Valve Flagrantly Violates Sherman Antitrust Act

[ColdFront]

http://alienbabeltech.com/abt/viewto...p?f=60&t=33165
I discuss the violation here.

[Skybird]

I read that somewhere, too.

What Steam/Valve practically demands is that other companies/services providing the given game, shall be barred from offering the same content and product at a lower price, which therefore prevents competing with Steam by more competitive pricing.

Since Steam only serves as kind of a reseller, but is not the manufacturer or rpeucer of the games, that indeed is unacceptable. They want to forbid their competitors to outbid them. It also aims at establishing kind of an non-allowed price fixing, probably violating anti-cartell laws.

That simply is a total and complete No-Go.

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I read that somewhere, too.

What Steam/Valve practically demands is that other companies/services providing the given game, shall be barred from offering the same content and product at a lower price, which therefore prevents competing with Steam by more competitive pricing.

Since Steam only serves as kind of a reseller, but is not the manufacturer or rpeucer of the games, that indeed is unacceptable. They want to forbid their competitors to outbid them. It also aims at establishing kind of an non-allowed price fixing, probably violating anti-cartell laws.

That simply is a total and complete No-Go.

Fully agreed. For those in the USA who want to report Valve for antitrust violations, here are the guidelines: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.html

[Dowly]

This thread is a bit stupid.

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by Dowly

This thread is a bit stupid.

Yeah, my cohorts at ABT can't understand kindergarten math.

[Catfish]

What Steam/Valve practically demands is that other companies/services providing the given game, shall be barred from offering the same content and product at a lower price, which therefore prevents competing with Steam by more competitive pricing.

Sounds exactly as TTIP eh ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transat...nt_Partnership

"Partnership", yeah right [/cyn]

[Dowly]

This is what Square Enix said about Order of War servers:

Whilst we have loved seeing you enjoy playing Order of War on Steam, unfortunately it is no longer viable for us to continue to run the multiplayer servers due to the low volume of traffic and so the servers were switched off on September 1st, 2013. The multiplayer aspect of Order of War and Order of War: Challenge have subsequently ceased to function, and customers will notice that Order of War: Challenge has been removed from their Steam library. For those who have been playing our game, we thank you for your support and hope you had fun.

Sounds to me like they asked the non-functioning part of the game be removed from Steam.

[ColdFront]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Look can we all try and keep cool heads rather than going down the route of name calling and exchanging insults?

This is the second request on this thread for calm, there won't be any more.

Very well, but remember who started the insults.

Originally Posted by Dowly

This is what Square Enix said about Order of War servers:



Sounds to me like they asked the non-functioning part of the game be removed from Steam.

Sounds to me like they're just commenting on events.

[CaptainHaplo]

@Jim - I have remained calm and will continue to do so...
(My inquiry about Tribesman was simply in reference to the argument style. If coldfront or anyone else took that as an insult, well that has more to do with how negatively that person must view Tribesman than it does anything else. No insult was intended.)

@coldfront -

Here is where your logic is failing. Users who purchased access to Order of War: Challenge did not own the game, they merely leased it. That was spelled out in the ToS. The lease expired when Square Enix took down the multiplayer servers.

Pay attention to the last sentence from the announcement by Square Enix:

For those who have been playing our game, we thank you for your support and hope you had fun.

I added emphasis to show that Square Enix KNEW that the decision to shut down the servers would stop gameplay and that the action was INTENDED to stop the game from working. Had Square Enix been willing to allow multiplayer through other means, they would have said so. They did not - thus one can only come to the conclusion that they did not wish for the game to be played any longer. Many publishers (Ubi & Rockstar are examples) release either a patch or server code so that such games can be played either offline or without official servers. Square Enix did not do so - reinforcing the conclusion that they did intend for all "Challenge" gaming to cease.

Square Enix chose for the game to end. In essence, they ended the lease that the purchasers had - with the result of a then unplayable game. As a "hosting" distributor, Steam legally would have been engaged in copyright infringement (IP law) had they allowed access to a game after the lease was expired by Square Enix. In reality, they had little choice but to remove it from the user libraries. Failing to do so could have gotten them sued - and they would have lost. Steam didn't own the game. The users didn't own the game. Square Enix did - and they said no one could play it anymore.

Blame whomever you like - its obvious that facts won't change your mind. That is ok though, because your entitled to your opinion. Doesn't matter one whit to me - because I will continue to use Steam, along with Origin (though somebody better fix my Dragon Age Inquisition!!!) and other services. Use whatever you want and be angry all you want. Ultimately, you either will do something about what you feel is a grievous wrong by trying to shut down the big, bad, evil Steam machine, or you will deal with it. Either way, the sun will still come up tomorrow. I wish ya the best and relegate you to my ignore list.....