Dutch consumer foundation sues Sony for overpricing digital PlayStation games
The Dutch consumer foundation Massaschade & Consument alleges Sony prices digital PlayStation games at nearly double the cost of physical versions.
You're viewing a single thread.
That's the biggest problem I have with consoles. They're essentially expensive boxes that are tied to a single service, in this case PSN.
You don't like their store pricing, DRM or other policies? Yeah, well, unlucky. Sell your box and buy a different one (or don't). Too expensive to play online on PSN? Well unlucky, because that's the only way to play online. If it's more expensive tomorrow, you better pay if you want online play or you'll be locked out.
Xbox now locks out uncertified controllers, maybe PlayStation as well? Even their own previous controllers (DualShock 4) don't support playing PS5 games on PS5, so if you want to play a 4 player couch coop game you better own 4 controllers specific to that one console. I get it, the new controller has some new features like "adaptive triggers" - but that's entirely optional. Heck, you can play the PS5 games ported to PC with a DualShock 4 on a PC/Steam Deck.
Isn’t it effectively the same on PC but just voluntary? Nobody buys stuff outside Steam so they can do whatever they want. Long gone are deep discounts and you have to hunt for good deals on key shops.
I don’t know. Most of my games are on Steam but I have lots of games on EA, Ubisoft, Epic Games, GoG and Blizzard platforms, not to mention Battlepass. But yeah Steam is dominant but it’s third party and not controlled by Microsoft
EGS just published their sales numbers and it’s a fart compared to Steam which has the defacto PC gaming monopoly. It’d be fine if it was some open platform but it’s just another unaccountable company that prints money for being first to monopolise the market, no different from Microsoft.
Not being publicly traded makes this very different from Microsoft, actually.
Yes, it’s even less transparent and accountable.
In what world do you think publicly traded companies are more accountable? If anything it's the opposite.
Private company is not a subject to many regulations and duties that a public company has to adhere to, mostly on external reporting. How much do you know about Valve? What’s their profit for 2023?
You mean the regulations that force public companies to prioritize shareholder profit over all other concerns?
That's because Steam offers a better user experience than EGS. Here are some nice things about Steam that EGS lacks:
While EGS has:
Why should I use EGS? Steam is better.
Valve has an arguably better platform but is more expensive and doesn’t have some exclusives. That would be a great opportunity for a competitor yet nobody broke through despite pouring billions in. Weird, huh?
Valve didn’t figure out how to port Steam to ARM and dragged their feet on x86-64 so I’m not sure where that money goes, probably gambling research.
Valve has an arguably better platform but is more expensive
Yes, I think everyone would agree that Steam is the best PC games platform
doesn’t have some exclusives
Well yeah, that's the definition of exclusive. Sony, Epic, and Microsoft pay to have games not available on other platforms. First parties don't release their games on other platforms to increase the attractiveness of their platform. Valve does this with their first party titles as well (CS:GO, Half Life, etc), but they release very few games.
Exclusives are the definition of anti-competitive behavior. Valve only does this for their first party titles, and other than that is very competition friendly, since they allow devs to release on any other store, as well as make free keys to sell elsewhere.
As a platform, they behave much better than pretty much everyone else, with maybe only GOG beating them due to license transfers and DRM-free commitment. Steam arguably has the best customer service in the industry (or if not best, very close to it), so it's less of a concern.
Valve didn’t figure out how to port Steam to ARM
Why would they? Windows on ARM is pretty much nonexistent, emulating x86 on ARM on Linux has severe performance issues, and the best platform support for ARM is from Apple, where there's even less game selection.
Most games don't work on ARM, so there's little point in supporting it. But Steam does work on macOS on ARM (I think it uses Rosetta still?), where devs are actually going to port their games to ARM. Windows and Linux on ARM are incredibly niche and games just aren't ported for those platforms. I guess they could do a compat layer like Rosetta, but it'll be a terrible experience running a game through a compat layer.
AFAIK, EGS and GOG don't support ARM on anything other than macOS (and phones for EGS), and why would they?
dragged their feet on x86-64
Why does that matter? The main reason to port to x86_64 is to access more memory. Even while Steam was x86, games could still absolutely be x86_64. During the transition, they still needed to support 32-bit, so why do extra work when the benefits don't really apply?
I've helped update to 64-bit, and it can be a lot of work. Why prioritize that?
I'm not sure where that money goes
They're not public, but it's not hard to estimate since they publish a lot of data about the platform.
You can buy steam games on other sites that are not steam, theres a lot of them. Also, theres lots of stuff outside steam to play games as well
How popular is this other stuff compared to Steam? Existence of alternative doesn’t mean there’s no monopoly.
I buy more games outside of Steam than on Steam, but I probably spend more on Steam. I like bundles from Fanatical and sometimes Humble Bundle, and if a dev (usually indie) sells keys on their own site, I'll try to buy direct (e.g. Paradox does this).
