Quoting: Julius

Quoting: F.UltraSo the main problem can be that Valve and these 5 companies have colluded to introduce geo-blocking, and not that Valve in itself enforces geo-blocking of activation keys.

Yeah, that is an interesting part of it, but if I understood correctly we are talking about Steam activation keys, so how could they not have discussed with the Valve beforehand? Again, I think this is someone trying to apply rules for physical goods to digital ones, but you are of course right that this conclusion might very well also be the outcome of this EU investigation.

Another possible solution might be to simply limit the number of physical copies that a single person can purchase at a time. If you have to go to the store for each item that you have to resell (and after a few visits the store will of course recognise you and kick you out) then it's hard to sell enough second hand keys to richer countries to really compete with the real retailers in those richer countries.

Or this will simply mean the death of the fake-physical copy altogether, buying your game online on Steam or Epic of GOG with regional pricing is still not prohibited. And why buy the physical copy if you have to download the game anyway.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KithopGeo-blocking is BS, so for once the EU is in the right of it with their demands.

In Canada, the price for a game is the same across the country, whether you're in Ontario or the Yukon (barring GST/PST/HST differences, similar to VAT).

In the US, same deal - it doesn't matter what state you're in, the price of a game is the price of that game.

The article lists some EU member states in the Eurozone and some that aren't - sure, the requirement for currency exchange tends to mean there are winners and losers on the price difference... but isn't the point of the EU the whole 'single market' thing? So set the price of a game in Euro, let non-Eurozone-but-still-EU members buy it for whatever that converts to in their local currency, and otherwise treat the EU as a single 'country'.

But the EU isn't a single country. It does not act fiscally, budgetarily, or in terms of many regulations, like a single country. It does not have EU-wide public pension plans paying the same amount across the region, it does not have EU-wide minimum wage laws, it does not have EU-wide unemployment insurance, it does not have payments moving between wealthier and poorer states to try to equalize their economic situation (if anything the reverse--it has EU-mandated rules redistributing the wealth of poorer states to the banks of richer ones). In the absence of these sorts of fiscal provisions to pull the economy of the region together, the Euro actually tends to broaden economic disparities in the Eurozone by worsening the economies of the poorer states, because it deprives them of a lot of fiscal tools needed more by the poorer states that go with control over one's own currency. Like devaluation to encourage exports, and stuff.

I'm not sure of my position on this, but using actual countries as an analogy to the EU is a poor argument for whichever side and as a side effect leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of the EU.

The EU is not a single country but the whole idea behind the EU is to create a single market, and that is the whole crux here. If you sell items in one EU country then you cannot deny the purchaser from reselling that item in another EU country since the whole of EU is one large single market.

This is not about prohibiting Valve from having different prices in different EU countries, this is to prevent geo-locking on cross-border resells, nothing more, nothing less.

That's the kind of reason denying the EU is, or is very much like, a country did not lead me to certainty about what policy is right for this situation.

What's the confusing part? You cannot have a single market if players can segment said market into sections of their own making. Either you sell to the whole EU as a single market or you don't sell at all.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KimyrielleThe EU is in that fuzzy "not yet a nation, but not individual states anymore either" state. It's written goal actually IS full confederation one day. It's taking a while, because there are too many dumbass nationalists around that don't understand the "the sum is greater than its parts" thing.

People that defend that disgusting corporate practice of having no problem with moving your jobs to cheaper regions, but charging you prices as if the thing had been made in a high-wage country fail to understand that for the practice of trade the EU -is- one nation already. Goods, money, ideas and people can move absolutely freely inside the EU and did so for decades, so banning regional price discrimination is just a logical step. Nothing more, nothing less. Our our side of the pond, we don't allow corporations to block someone living in Texas from shopping in North Dakota either. Same thing.

