by the Apple payment solution _and_ something that they violated by not allowing 3d party app stores to be installed on the iPhone and iPad.

No, it's about Apple as a payment processor because they take 30% (or some other amount). If it wasn't about Apple's percentage then the whole story would be done now - they allow 3rd party payments. But it's not because they still claim a percentage (now 30% - 3% payment processing fee = 27%).

They could take 0% and still violate the DMA so no (IE was included for free in Windows, this still violated their monopoly situation in EU). This is about abusing your position as a gatekeeper and not about some specific cut. Funnily enough you have now changed your tune from 30% to (or some other amount) so it seems like you are in agreement that this is not about the 30%.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraWhich would be true even if the cut was 1%, so no it is not about the 30% itself. And as I have tried to explain before, the DMA is about lock-in and not some arbitrary cut. Which should be self explanatory since the EU have not went after Valve for their 30% cut on Steam, the DMA case against Valve is only about restricted cross-border sales with zero mentionings of the cut.

I don't think it would be the same if the cut was just 1%. The same is true about Valve.

But yes, we're talking about Apple's cut in general, 30% tax [External Link] is just a representation because that's the default. It's still being investigated although they lowered it to (I think) 27% with external payment processing (as I already said). The cut is part of the DMA because it provides an unfair advantage.

So yes, you're right: Unlike Apple & Co., Valve is actually treated much better since it's only corporate dispute while Apple & Co. face official regulation.

Valve is not a gatekeeper [External Link] (yet) so the DMA does not apply at all. Geo-blocking is a completely different case.

There is not a single mentioning about 30% nor about any value of a cut in the DMA, the DMA is entirely about not abusing your position as a gatekeeper, something that Apple violated by forcing in-app payments to be done by the Apple payment solution _and_ something that they violated by not allowing 3d party app stores to be installed on the iPhone and iPad.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraAnd I pointed out why I think different.

No, you acknowledged 2 claims. But your earlier statement was I contended only the first which I never did.

Quoting: F.UltraConsidering that you just replied to a list of reasons for why it wasn't about 30%, no.

A list in which you state: "[they] simply do not want to give Apple any money". So, yes, that's the whole point.

Which would be true even if the cut was 1%, so no it is not about the 30% itself. And as I have tried to explain before, the DMA is about lock-in and not some arbitrary cut. Which should be self explanatory since the EU have not went after Valve for their 30% cut on Steam, the DMA case against Valve is only about restricted cross-border sales with zero mentionings of the cut.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraHow one earth can you claim that I was misquoting people, this very quote below was your OP comment that I replied to:

I've already pointed out why.

And I pointed out why I think different.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraNo the DSA is not fighting the power to take 30%, they are fighting the lock in, which is why they also have forced Apple to allow external app stores to be installed on iPhones in the EU. And ofc you can care about Apple's payment processing beyond the percentage that they take, perhaps you want to be able to sell in app items in countries where Apple does not conduct payments, perhaps you simply do not want to give Apple any money and might use another payment processor that takes an even higher cut (working in the Finance industry for 30 years I have seen many such cases so this is not as convoluted as it first sounds, some people/organizations simply are this way), and so on and on.

It's actually the DMA not the DSA, sorry for that mixup.

Emphasized by me: Exactly - challenging Apple's 30%.

Considering that you just replied to a list of reasons for why it wasn't about 30%, no.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraGood luck trying to find that in their lawsuit (they are not), the only thing that they presents is in their FAQ where they claim that Valve is doing this with weasel wording trying to avoid the fact that is all about Steam Keys. We all went over this in 2024 when they filed it.

Case 2:21-cv-00563-JCC Document 127 Filed 03/23/23

204. TomG also explained to another game publisher that the publisher should “[t]hink critically about how your decisions might affect Steam customers, and Valve. If the offer you’re making fundamentally disadvantages someone who bought your game on Steam, it’s probably not a great thing for us or our customers (even if you don’t find a specific rule describing precisely that scenario).” In that same thread, TomG responded to a question by stating: “we usually choose not to sell games if they’re being sold on our store at a price notably higher than other stores. That is, we’d want to get that lower base price as well, or not sell the game at all.”