I'd buy more GOG games if GOG bothered to properly support Linux, but they don't, Steam is easier, and prices are usually the same.
If the price is the same on Steam, I'll get it there, outsid otherwise I'll probably go somewhere else.
Same. Got BG3 in GOG in October, then a puppy in December. Was so happy when it worked on the Steam Deck. You can also add external games on Steam if they're installed on the computer/Steam Deck!
And Valve gets a cut in all of those scenarios. It’s a convenient monopoly as long as you don’t look into how much Valve benefits from this.
They only get a cut from games sold through Steam IIRC. Devs can create their own keys for free and sell them outside of Steam, with the stupulation that they don't undercut Steam. I don't know how rival stores work though (e.g. does Steam get a cut of Humble Bundles?).
Many people buy games outside of Steam. Sure, relatively speaking it's a minority and if a game is available on Steam and elsewhere, most will pick it up on Steam.
But part of the reason why Steam is so good is because these other platforms exist and there's nothing actually stopping anyone from buying their games from other stores. Cloud saves, game streaming/remote play, online play, family sharing and many more features are all free/included with the game purchase on Steam and they also pioneered many of these features. Steam Workshop adds great value as well, there isn't anything remotely comparable on any proprietary console.
Steam is good because it has to be in order for people to choose to use it.
And "deep discounts" are the same as ever, I see some games 90% off on sales events. Sure, successful AAA titles usually don't get a big discount 2 weeks after release, but in the end the publisher sets the pricing anyway. Generally, even when comparing full price, games are just cheaper on Steam compared to PSN (10 to sometimes 20 $/€ for big titles).
No, people don’t buy games outside of Steam, I was just speaking about the numbers - that’s why Alan Wake 2 didn’t break even for a year. It’s just a monopoly that you like because it’s still convenient and don’t mind downsides. Most digital storefronts work like this. At least console players still have an option that allows them to trade/resell their games, which PC players lost ages ago, thanks to Valve.
How many people actually trade/resell games? And what's the actual value of that in terms of dollars? How does that compare with the generally lower price of digital games?
Digital games are often $5-20 if you wait a year or two after release, whereas console games are often $40+ even for older games. According to my Steam Replay, 37% of playtime is on old games (8+ years old) vs 15% for new releases (released in 2024). I don't have sales numbers, but I imagine a lot of people are buying digital games on steep discounts. You can't really do that on a console.
For me, not being able to resell a game is worth the massive discount I get from digital. Many of the games I buy are $1-2 (Fanatical, Humble Bundle, etc), and I rarely pay >$20. I also have a Switch, and I'm lucky if I can find a used game for <$40, and when I used to have a recent console, the floor was about $20.
If you prefer console, that's cool. I prefer choice. I can:
All of that more than makes up for a lack of physical games.
I sell games, sir, because I’m not made out of money. I buy digital too but it’s impossible with most AAA titles these days.
Anyway, I’d say it was your money to spend how you like, but Steam monopoly means games are more expensive than they need to be and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.
Steam doesn't have a monopoly, they have a massive market share that they don't abuse. Even on their own platform (Steam Deck), they went out of their way to allow competition by giving access to desktop mode, and you can add non-Steam games to the Steam app, which means I get all the nice platform features from Steam in my EGS and GOG games (Steam Input, Proton, etc).
There's nothing stopping anyone from switching to a competitor, like EGS, GOG, or any of the publisher-specific platforms. EGS even takes a smaller cut, so they can afford to sell games for less, yet they largely don't. PlayStation and Xbox are completely separate platforms, yet prices are similar to Steam, and usually higher for older games.
Valve doesn't set prices, publishers do. If you don't like prices, complain to the publishers, not Valve.
You really need to qualify your argument here that Valve somehow caused higher prices. In fact, if you look at game prices before Steam and adjust for inflation, games are cheaper now.
Valve sets their cut at 30%. Would it be this high if Valve had competition? Would games cost the same if the cut was 10%? Why is it so high in the first place? What’s being offered in return?
They do have competition, and apparently publishers are willing to pay that fee. Also, it's more like 20-25% for larger games (IIRC 25% for sales >$10M, 20% for sales >$50M).
I think GOG is still 30%, and they seem to be losing money even with that cut, and EGS apparently still isn't profitable, so I really don't think 12% is sustainable. Valve might be able to do it, but that's because they have massive market share.
Why is it so high in the first place? What’s being offered in return?
If publishers felt they were being ripped off, they could go elsewhere. We've actually seen some big names go off and make their own platform to keep more of the revenue, but then they came back. It turns out Steam offers a fantastic service for users, publishers, and developers.
Other platforms like EGS and GOG don't offer anything close to what Steam offers, which is probably why Steam still retains a massive marketshare without doing anything anti-competitive like paying for exclusives or bribing users w/ free games. They literally just offer a premium service and charge market rates for it.
