Conversation
7666
7666@comp.lain.la
the UK is such a failed fucking state
what class even is there? "oh noes I didn't get 90% off I only got 75% off i have been INJURED"
what class even is there? "oh noes I didn't get 90% off I only got 75% off i have been INJURED"
1
1
4
@7666
That really isn't what failed state means. If it was a 'failed state', it wouldn't have the even authority to do such things.
That really isn't what failed state means. If it was a 'failed state', it wouldn't have the even authority to do such things.
1
1
0
@yomiel I mean it's a civil case going to trial, there is some level of state involvement in all of them by design. This one specifically is the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal. I don't necessarily agree that there shouldn't be cases brought to trial against bad companies that exploit market monopolies but it should have an extremely high standard of evidence.
Now, someone should have noticed that forcing a good company to be "more good" has a chilling effect on companies trying to be good. I don't think Valve is a monopoly either, like go buy a console or something.
Even more so, someone should have noticed the dumb cunt behind this is a class action lawsuit slinging grifter who uses the age old "Think of the children!" excuse to farm hundreds of millions of dollars out of companies. https://steamyouoweus.co.uk/about-us/
Now, someone should have noticed that forcing a good company to be "more good" has a chilling effect on companies trying to be good. I don't think Valve is a monopoly either, like go buy a console or something.
Even more so, someone should have noticed the dumb cunt behind this is a class action lawsuit slinging grifter who uses the age old "Think of the children!" excuse to farm hundreds of millions of dollars out of companies. https://steamyouoweus.co.uk/about-us/
1
0
1
@7666
My inital contention wasn't with the legitmacy of the case, but rather with your use of the phrase 'failed state'. That being said...
>I don't think Valve is a monopoly either, like go buy a console or something.
I mean, that's a stupid thing to say. "I don't think [x] van company is a monopoly, you could go by a car instead." PC gaming and console gaming are completely different, and PC users aren't given much choice if they don't wish to use Steam unless they pirate. On PC, most games don't release outside of Steam. Even physical copies are merely Steam key codes. How could you contest the claim that Steam has a monopoly on PC gaming?
>Even more so, someone should have noticed the dumb cunt behind this is a class action lawsuit slinging grifter who uses the age old "Think of the children!" excuse to farm hundreds of millions of dollars out of companies.
I mean, her claims seem fair enough. Would you *not* say that Valve facilitates (often underage) gambling through lootbox systems in TF2 and CS2? And wasn't there actual evidence of Valve enforcing price parity? Honestly, the lawsuit seems fair to me.
My inital contention wasn't with the legitmacy of the case, but rather with your use of the phrase 'failed state'. That being said...
>I don't think Valve is a monopoly either, like go buy a console or something.
I mean, that's a stupid thing to say. "I don't think [x] van company is a monopoly, you could go by a car instead." PC gaming and console gaming are completely different, and PC users aren't given much choice if they don't wish to use Steam unless they pirate. On PC, most games don't release outside of Steam. Even physical copies are merely Steam key codes. How could you contest the claim that Steam has a monopoly on PC gaming?
>Even more so, someone should have noticed the dumb cunt behind this is a class action lawsuit slinging grifter who uses the age old "Think of the children!" excuse to farm hundreds of millions of dollars out of companies.
I mean, her claims seem fair enough. Would you *not* say that Valve facilitates (often underage) gambling through lootbox systems in TF2 and CS2? And wasn't there actual evidence of Valve enforcing price parity? Honestly, the lawsuit seems fair to me.
1
0
1
@yomiel
>van company is a monopoly, you could go by a car instead.
Apples and oranges on the comparison itself. No auto maker would only make cars or only make vans outside of specific use cases like EVs (think Rivian), and none of them have any sort of concept of good will outside squeezing the customer for every dime of margin. Should auto makers be responsible for the unethical actions of their dealership representatives to sell 25% interest rate loans to disadvantaged people? Probably. But there is no equivalent for PC gaming because there's no gun being held to anyone's head here.
>PC gaming and console gaming are completely different
They shouldn't have to be, but the connotation was that console gaming is even more of a monopoly because you are dealing with vendor lock-in and a walled garden. With PCs you can do whatever the hell you want. GOG, Epic, Steam, pirate, whatever. Who is going after Microsoft to allow loading software not purchased from a Microsoft store onto the Xbox as an example? This firm's other claim against Sony holding a monopoly through their store has more validity than this and should be a better model for what constitutes a valid monopoly claim, like Epic Games vs. Google / Apple (which we all know was Tim Sweeney being disingenuous about "consumer rights" but really just wanting additional billions of dollars, but at least it had merit at face value)
>Would you *not* say that Valve facilitates (often underage) gambling through lootbox systems in TF2 and CS2?
This is a monopoly lawsuit, not a gambling lawsuit, and those games are free of charge.
>van company is a monopoly, you could go by a car instead.