Valve's response Case 2:21-cv-00563-JCC Document 128 Filed 04/06/23

204. Valve admits that the quoted words appeared in forum postings. Valve denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 204.

Case 2:21-cv-00563-JCC Document 127 Filed 03/23/23

205. In response to one inquiry from a game publisher, in another example, Valve explained: “We basically see any selling of the game on PC, Steam key or not, as a part of the same shared PC market- so even if you weren’t using Steam keys, we’d just choose to stop selling a game if it was always running discounts of 75% off on one store but 50% off on ours. . . .”

Valve's response Case 2:21-cv-00563-JCC Document 128 Filed 04/06/23

205. Valve admits a Valve employee made the statement quoted in paragraph 205.

Thanks for those. I had for some reason misremembering these from the Wolfire papers in that is contains so many "Valve denies..." that in my memory they had denied all of it, apparently not.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraBut his point wasn't that they where singled out, his point was that they where not alone in taking 30% and that both Apple and Sony did take 30% as well, something that you contended.

Just stop misquoting people. I was very specific on what I was contending - that's why I was quoting it.

Let me quote it again - this time only the part you haven't read:

Quoting: LupertEverett[…]
yet somehow it is only Steam who is constantly put on target for it.

Do you understand this now?

How one earth can you claim that I was misquoting people, this very quote below was your OP comment that I replied to:

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: LupertEverett

3: Commissions commissions

The fee, that is... 30%...

You know... the same amount Sony and Apple also gets, yet somehow it is only Steam who is constantly put on target for it.

That's simple not correct.

As you can see there are two claims being brought forward and your reply is simply "wrong" so I checked to see if claim #1 was true and indeed it was. His second claims is bascially also true since the claims about Sony and Apple are not about the cut but about the ability to use another payment system.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraThe DSA is not at all about the 30%, in fact the DSA says nothing at all about what cut you are allowed to make, all it says is that certain services have gone big enough that they are now designated as gatekeepers by the EU and as such they are now under different legislation, one of them being that they are not allowed to lock in customers to their in-house payment system. The App Store being designated a gatekeeper is thus not allowed to force apps to user the Apple payment system, whatever payment system they choose to use is however free to take a 30% cut if they want.

And yet, it's an ongoing process because Apple still claims the 30%. How can that be? Nobody cares about Apple's payment processing but the 30% attached to it. That the market power the DSA is fighting. Do you understand this now?

No the DSA is not fighting the power to take 30%, they are fighting the lock in, which is why they also have forced Apple to allow external app stores to be installed on iPhones in the EU. And ofc you can care about Apple's payment processing beyond the percentage that they take, perhaps you want to be able to sell in app items in countries where Apple does not conduct payments, perhaps you simply do not want to give Apple any money and might use another payment processor that takes an even higher cut (working in the Finance industry for 30 years I have seen many such cases so this is not as convoluted as it first sounds, some people/organizations simply are this way), and so on and on.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraAgain none of this, including the DSA, have anything to do with the 30% that is under discussion. Also the Fortnite vs Apple have no releveance for Steam since Steam does not have the same "you must use our payment platform for in-app purchases" as Apple have. I still fail to understand what point you are trying to make here?

Then that's on you if you can't make the connection. That's all I can do to show that Valve is - in fact - not singled out - i.e. LupertEverett's statement is false.

To the rest of your claims:
There's even a message (e-mail? I'm pretty sure it was covered here, too) from Sweeney directed at Newell which explicitly states it's about the 30% of the App Store.

The same with the DSA: One part is explicitly about the 30% because it forces Apple to allow payment processing outside the App Store.

