Valve has updated the rules for publishers on how and when and what
sort of sales they can have on any products sold via Steam*.

The core changes deal with the timing of any discounts: discounts
can't run for less than one day or more than two weeks, and only one
discount is allowed every 28 days (exceptions are made for seasonal
sales, although discounts are forbidden for 2 weeks prior to the start
of any sale). Sales can't be any less than 10% off and any more than
90% off full-price. Sale prices and discounts can't be changed once
the discount has begun.

I'm of mixed opinion on all this. On the one hand, it's good sense;
some games <cough cough "No Man's Sky" cough> are on a more-or-less
permanent 50% discount, which not only makes people more likely to buy
it ('Gotta get it now before the sale is over!') but also means that
the game never gets a 'real' discount. The timing restrictions also
prevents bait-n-switch pricing, although how common a problem that
actually is, I have no idea.

On the other hand, this move does ultimately benefit Valve (and its
partners) more than it does customers. It's unlikely many developers
will permanently drop the 'full price' of games to match the sales
price, so more money to them (and, through its cut, to Valve). People
will be less likely to wait for a game to go on sale if that sale
isn't likely to appear for a month or more. It also will make the
seasonal sales that much more appealing; recent seasonal sales on
Steam have been underwhelming because the discounts aren't in anyway
competitive to the usual sale prices. This makes those seasonal sales
more exciting, and people are less likely to use good judgment when
excited: end result, more money spent.

But aside from all that, it makes me nervous to see any company - even
one has notionally trustworthy as Valve - have so much control over an
industry. There's nothing illegal about what Valve is doing - not even
if you consider it a monopoly - but it does bring into question how
much clout they have.

Of course, developers can still sell their game at steep discounts
through third-party resellers (Humble Bundle, Fanatical, Greenman
Gaming, etc.) at whatever discount and pace they choose, and there's
nothing Valve can do about that. Roughly a third of Steam gamers (or
was it Steam games? I forget) are purchased through resellers. That's
not an insignificant market, and that number may go up thanks to this
new policy; it's quite possible that Steam has shot itself in the
foot. We'll see.

----------------------------
* https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/marketing/discount_rule_changes

On 23/02/2022 00:27, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Valve has updated the rules for publishers on how and when and what
> sort of sales they can have on any products sold via Steam*.
>
> The core changes deal with the timing of any discounts: discounts
> can't run for less than one day or more than two weeks, and only one
> discount is allowed every 28 days (exceptions are made for seasonal
> sales, although discounts are forbidden for 2 weeks prior to the start
> of any sale). Sales can't be any less than 10% off and any more than
> 90% off full-price. Sale prices and discounts can't be changed once
> the discount has begun.
>
> I'm of mixed opinion on all this. On the one hand, it's good sense;
> some games <cough cough "No Man's Sky" cough> are on a more-or-less
> permanent 50% discount, which not only makes people more likely to buy
> it ('Gotta get it now before the sale is over!') but also means that
> the game never gets a 'real' discount. The timing restrictions also
> prevents bait-n-switch pricing, although how common a problem that
> actually is, I have no idea.
>
> On the other hand, this move does ultimately benefit Valve (and its
> partners) more than it does customers. It's unlikely many developers
> will permanently drop the 'full price' of games to match the sales
> price, so more money to them (and, through its cut, to Valve). People
> will be less likely to wait for a game to go on sale if that sale
> isn't likely to appear for a month or more. It also will make the
> seasonal sales that much more appealing; recent seasonal sales on
> Steam have been underwhelming because the discounts aren't in anyway
> competitive to the usual sale prices. This makes those seasonal sales
> more exciting, and people are less likely to use good judgment when
> excited: end result, more money spent.
>
> But aside from all that, it makes me nervous to see any company - even
> one has notionally trustworthy as Valve - have so much control over an
> industry. There's nothing illegal about what Valve is doing - not even
> if you consider it a monopoly - but it does bring into question how
> much clout they have.
>
> Of course, developers can still sell their game at steep discounts
> through third-party resellers (Humble Bundle, Fanatical, Greenman
> Gaming, etc.) at whatever discount and pace they choose, and there's
> nothing Valve can do about that. Roughly a third of Steam gamers (or
> was it Steam games? I forget) are purchased through resellers. That's
> not an insignificant market, and that number may go up thanks to this
> new policy; it's quite possible that Steam has shot itself in the
> foot. We'll see.
>

I'm tentatively supportive of this for two reasons. Firstly, I place a
certain level of trust in Valve not to get involved in the scummy side
of the games market. That means my working assumption is obviously they
think it's good for their business but also the motivation behind it is
too remove some of the shady activities of sellers. The second, I'm not
sure what the law is where you live but here in the UK what can be
called a sale, offer, special price etc. is defined. Of course companies
try to get around the rules but at least the big chains have realised
that it's not a good look to end up on a TV show where it's pointed out
that you're raising the prices a month before and then putting them on a
two-for-one offer. Even worse is selling Xmas decorations in the summer
at an inflated price so they can then be put on sale during the winter.

