First, most of you will hate this and I get it, but you're all retarded: antitrust laws are oh so extremely jewish. The idea behind the government controlling the economy, "the market" is precisely the opposite of what Capitalism is and is precisely what (economic) communism is. Currently, the way (((antitrust law))) works is via something that is not measurable, is not even objective but is purely subjective based on what ((())) say. Antitrust is determined by some unstated measure of "the market" (kinda like immigration). Where the consumer doesn't matter. So for instance, under actual Capitalism a company can grow and gain a natural monopoly and the Government won't touch it. This is how the US worked. AS LONG AS THE CONSUMER was 'happy', was the one benefiting from the monopoly - much like how Steam functions now. Under old US law, US antitrust worked like this; >Under a legal philosophy called the "Consumer Welfare Standard"--popularized in the 1970s and 80s--, the gov's rule was simple: If the consumer is happy and prices aren't being artificially inflated, the government leaves the company alone. Under that old framework, Valve would be untouchable. They are beloved, games go on massive sales constantly, and the ecosystem is thriving, consumers are happy and ... ... Valve is investing hundreds of millions of dollars in a technological 'utopia', and is not even remotely a walled garden. The work Valve does to work on drivers for all of Windows, Mac and Linux so slop games from (((epic))) (((ubisoft))) and others is incredible. That Valve made their own distro of Linux, but made the foundational tools: proton, wine improvement, graphics drives, free for anyone on Linux to use shows this. It benefits everyone, except Citibank's bottom line. Western governments, especially the EU, Canada, and recently the US have fundamentally abandoned that philosophy. They now argue that "Consumer Welfare" is a trap. They believe that a giant company can make consumers so comfortable and so happy in their walled garden (or open highway) that nobody notices the company has quietly choked out all alternative forms of business. The new legal philosophy is: Protect the structure of the market first, because if the market structure dies, the consumer will eventually get screwed anyway. "consumer welfare is a trap", what an absolute jewish monstrosity. This all stems from judaism like (((shareholder primacy))) - which if you've been paying attention to, I've been telling you about for a couple of years in very small ways. (it's how blackrock, vanguard, and state street work) The issue Valve is currently facing is how if some other company wants to use Valve's infrastructure (JUST the steam client, not the drivers, linux drivers and compatibility features they've thrown to everyone), but JUST use the steam store, then Valve has a rule "You can't have a price lower elsewhere". Which to anyone with more than 83 IQ is the obvious payment (30% cut) for the hundreds of millions Valve has put into these very software capabilities and features. The issue is that these governments, CA, US and Netherland + more, are saying otherwise: (LLM explanation of me below): >You have hit on the exact core of Valve's legal defense, and you're looking at it from a pure, common-sense business perspective: “If you want to sell on my shelf, you can’t treat my customers like second-class citizens by charging them more.” To a lot of people, that sounds like a store looking out for its users and demanding equity. However, the reason this is framed so differently in court—and why courts in the US, Canada, and the EU are taking it seriously—isn't because they are "dishonest" or lying. It's because of a fundamental economic mechanism called a Platform Most-Favored-Nation (PMFN) clause, and how it behaves when a company controls roughly 75%+ of a market. > >The "dishonesty" you are seeing isn't a lie; it's a conflict between two different definitions of fairness. 1. The Math: Why the "Lower the Steam Price" Option is a Myth > >You correctly pointed out that a developer has a choice: if they want to sell their game for $40 on Epic, they can just lower the Steam price to $40 too. Equity achieved, right? >The economic problem is Valve’s 30% cut. When you factor that in, the math makes lowering the Steam price financially impossible for many developers. >Metric The Epic Games Store (12% Cut) The Steam Store (30% Cut) >Base Price of Game $50.00 $50.00 >Store's Cut $6.00 $15.00 >Developer Keeps $44.00 $35.00 > >Now, let's say Epic tells a developer: "Hey, we only take a 12% cut, so if you drop your price to $40 on our store, you'll still make roughly $35—the exact same amount you make on Steam. Plus, consumers get a cheaper game!" > >If the developer does that, Valve's parity rule kicks in. Valve says, "You are undercutting us. Lower your Steam price to $40 too." Look at what happens to the developer if they lower the Steam price to $40: > > Steam takes 30% of $40 ($12). > > The developer is now only keeping $28 per sale on Steam. > >Because Steam commands the vast majority of PC game sales, dropping their revenue-per-copy from $35 to $28 across 80% of their customer base would bankrupt many studios. Therefore, the developer's only actual choice to survive is to raise the price on Epic back up to $50. 2. Why Courts View This as an "Artificial Price Floor" > >This is why courts in the US, UK, and EU don't view this as Valve "enforcing equity." They view it as Valve using its massive size to destroy a competitor's ability to compete on price. ---- ---- ---- ---- I could go on. IF enough people care I'll pastebin my whole LLM convo. But this Valve fight, and there are MANY of them in various courts, is pretty freaking big.