But his point wasn't that they where singled out, his point was that they where not alone in taking 30% and that both Apple and Sony did take 30% as well, something that you contended.

The DSA is not at all about the 30%, in fact the DSA says nothing at all about what cut you are allowed to make, all it says is that certain services have gone big enough that they are now designated as gatekeepers by the EU and as such they are now under different legislation, one of them being that they are not allowed to lock in customers to their in-house payment system. The App Store being designated a gatekeeper is thus not allowed to force apps to user the Apple payment system, whatever payment system they choose to use is however free to take a 30% cut if they want.

Since Valve never ever have forced games to use the Valve store for in-game purchases (or even for DLC purchases) and since the DSA contains no legislation about the 30% cut then none of this is relevant for Steam at all. Do you understand this now?

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: F.UltraWell in the sense that the public at large is the government, they are by definition the only thing that allows the business to exist in the first place and therefore also have a say in how they conduct their affairs. One such say is e.g outlawing predatory and unfair pricing.

The main issue is instead (in my view) that no one so far have managed to prove that 30% is either unfair or predatory.

Corporations, certainly, exist at the government's sufferance but, at least here in Canada, the various levels of government don't say much about sole proprietorships. Some local governments require registration to do business in their district but for the most part all levels of government are somewhat indifferent to businesses of that nature. Taxes are filed via your personal income tax filing as a form of income with certain allowable deductions (whereas, corporations file as a distinct entity of their own).

Predatory pricing wouldn't apply in this case. Typically, that is a long-term strategy to create a monopoly and violates antitrust laws.

Definition: (noun) a strategy of selling a good or service at a very low price so as to drive one's competitors out of business (at which point one can raise one's prices more freely).

Unfair pricing is a little more nebulous to define. It can include practices such as price-fixing. It has to be shown to be anticompetitive, with a predatory, exclusionary, or disciplinary negative effect on a competitor. From what I can see, it tends to occur more often at the wholesale pricing level than at the retail to consumers level.

So, yes, I agree that it will likely be difficult to show that a 30% commission fee (which amounts to a 30% margin from the retailer's point of view) is predatory or unfair.

FYI - 20% to 30% margin was pretty typical for software around the time I ran my computer retail business.

Besides, as I understand it, this lawsuit is not a government action under antitrust or anticompetition laws.

Yes this is a civil suit, not a criminal one. In Canada you have Bill C-56 that is aimed at tackling "greedflation," "shrinkflation," and exploitative practices by large corporations. Key measures include penalties for price-fixing, bid-rigging, and, under amended Section 74.01 of the Competition Act, deceptive "drip pricing". So yes even in Canada the government can impose restrictions on how companies perform pricing and they do not have to be monopolies in order to do that.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: F.UltraGood luck ty a Fortnite vs Apple suit was because Apple forced Fortnite to use their payment system for in app purchases. So far I have no idea how this somehow makes LupertEverett:s comment that both Sony and Apple take 30% incorrect.

Here I empahsised the relevant parts of the quotes.

Quoting: LupertEverettThe fee, that is... 30%...

You know... the same amount Sony and Apple also gets, yet somehow it is only Steam who is constantly put on target for it.

It's all about the 30%. But since you're conveniently omitting the EU DSA from your argumwnt shows me that you obviously already got it.

Quoting: pbYou absolutely can. There are lots of DRM-free games on steam and downloading the files is the only thing you need to do in order to run them. Obviously you can't do that with games relying on Steam DRM (at least not without using workarounds), but that's something the developer put in there, and not valve. Valve does not require any kind of DRM for games sold on Steam.

Games in Steam are always DRMed (you cannot start the game twice via Steam). Even if the publisher provides it DRM free.

yes? Again none of this, including the DSA, have anything to do with the 30% that is under discussion. Also the Fortnite vs Apple have no releveance for Steam since Steam does not have the same "you must use our payment platform for in-app purchases" as Apple have. I still fail to understand what point you are trying to make here?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: pb

Quoting: drenAgain this is misleading. Once you download your game from GOG, you can completely remove them from the scenario of installation at all. You have the files, you can install it on as many computers as you want and you don't have to login to play the game. You absolutely cannot do that with Steam.

