• Deceptichum@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    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.

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      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.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Had you cared to read the fucking article.

        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.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Had you cared to read the fucking article.

          I did and unlike you I even understood it.

          That would prevent someone in, say, Germany buying a cheaper key in Latvia, where prices are lower.

          ACTIVATION KEYS from key retailers. It’s not about prices within the Steam storefront.

          • Deceptichum@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • woelkchen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s not like Valve played no role in this.

              I never claimed otherwise.

              This still negatively impacts consumers.

              Some consumers maybe. It will benefit others.

      • ferret@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Which will unavoidably inflate the prices of said keys in said poorer countries. The article mentions this explicitly.

      • WormFood@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Deceptichum@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        ?

        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.

            • grue@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • oo1@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

              • Deceptichum@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.

                • grue@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.