The original charges centered around activation keys. The commission said Valve and five publishers (Bandai Namco, Capcom, Focus Home, Koch Media and ZeniMax) agreed to use geo-blocking so that activation keys sold in some countries — like Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary and Latvia — would not work in other member states. That would prevent someone in, say, Germany buying a cheaper key in Latvia, where prices are lower.
Valve said that the charges didn’t pertain to PC games sold on Steam, but that it was accused of locking keys to particular territories at the request of publishers
It’s not like Valve played no role in this.
Games can be sold on other places besides the Steam store. This still negatively impacts consumers.
The geoblocking is in place to prevent people from buying keys in one (cheap) region and activating them in another (more expensive) one. It’s about both, you dolt.
The EU has very clear law on digital ownership. It’s the same reason if you buy a PC with Windows installed in the EU, you have the right to take that Windows install and put it on another PC, regardless of if it’s OEM or not. This hasn’t prevented Microsoft from doing regional pricing for Windows and if this affects Steam’s pricing that’s on Valve.
And more importantly no business is going to charge everyone the low price instead of charging everyone the high price if forced to pick one or the other.
Sure, in the same way it’s the government’s “fault” for removing your option to, say, run a protection racket, or agree to a contract of indentured servitude, or sell baby formula with melamine in it. There are lots of abusive or exploitative business models that the government removes your option to engage in! And the government is right to do it.
Offering those less capable of paying, a reduced price isn’t abusive or exploitative.
There is a huge difference between the things you’ve mentioned and this. You’re being intentionally dishonest at this point and there’s no further point in this discussion.
The cost of producing something doesn’t change depending on who you sell it to. Charging anything beyond cost + some reasonable profit margin is unethical profiteering.
Yeah, it’s really going to help the citizens of the poorer EU countries when they have to pay the same high prices as their higher earning neighbours.
Truly a win for the EU and it’s citizens.
Had you cared to even read the one-line summary, you’d know it’s not about different prices within Steam but about activation keys.
Had you cared to read the fucking article.
I did and unlike you I even understood it.
ACTIVATION KEYS from key retailers. It’s not about prices within the Steam storefront.
It’s not like Valve played no role in this.
Games can be sold on other places besides the Steam store. This still negatively impacts consumers.
I never claimed otherwise.
Some consumers maybe. It will benefit others.
Temporarily. But then Valve might just set prices the same everywhere in the EU and also restrict keys sold by other retailers.
I can order any goods via mail from across the border, like a BluRay of a PS5 game.
I don’t see what that has to do with Steam, digital goods are regulated differently than physical goods.
Which will unavoidably inflate the prices of said keys in said poorer countries. The article mentions this explicitly.
Steam prices are already the same. Steam games aren’t cheaper in Estonia at least.
Because they stopped doing it years ago to avoid the EU going after them.
The geoblocking is in place to prevent people from buying keys in one (cheap) region and activating them in another (more expensive) one. It’s about both, you dolt.
The EU has very clear law on digital ownership. It’s the same reason if you buy a PC with Windows installed in the EU, you have the right to take that Windows install and put it on another PC, regardless of if it’s OEM or not. This hasn’t prevented Microsoft from doing regional pricing for Windows and if this affects Steam’s pricing that’s on Valve.
That’s on Valve, not the regulators. Valve is perfectly free to lower the prices EU-wide to what the citizens of the poorer EU countries can afford.
?
Are you deliberately being thick?
Valve doesn’t set the prices.
And more importantly no business is going to charge everyone the low price instead of charging everyone the high price if forced to pick one or the other.
🤷 Still not the regulator’s fault.
How is making and enforcing regulations not the fault of regulators?
It is their fault for removing that option however.
Sure, in the same way it’s the government’s “fault” for removing your option to, say, run a protection racket, or agree to a contract of indentured servitude, or sell baby formula with melamine in it. There are lots of abusive or exploitative business models that the government removes your option to engage in! And the government is right to do it.
go price discrimination!
we should give more companies more market power so they can do it more.
fucking competetive markets suck - i cant believe all these fucking laws trying to limit monopoly power.
/s
Not at all.
Offering those less capable of paying, a reduced price isn’t abusive or exploitative.
There is a huge difference between the things you’ve mentioned and this. You’re being intentionally dishonest at this point and there’s no further point in this discussion.
The cost of producing something doesn’t change depending on who you sell it to. Charging anything beyond cost + some reasonable profit margin is unethical profiteering.