You absolutely can. There are lots of DRM-free games on steam and downloading the files is the only thing you need to do in order to run them. Obviously you can't do that with games relying on Steam DRM (at least not without using workarounds), but that's something the developer put in there, and not valve. Valve does not require any kind of DRM for games sold on Steam.

Have you read the link you provided? Steamcmd is nothing like a GOG offline installer. You are not downloading the game installer through Steamcmd, you are installing the game! It is just an incredibly convoluted command line version of the Steam client (for which, the client is likely the GUI). Yes, you can run some of the games without the client but that does NOT make it the equivalent of an offline installer. There is one fundamental difference: if you lose Internet access or Valve's servers go down, you cannot install the game!

This is not entirely true. Once a game have been downloaded but before it has been installed, there is a game installer.exe in the game path. If the game is released DRM free by the publisher you can copy this .exe to wherever you like and install it there instead.

Quoting: dren

Quoting: pb

Quoting: drenAgain this is misleading. Once you download your game from GOG, you can completely remove them from the scenario of installation at all. You have the files, you can install it on as many computers as you want and you don't have to login to play the game. You absolutely cannot do that with Steam.

You absolutely can. There are lots of DRM-free games on steam and downloading the files is the only thing you need to do in order to run them. Obviously you can't do that with games relying on Steam DRM (at least not without using workarounds), but that's something the developer put in there, and not valve. Valve does not require any kind of DRM for games sold on Steam.

@Caldathras is absolutely correct. GOG provides standalone executable installers, steam has no such feature. Games being DRM-free on steam isn't normal. Devs can and sometimes do add Steamworks DRM after initial releases, etc. The permanence of the Steam install being DRM-free isn't there. Also the Steam installation doesn't include other necessary dependencies, such as DirectX or C++ redistributables, that are included as part of an actual installer. Steam also doesn't advertise or tell you which games are DRM-free. On GOG EVERY game is DRM-free with all dependencies included as part of the installer (both Windows and Linux). In a lot of cases, these DRM-free directories still need the Steam client to act as a wrapper or handle activation. With GOG, you don't even need to use Galaxy, you can just download the installer from the website and install it where you want. This is why Heroic is able to provide direct access to your GOG library and is able to install everything you need for a game. It just feels like you are trying to make an equivalency argument that isn't actually equivalent.

But they do (if the game publisher have decided to release their game DRM free on Steam). In that case there is a perfectly fine old time .exe installer at the game location in Steam.

Well, see, this is an important tidbit of information. I was not aware of that. Here's a question or two. Does the installer remain on your system after the game is installed? If not, with the installation being automated, how do you get to that installer and back it up before it is removed?

Finally, while this is closer to parity with GOG's offline installers, it is still not the same. It is more like obtaining the installer through the back door whereas GOG is giving it to you upfront. At best, it is a loophole in the process. Most people are not going to be aware of this factoid, so few would be able to take advantage of it.

Thank you for telling me about it, though.

I think it gets removed, but then I also think that this all is 100% up to the game dev on how to handle. E.g most games have decided to use the DRM of Steam so... Then also many seam to provide a snapshot of an installed game instead of the installer but for those I'm quite confident that you could just zip the entire folder and unzip to a different folder/machine, as long as the game hasn't opted in to the DRM ofc.

I have at times installed a game in Steam only to then launch it via Lutris since I needed different versions of proton/dxvk/xx than what Steam provided, in the end it is all files.

This is not to say that GOG:s way isn't better here, atleast for the DRM part, the Steam way is ofc better for getting automatic updates and so on.

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBy which you agree that yes, it is a tax.