Saying that we do have a company called DFS where the joke is, who are
the people who have ever bought a sofa from them at full price although
I believe even they've now realised that people think something is up
when everything is permanently on sale.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:15:35 +0000, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

>On 23/02/2022 00:27, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Valve has updated the rules for publishers on how and when and what
>> sort of sales they can have on any products sold via Steam*.
>>
>> The core changes deal with the timing of any discounts: discounts
>> can't run for less than one day or more than two weeks, and only one
>> discount is allowed every 28 days (exceptions are made for seasonal
>> sales, although discounts are forbidden for 2 weeks prior to the start
>> of any sale). Sales can't be any less than 10% off and any more than
>> 90% off full-price. Sale prices and discounts can't be changed once
>> the discount has begun.
>>
>> I'm of mixed opinion on all this. On the one hand, it's good sense;
>> some games <cough cough "No Man's Sky" cough> are on a more-or-less
>> permanent 50% discount, which not only makes people more likely to buy
>> it ('Gotta get it now before the sale is over!') but also means that
>> the game never gets a 'real' discount. The timing restrictions also
>> prevents bait-n-switch pricing, although how common a problem that
>> actually is, I have no idea.
>>
>> On the other hand, this move does ultimately benefit Valve (and its
>> partners) more than it does customers. It's unlikely many developers
>> will permanently drop the 'full price' of games to match the sales
>> price, so more money to them (and, through its cut, to Valve). People
>> will be less likely to wait for a game to go on sale if that sale
>> isn't likely to appear for a month or more. It also will make the
>> seasonal sales that much more appealing; recent seasonal sales on
>> Steam have been underwhelming because the discounts aren't in anyway
>> competitive to the usual sale prices. This makes those seasonal sales
>> more exciting, and people are less likely to use good judgment when
>> excited: end result, more money spent.
>>
>> But aside from all that, it makes me nervous to see any company - even
>> one has notionally trustworthy as Valve - have so much control over an
>> industry. There's nothing illegal about what Valve is doing - not even
>> if you consider it a monopoly - but it does bring into question how
>> much clout they have.
>>
>> Of course, developers can still sell their game at steep discounts
>> through third-party resellers (Humble Bundle, Fanatical, Greenman
>> Gaming, etc.) at whatever discount and pace they choose, and there's
>> nothing Valve can do about that. Roughly a third of Steam gamers (or
>> was it Steam games? I forget) are purchased through resellers. That's
>> not an insignificant market, and that number may go up thanks to this
>> new policy; it's quite possible that Steam has shot itself in the
>> foot. We'll see.
>>
>
>I'm tentatively supportive of this for two reasons. Firstly, I place a
>certain level of trust in Valve not to get involved in the scummy side
>of the games market. That means my working assumption is obviously they
>think it's good for their business but also the motivation behind it is
>too remove some of the shady activities of sellers. The second, I'm not
>sure what the law is where you live but here in the UK what can be
>called a sale, offer, special price etc. is defined. Of course companies
>try to get around the rules but at least the big chains have realised
>that it's not a good look to end up on a TV show where it's pointed out
>that you're raising the prices a month before and then putting them on a
>two-for-one offer. Even worse is selling Xmas decorations in the summer
>at an inflated price so they can then be put on sale during the winter.
>
>Saying that we do have a company called DFS where the joke is, who are
>the people who have ever bought a sofa from them at full price although
>I believe even they've now realised that people think something is up
>when everything is permanently on sale.

Exactly, and on Steam being on sale means increased visibility. So it's
being used as an SEO tactic, and Valve does *not* want to give away free
advertising.

I think this makes sense as well.

That said, is Valve a thing any more or are they just called Steam now?
I'm still waiting for HL3.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 23/02/2022 15:45, Zaghadka wrote:

>> I'm tentatively supportive of this for two reasons. Firstly, I place a
>> certain level of trust in Valve not to get involved in the scummy side
>> of the games market. That means my working assumption is obviously they
>> think it's good for their business but also the motivation behind it is
>> too remove some of the shady activities of sellers. The second, I'm not
>> sure what the law is where you live but here in the UK what can be
>> called a sale, offer, special price etc. is defined. Of course companies
>> try to get around the rules but at least the big chains have realised
>> that it's not a good look to end up on a TV show where it's pointed out
>> that you're raising the prices a month before and then putting them on a
>> two-for-one offer. Even worse is selling Xmas decorations in the summer
>> at an inflated price so they can then be put on sale during the winter.
>>
>> Saying that we do have a company called DFS where the joke is, who are
>> the people who have ever bought a sofa from them at full price although
>> I believe even they've now realised that people think something is up
>> when everything is permanently on sale.
>
> Exactly, and on Steam being on sale means increased visibility. So it's
> being used as an SEO tactic, and Valve does *not* want to give away free
> advertising.
>
> I think this makes sense as well.
>

Well I had to look up what SEO means and I hadn't really considered that
aspect of it as I'd never even thought about how it's determined what
gets displayed in the Special Offers section both in the app and the
website (I did check and they seen subtlety different).