Apples and oranges on the comparison itself. No auto maker would only make cars or only make vans outside of specific use cases like EVs (think Rivian), and none of them have any sort of concept of good will outside squeezing the customer for every dime of margin. Should auto makers be responsible for the unethical actions of their dealership representatives to sell 25% interest rate loans to disadvantaged people? Probably. But there is no equivalent for PC gaming because there's no gun being held to anyone's head here.
>PC gaming and console gaming are completely different
They shouldn't have to be, but the connotation was that console gaming is even more of a monopoly because you are dealing with vendor lock-in and a walled garden. With PCs you can do whatever the hell you want. GOG, Epic, Steam, pirate, whatever. Who is going after Microsoft to allow loading software not purchased from a Microsoft store onto the Xbox as an example? This firm's other claim against Sony holding a monopoly through their store has more validity than this and should be a better model for what constitutes a valid monopoly claim, like Epic Games vs. Google / Apple (which we all know was Tim Sweeney being disingenuous about "consumer rights" but really just wanting additional billions of dollars, but at least it had merit at face value)
>Would you *not* say that Valve facilitates (often underage) gambling through lootbox systems in TF2 and CS2?
This is a monopoly lawsuit, not a gambling lawsuit, and those games are free of charge.
1
0
2
@7666
I'm sure you understood the analogy regardless of it's accuracy, the point is Steam has an unreasonable amount of control over PC gaming, and saying 'just buy a console instead' is silly.
I don't really get your point in the second paragraph either. Sony has a total monopoly on digital sales, but not physical sales. They cannot control what stores price their physical games, especially not used stores. By comparison, Steam even controls physical copies of PC games, which can't be resold thanks to their codes being one use.
Sure, you can pirate, but that's not legal. That's like saying a book publisher having a publishing monopoly is okay because you can just get a pirated scanned copy of their books. And GOG doesn't have many new games, and Epic doesn't have many games period (not that Epic is much of a better alternative to the consumer regardless).
>This is a monopoly lawsuit, not a gambling lawsuit, and those games are free of charge.
Fair enough, but I was referencing something they wrote on their site:
"This matters especially because UK gamers spend large amounts on PC-games and add-on content, much of which is designed to encourage impulsive spending – something from which Valve profits."
I'm sure you understood the analogy regardless of it's accuracy, the point is Steam has an unreasonable amount of control over PC gaming, and saying 'just buy a console instead' is silly.
I don't really get your point in the second paragraph either. Sony has a total monopoly on digital sales, but not physical sales. They cannot control what stores price their physical games, especially not used stores. By comparison, Steam even controls physical copies of PC games, which can't be resold thanks to their codes being one use.
Sure, you can pirate, but that's not legal. That's like saying a book publisher having a publishing monopoly is okay because you can just get a pirated scanned copy of their books. And GOG doesn't have many new games, and Epic doesn't have many games period (not that Epic is much of a better alternative to the consumer regardless).
>This is a monopoly lawsuit, not a gambling lawsuit, and those games are free of charge.
Fair enough, but I was referencing something they wrote on their site:
"This matters especially because UK gamers spend large amounts on PC-games and add-on content, much of which is designed to encourage impulsive spending – something from which Valve profits."
2
0
1
@yomiel The comparison I was trying to make is that there ARE multiple storefronts (with lesser market share yes) available on PCs and no such thing exists at ALL on consoles, and that you own the hardware with a PC so you get to make that choice. Consoles have singular storefronts and are bound by EULAs and bans if you dare modify the thing you bought, so they are far more juicy targets for such a campaign.
Also if we're gonna talk about "impulsive spending" Valve is not nearly the worst offender in this space. Hats and skins are nothing compared to fucking mobile gacha games.
I don't think the lawsuit has zero merit, I think that the moral high ground they attempt to stand on is utterly false and if they wanted to prove otherwise, that there are far better ideological targets.
Also if we're gonna talk about "impulsive spending" Valve is not nearly the worst offender in this space. Hats and skins are nothing compared to fucking mobile gacha games.
I don't think the lawsuit has zero merit, I think that the moral high ground they attempt to stand on is utterly false and if they wanted to prove otherwise, that there are far better ideological targets.
1
1
2
@7666
I agree in some regards, but it kind of feels like saying "there are other bad companies, why not go after them?" but as you just said, this same firm DID go after Sony.
Same with the gacha point. I agree that mobile games are far worse, but that doesn't make Valve's okay. Everyone agreed lootboxes are bad when Blizzard and EA do them, why can't everyone agree when Valve does it? Just saying that there are worse systems of monetization doesn't make Valve's good, or even okay.
I agree in some regards, but it kind of feels like saying "there are other bad companies, why not go after them?" but as you just said, this same firm DID go after Sony.
Same with the gacha point. I agree that mobile games are far worse, but that doesn't make Valve's okay. Everyone agreed lootboxes are bad when Blizzard and EA do them, why can't everyone agree when Valve does it? Just saying that there are worse systems of monetization doesn't make Valve's good, or even okay.
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
Cabanela 
yomiel@new.asbestos.cafe
1
0
1
0
0
1