• Jarix@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 hours ago

    But if Ubisoft agreed to the terms then I don’t understand the problem with Valve taking action

    • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      The problem is that Valve is even in that position in the first place.

      A storefront with pricing terms a supplier can’t say no to, with no viable alternative, is anticompetitive. If it was a competitive market, Ubisoft would break the agreement and sell lower, with dynamic pricing on other stores.

      Valve has every right to take action on their own terms, of course, but that’s not the issue.

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        valve is a game company, did so good at helping others sell their games that you people call them anticompetitive. That’s just fucking laughable and I will never understand why so many of you seem to miss that. They didn’t go out and give a different deal to anyone else. But Ubisoft broke the terms they agreed to because they wanted to use VALVES service to hawk their wares. Well they have to pay the Piper, and they don’t get to cry foul if they try to fuck over the hand that fed them.

        You can’t succeed without Valve is a dumb argument.

        Blizzard had no problem with battlenet until they pissed in their customers faces.

        Good old games is alive and kicking

        Humble bundle now has a storefront

        Greenman games is doing just fine.

        And if you don’t like it then just stop using it and do the hard work yourself but NOOO that’s too hard to have to figure out how to actually sell your product.

        God I hope valve just shuts steam down some day and says fuck you to everyone who complains like this