Overall all it certainly seems plausible that it's at least part of the
reason this has been introduced so as to try and make it harder for
companies to 'game' the system.

> That said, is Valve a thing any more or are they just called Steam now?

I think of them as different probably just because I've had Steam since
the release of HL2 when Valve actually still made games.

> I'm still waiting for HL3.
>

I would have liked to have seen one last version and then it could have
gone out on a high. Things really can outstay their welcome and TV
series (especially the US ones we get here in the UK) crank that idea up
to 11. I liked the Walking dead to start with but once they started
upping the amount of episodes per-series in just felt as though the
story was starting to become flabby. I believe part of this is in the UK
due to how our TV series are generally made something like six
half-hour-episodes is quite normal.

Admittedly there are exceptions to this ad we have two long running soap
operas with 10k+ and 6k+ episodes.

Am 24.02.22 um 10:37 schrieb JAB:
>
> I think of them as different probably just because I've had Steam since
> the release of HL2 when Valve actually still made games.
Valve still makes games, but not very often anymore. The last one they
made was HL Alyx!

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:58:05 +0100, "Werner P." <werpu@gmx.at> wrote:
>Am 24.02.22 um 10:37 schrieb JAB:
>> I think of them as different probably just because I've had Steam since
>> the release of HL2 when Valve actually still made games.
>Valve still makes games, but not very often anymore. The last one they
>made was HL Alyx!

From what little we hear from Valve insiders, Valve makes a lot of
games... just none of them ever are finished or published. Valve
developers are encouraged to work on what they want, and its only when
their project comes up for review (usually when it starts needing more
resources than the developer and his friends can provide) that the
game is dropped. There have been a half-dozen attempts at "Half Life
3" and probably the same number for games in the "Left4Dead" and
"Portal" franchises. It's an incredibly haphazard and wasteful way of
doing things, but I guess when you're rolling around in Steam-money,
you can afford it.

I've also read that Valve has been helpful with numerous independent
projects, offering resources to smaller third-parties, although I've
never seen it spelled out exactly what this help consists of. And it
can't be dismissed that Valve's engineers have their thumbs in a lot
of games thanks to the Steamworks backend and APIs that let games
provide online services and voice-chat and more in-game. It's not
glamorous, but their work means third-party developers can focus on
actual gameplay rather than the plumbing.

I have to admit, though, I was rather surprised that Steam Deck's
launch wasn't simultaneous with the release (or at least announcement)
of "Half Life 3". If anything would have made that platform sell like
hot-cakes, that would have been it. It makes me wonder if Steam Deck
really isn't anything more than (another) shot-across the bow warning
off competitors like Microsoft not to encroach on Valve's territory,
much like they did with Steam Machines and the Steam Link devices.

Am 24.02.22 um 17:50 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> It makes me wonder if Steam Deck
> really isn't anything more than (another) shot-across the bow warning
> off competitors like Microsoft not to encroach on Valve's territory,
> much like they did with Steam Machines and the Steam Link devices.
Nope I guess it is the usual Valve balloon. Yes an exclusive like HL3
would have sold the platform like hotcakes, but given that orders now
can expect their console q3 earliest and the official reviews have not
even rolled in, it will sell like hotcakes anyway.
And yes Alyx was a huge system seller for the Index.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm of mixed opinion on all this. On the one hand, it's good sense;
>some games <cough cough "No Man's Sky" cough> are on a more-or-less
>permanent 50% discount, which not only makes people more likely to buy
>it ('Gotta get it now before the sale is over!') but also means that
>the game never gets a 'real' discount. The timing restrictions also
>prevents bait-n-switch pricing, although how common a problem that
>actually is, I have no idea.

The timing restrictions aren't new, the change is that they're being
lowered to 4 weeks (from 6 weeks or 30 days). In other words, No Man's
Sky will be on sale even more often now.

The only other significant change is that discounts are now limited
in range from 10% to 90%, where previously they could be anywhere from
between 1% to 99%. This will prevent publishers offering a 1% discount
just to appear in the lists of discounted games.

>But aside from all that, it makes me nervous to see any company - even
>one has notionally trustworthy as Valve - have so much control over an
>industry. There's nothing illegal about what Valve is doing - not even
>if you consider it a monopoly - but it does bring into question how
>much clout they have.

Well, legally in Canada something can't be offered "on sale" or at a
discount, unless it's actually been previously offered for purchase at
the regular price for 50% or more of the time. Valve's policies are
more restrictive than what Canadian law requires except that the launch
discounts allowed by their rules aren't legal here as the product hasn't
been offered sale at the normal price before.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //