安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
They won't win.
As we saw with the Epic vs Apple, the 30% cut is a very standard cut for a storefront. Valve having that for Steam doesn't control the price of the market. Developers are free to set the price to what they want(above the new minimum which would lose them money anyway) and Valve will put it on the store.
What's funny, the amendments that Wolfire added claims that Valve acquired World Opponent Network in 2001 and then shut it down for Steam. This is false.
Valve had a partnership with Sierra to distribute their titles on WON. While that was happening, they were developing Steam. When they released the Steam beta client, they patched their games to run on the client and not WON. They never acquired WON and shut it down. They literally launched their own service and moved their games to that service.
The next amendment is even funnier since it's based on a claim that a 'Steam account manager' told them.
Not really. The initial ruling by the judge was basically along the lines of: Valve charged the same commission when it was a fledgling service as it does now, therefore it's implausible that its commission is uncompetitively high, so the claim was initially struck down by the judge.
That allegation only survived into the final case because Wolfire (eventually) made the claim that Valve bought WON and shut it down to force gamers onto Steam, implying market power for Steam early on, which is a half-truth at best. What actually happened is that Valve brought the WON servers for their own games in-house and then moved their games over to Steam. The rest of WON (mostly Sierra games) carried on for a few more years. The official WON website was still up in 2009, years after Valve moved their games to Steam: https://web.archive.org/web/20090227061812/http://www.won.net/
Anyway, at that stage, to survive the claim only had to be superficially plausible if you assume without proof that what the plaintiff is claiming is true. This clutching-at-straws claim was enough to be superficially plausible, so it survived. The odds that when the case is fully decided this claim is going to hold up is shaky at best, IMHO.
You didn't take the time to read everything and verify, because if you had, you would know the case is still ongoing.
If people want full story, read link to case files it all here, and FYI case isn't over it until mid 2024 he still trying to sue, but failing on nearly everything in his case.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/59859024/wolfire-games-llc-v-valve-corporation/?order_by=desc
The only thing they have left to hang on, is if they can prove that Valve controls the price of games outside of the Steam ecosystem(Steam Keys) and forcing publishers/developers to maintain a set price on other platforms.
This claim is because they can supposedly offer a better deal to customers, and make more money, but since Valve controls the pricing(Supposedly) outside of Steam, they cannot.
Which is funny if you think about it. Tons of games on Epic were never cheaper on the platform, even though EGS took a smaller split. Same for Microsoft Store.
Yep, and other games on Ubisoft, Battle.net, etc that are exclusive to their store disprove that theory. Heck like you pointed out even games like Metro that was gonna release on Steam for $59.99 until epic bought the exclusive instead launched on EGS for.....$59.99.
So they will have to explain to a judge how steam is controlling the price of exclusives on EGS, Microsoft, Ubisoft, Battle.net, etc.
Where as Steam can simply explain to a jury that since they don't collect a penny from the sales of games thru 3rd party sites they have a MFN clause which is very standard so someone can't list a game on steam for $200, and then sell it on sites for $30 to avoid paying steam their fair share.
Its not about realistic law, realistic outcome, or greedy parties just wanting to try extorting a large business, for some it's getting back at valve for their game hub bans and forum bans by backing things that will never succeed.
They should take more action against people that only want to troll any valve thread or moderation thread, let alone general forum trolling just because sections removed them.
Frivolous lawsuits are not something to celebrate.
Which is ironic that they are retired law enforcement.
Heh we are seeing a lot of lawyers being disbarred in the US lately over them as a result....
One thing for sure lawyers are gonna make bank when they get their large pay cut from the reward for all the people that took part. As often they either take ~40%, or charge hourly rate $$$ which they just drag things out long as possible, it's whatever profit them the most, the clients get whatever remaining left.