Valve building their own Android for games is not beneficial to Linux. I don’t know how many times do you guys need to be surprised.
If publishers felt they were being ripped off, they could go elsewhere
They must be perfectly happy with those 30% then! It’s not that gamers sit out any non-Steam exclusive.
I’m not going to argue any further because it’s pointless. I wanted you to learn on somebody else’s mistakes but you’re very set on repeating them yourself before that.
Valve building their own Android for games is not beneficial to Linux. I don’t know how many times do you guys need to be surprised.
? When did I suggest they did anything of the sort?
SteamOS is just Linux running Steam in Big Picture mode in a separate virtual desktop from desktop mode, with the root fs in read-only mode to prevent users from bricking it by tinkering. That's it, you can get pretty much the same thing with Bazzite. I use Linux on my desktop (openSUSE Tumbleweed), and games run the same as on my Steam Deck, but I could also get the same setup as SteamOS if I used something like openSUSE Kalpa (KDE) or Aeon (GNOME), which also has a read-only filesystem.
I’m not going to argue any further because it’s pointless
Well yeah, because every point you've brought up is either wrong or completely overblown.
I really don't understand what "mistakes" you're talking about. Steam offers a great service, better than everyone else. If that stops being true, I'll buy my games on another service. I was just fine w/o Steam for years when I first switched to Linux, and I'll be just fine w/o Steam if they ever screw the pooch. For now, they have an excellent service for users, publishers, and developers, and their competition is subpar for all three.
I have hundreds of free games from EGS and hundreds of games on GOG, so I won't be hurting for something to play if Steam ever decides to go evil. But for now, I'm getting really good value for the money I spend, because gaming on my OS of choice is way better thanks to Valve's investment, and I have no problem rewarding that.
I will preface this with : I have many games that are not in steam that I play regularly, I understand this isn't the norm, I have zero paid games in EGS and outside of checking the platform I never use it.
Alan wake on EGS is a terrible example to support your claim.
It's like being upset that a fancy new car hasn't recouped costs when it's only available in 4 custom made dealers that are only open half the time and the manufacturer refuses to allow it to be sold in all the places people normally buy cars.
Sure, that is certainly a choice but it's a choice that would have been part of the risk assessment before the money was sunk.
Steam does have a monopoly, because it works and there isn't anything better.
There is a bit of resistance to switching, most game libraries are in steam because it's been the best option for a very long time.
If EGS worked well and epic (outside of unreal engine) wasn't such a shitshow the platform would be fine.
It's doesn't and they aren't so it's not.
It can't compete on features, support or stability so it tried exclusivity, that hasn't worked out for them.
Steam has its own shit, sure, that percentage is some apple level monopolist bullshit.
Name a comparable, viable alternative?
Alan Wake 2 is a great example because it’s a game with both critical and popular acclaim that will be remembered years from now. Despite this, people decided to ignore it - they couldn’t be bothered with alternatives. Most of you claim those games on EGS so you don’t even have to make an account. This means that the platform now has such a high impact on what you consume that you’re going to skip on one of the best games of the year even though all that stops you is that it’s not in Steam. That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.
That's exactly my point, you are taking the stance that people didn't buy alan wake because it wasn't on steam, to a degree that's true, i'm saying that i think a larger proportion didn't buy it specifically because it was on EGS.
If it were released as a game you could buy and play sans-platform, then i'd agree with you. It'd certainly see less sales than a steam release, because steam is where everyone is.
My stance is basically if you remove steam entirely, Standalone Sales > EGS. Add steam back in and you get Steam > Standalone > EGS
Think in terms of food, you're basically saying the it's the fault of the 3.5 star monopolistic countrywide chain fast food place that nobody want's to eat at the recently health-inspection-failing 1 star food-poisoning cafe.
Is there a monopoly, sure, is the competition so bad people avoid it regardless of the monopoly, also yes.
If you were using something like GOG as an example, i'd fully agree with you, but EGS has seemingly infinite funds and they still managed to release something so bad nobody wants to use it, even for "free" games.
It's not even just the platform, epic as a company have a reputation, so they have to also overcome that, which they have not.
That’s a terrifying amount of power that people aren’t bothered by
Historically there's been no need to be worried, generally, i agree that's not ideal, but again name a viable comparable alternative.
even though we’re talking about company that’s smug about selling gambling to children.
You mean as opposed to the company that actually lost a class action regarding loot boxes in their game targeted at children?
You aren't even wrong about this but "People don't buy games from this company who famously lost a lawsuit regarding gambling targeted at kids because this other company who also do sketchy kids gambling things are ..better at PR?" isn't a convincing argument.
Everyone should be better at this, but they aren't.
You’re getting downvoted but you’re (almost) right. There are other platforms especially GOG which allows to download DRM free installers, but most of the people have no clue about this.
We know about GOG but most Dev Studios avoid it like the plague for some reason. Couldn't possibly be related to DRM money.