The EU does some good things. It acts as a really effective standards body, which can be annoying to some but is probably on balance a significant positive. And the standardization on the Euro does reduce certain costs and frictions.
But it seems to me that there are big economic problems around the Euro and the way it is administered. Well, problems to most, and particularly some of the poorer countries--advantages to bankers, particularly German ones. Look how much they squalled when Iceland refused to take on its banks' private debts when they went under! EU policy on deficits, for instance, is basically designed to worsen economic downturns. And it's very hard to reform such policies because the main EU institutions are completely undemocratic; the parliament has relatively little power. It's also very bad for a country's economy not to be able to print money, devalue its currency and otherwise control its economy. The EU seems to be generally dedicated to the gradual destruction of the European welfare states in the countries that have them, and to making it impossible to establish them in the countries that don't. The administration of the EU is not, in short, politically neutral--rather, it is neoliberal and austerity oriented.
I suspect that progress towards the EU becoming a genuine country is and will remain something of a mirage. There will be movements to tie the countries closer together in some ways, but most of the things that could make it a genuine country run counter to the policy imperatives of the EU. They're more into privatizing than nation-building.

Now you are spreading the myth that EU is undemocratic which is blatantly false.

The EU Comission consists of people assigned by the government of each member state, so by definition fully democratic since they are appointed by the government that we the EU citizens have voted for in our national elections.
The EU Council consists of the heads of state of each member state, so people that we EU citizens vote on in our national elections.
The EU parliament consists of people that we as EU citizens vote on in the EU elections, again fully democratic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: F.UltraThe EU is not a single country but the whole idea behind the EU is to create a single market, and that is the whole crux here. If you sell items in one EU country then you cannot deny the purchaser from reselling that item in another EU country since the whole of EU is one large single market.

This is not about prohibiting Valve from having different prices in different EU countries, this is to prevent geo-locking on cross-border resells, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly, but this is one of the cases where a digital economy doesn't quite work as the regular physical goods/items one.

Being allowed to freely resell cross-border will lead game companies to abolish (lower) regional pricing most likely unless they find another (probably even less customer friendly) way to prevent large scale key "smuggling".

Btw found this little tidbit from a earlier release in 2016:

If geo-blocking is the result of agreements between suppliers and distributors it may restrict competition in the Single Market in breach of EU antitrust rules. Any competition enforcement measure against geo-blocking would have to be based on a case-by-case assessment, which would also include an analysis of potential justifications for restrictions that have been identified.

So the main problem can be that Valve and these 5 companies have colluded to introduce geo-blocking, and not that Valve in itself enforces geo-blocking of activation keys.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Julius

Quoting: F.UltraThe EU is not a single country but the whole idea behind the EU is to create a single market, and that is the whole crux here. If you sell items in one EU country then you cannot deny the purchaser from reselling that item in another EU country since the whole of EU is one large single market.

This is not about prohibiting Valve from having different prices in different EU countries, this is to prevent geo-locking on cross-border resells, nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly, but this is one of the cases where a digital economy doesn't quite work as the regular physical goods/items one.

Being allowed to freely resell cross-border will lead game companies to abolish (lower) regional pricing most likely unless they find another (probably even less customer friendly) way to prevent large scale key "smuggling".

Yes this is a consequence of the producers simply putting activation keys inside the physical copies thus virtually creating a physical product that is no longer physical. The regulation in itself does not apply to pure downloads so if Valve and the 5 other companies can successfully argue that these physical boxes should be seen as pure downloads then they might have a case here.

Remember that today's press-release by the EU is not a decision to fine these companies, it's just the EU giving notice of their preliminary findings so that the involved companies can give their replies. The first real response will not be given by the EU until 23 March 2020.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: KithopGeo-blocking is BS, so for once the EU is in the right of it with their demands.

In Canada, the price for a game is the same across the country, whether you're in Ontario or the Yukon (barring GST/PST/HST differences, similar to VAT).

In the US, same deal - it doesn't matter what state you're in, the price of a game is the price of that game.

The article lists some EU member states in the Eurozone and some that aren't - sure, the requirement for currency exchange tends to mean there are winners and losers on the price difference... but isn't the point of the EU the whole 'single market' thing? So set the price of a game in Euro, let non-Eurozone-but-still-EU members buy it for whatever that converts to in their local currency, and otherwise treat the EU as a single 'country'.

But the EU isn't a single country. It does not act fiscally, budgetarily, or in terms of many regulations, like a single country. It does not have EU-wide public pension plans paying the same amount across the region, it does not have EU-wide minimum wage laws, it does not have EU-wide unemployment insurance, it does not have payments moving between wealthier and poorer states to try to equalize their economic situation (if anything the reverse--it has EU-mandated rules redistributing the wealth of poorer states to the banks of richer ones). In the absence of these sorts of fiscal provisions to pull the economy of the region together, the Euro actually tends to broaden economic disparities in the Eurozone by worsening the economies of the poorer states, because it deprives them of a lot of fiscal tools needed more by the poorer states that go with control over one's own currency. Like devaluation to encourage exports, and stuff.