Not at all. Taxation is something done by government (usually on net earnings, property values and/or final purchase price). It is a gross misinterpretation of the meaning of "profit" to associate it with taxes.

Quoting: Purple Library GuyBut anyway. How much profit?

What gives the public the right to tell any business how much profit they are allowed to make? As long as the business pays its taxes, it's none of the public's business. Yes, most countries have laws to deal with monopolies, but Valve is NOT a monopoly. You said so yourself.

How much experience do you have with business operations? Not that you likely care but I have nearly 35 years of practical business experience in all aspects of retail operations (not that corporate bureaucratic nonsense they teach at academic institutions). From your comments here, your knowledge of business practices and business math seems rather lacking. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the retail distribution channel, which is what governs Valve's business model (and any retailer, for that matter).

I don't want to go into a point by point analysis, so this is the last I'm going to say about this matter. You are, after all, entitled to your own opinion, whether or not I agree with it.

As always, it was good debating with you ...

Well in the sense that the public at large is the government, they are by definition the only thing that allows the business to exist in the first place and therefore also have a say in how they conduct their affairs. One such say is e.g outlawing predatory and unfair pricing.

The main issue is instead (in my view) that no one so far have managed to prove that 30% is either unfair or predatory.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: pb

Quoting: drenAgain this is misleading. Once you download your game from GOG, you can completely remove them from the scenario of installation at all. You have the files, you can install it on as many computers as you want and you don't have to login to play the game. You absolutely cannot do that with Steam.

You absolutely can. There are lots of DRM-free games on steam and downloading the files is the only thing you need to do in order to run them. Obviously you can't do that with games relying on Steam DRM (at least not without using workarounds), but that's something the developer put in there, and not valve. Valve does not require any kind of DRM for games sold on Steam.

Have you read the link you provided? Steamcmd is nothing like a GOG offline installer. You are not downloading the game installer through Steamcmd, you are installing the game! It is just an incredibly convoluted command line version of the Steam client (for which, the client is likely the GUI). Yes, you can run some of the games without the client but that does NOT make it the equivalent of an offline installer. There is one fundamental difference: if you lose Internet access or Valve's servers go down, you cannot install the game!

This is not entirely true. Once a game have been downloaded but before it has been installed, there is a game installer.exe in the game path. If the game is released DRM free by the publisher you can copy this .exe to wherever you like and install it there instead.

Quoting: dren

Quoting: pb

Quoting: drenAgain this is misleading. Once you download your game from GOG, you can completely remove them from the scenario of installation at all. You have the files, you can install it on as many computers as you want and you don't have to login to play the game. You absolutely cannot do that with Steam.

You absolutely can. There are lots of DRM-free games on steam and downloading the files is the only thing you need to do in order to run them. Obviously you can't do that with games relying on Steam DRM (at least not without using workarounds), but that's something the developer put in there, and not valve. Valve does not require any kind of DRM for games sold on Steam.

@Caldathras is absolutely correct. GOG provides standalone executable installers, steam has no such feature. Games being DRM-free on steam isn't normal. Devs can and sometimes do add Steamworks DRM after initial releases, etc. The permanence of the Steam install being DRM-free isn't there. Also the Steam installation doesn't include other necessary dependencies, such as DirectX or C++ redistributables, that are included as part of an actual installer. Steam also doesn't advertise or tell you which games are DRM-free. On GOG EVERY game is DRM-free with all dependencies included as part of the installer (both Windows and Linux). In a lot of cases, these DRM-free directories still need the Steam client to act as a wrapper or handle activation. With GOG, you don't even need to use Galaxy, you can just download the installer from the website and install it where you want. This is why Heroic is able to provide direct access to your GOG library and is able to install everything you need for a game. It just feels like you are trying to make an equivalency argument that isn't actually equivalent.

But they do (if the game publisher have decided to release their game DRM free on Steam). In that case there is a perfectly fine old time .exe installer at the game location in Steam.

View this comment - View article - View full comments