I'm not sure of my position on this, but using actual countries as an analogy to the EU is a poor argument for whichever side and as a side effect leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of the EU.

The EU is not a single country but the whole idea behind the EU is to create a single market, and that is the whole crux here. If you sell items in one EU country then you cannot deny the purchaser from reselling that item in another EU country since the whole of EU is one large single market.

This is not about prohibiting Valve from having different prices in different EU countries, this is to prevent geo-locking on cross-border resells, nothing more, nothing less.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Valck

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: Valck

Quoting: SolitaryPrice of admission will go down with every VR generation.

That has been the mantra for the last 25 years – anyone remember the VFX-1 and Cybermaxx? Good times were had in Descent, back in the 90's...

Because the technology wasn't there yet. It's pretty damn good right now and more and more affordable. The PSVR is rather cheap and even those WMR HMDs are supposedly rather fine.

Better, yes. More affordable, marginally. Still too expensive, and still too clunky, for anyone besides enthusiasts. Without mass market adoption, it's going to stay niche. Maybe I'm jaded, but I see it fade away just as it did back then, and have a big revival in another ten or twenty years ;)

The VFX-1 sold for $695 back in 1995, that is equivalent to $1166 in today's money when accounting for inflation. And it was 263x230 72Hz which is orders of magnitude in comparison with a HTC Vive.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Klaus

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: F.UltraI assume here that it's part of the 30% cut so if they would open this to any one then a dev who only publishes on GOG or the Epic store would utilize these nodes for free. Not that this would be a bad thing but I understand if Valve is not interested in it.

I'd rather guess, if they open it to everyone, developers will pay them some fee for it, to be able to use however they want. Like it's with any cloud service like OpenShift, GCP, AWS and what not.

Of course, but now Valve have decided many moons ago that they cover all such things with their 30% cut. Then again, any one could in theory create a version of these Steam Networking API:s that added the NAT traversal bits and charge a small fee for it. I don't honestly think that it would be a viable business model, but it's feasible.

Main issue is probably, that Valve have no reason to provide such a service. Their source of income is their store, so they build services, that make using the store attractive to developers. Why would they invest into a service, that effectively strengthens competitors?

Such a service would need to come from a third party. But then the developers would have to pay for it -- and keep paying for it indefinitely. In the end it would be GameSpy all over again. The Steam-tied solution has the advantage, that the services are likely to remain available just as long, as access to (downloading) the game remains available, as Valve either (a) has no relevant costs, because barely anybody is playing anymore or (b) they still get revenue from occasional sales, by keeping the online services up.

Idealism aside, given limited developer resources, I can't imagine a better outcome.

Yes, however as I wrote earlier, GOG (or any other store) could just as easily create a similar service and even use the vary same API to do it so games compiled for Steam would work without a change or even a recompile. The only stopping block there would then be a store like GOG promoting the use of the Steam API which they kinda might not be that much into.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: F.UltraI assume here that it's part of the 30% cut so if they would open this to any one then a dev who only publishes on GOG or the Epic store would utilize these nodes for free. Not that this would be a bad thing but I understand if Valve is not interested in it.

I'd rather guess, if they open it to everyone, developers will pay them some fee for it, to be able to use however they want. Like it's with any cloud service like OpenShift, GCP, AWS and what not.

Of course, but now Valve have decided many moons ago that they cover all such things with their 30% cut. Then again, any one could in theory create a version of these Steam Networking API:s that added the NAT traversal bits and charge a small fee for it. I don't honestly think that it would be a viable business model, but it's feasible.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: F.UltraWell the problem is that some one have to pony up the servers/nodes necessary and apparently Valve have no interest in providing free such machines for their competition (wonder why).

If they are paid for the service by developers, it shouldn't matter.

I assume here that it's part of the 30% cut so if they would open this to any one then a dev who only publishes on GOG or the Epic store would utilize these nodes for free. Not that this would be a bad thing but I understand if Valve is not interested in it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments