We've been waiting to hear how the lawsuit from Wolfire Games (and others) would progress against Valve, and now we at least have word from Valve on what they think. Naturally, Valve are trying to get the whole thing dismissed. What a shocker, as if we didn't all expect Valve to fire back and try to shut it all down. What company wouldn't?
As a quick reminder: the original lawsuit alleges that Valve's 30% cut is abuse of their market position, and it complains about how Valve handles Steam keys too. David Rosen of Wolfire also tried to clarify some details in a later blog post which claimed that Valve would remove their game Overgrowth if they sold it cheaper elsewhere.
In the new motion filed on July 26, Valve were quite blunt with their reasoning for wanting it all thrown out. The point about Steam keys is an interesting one, as the motion states "Plaintiffs’ allegations that Valve's Steam Key rules amount to an unlawful PMFN* fail for the straightforward reason that Valve, which created and owns Steam, has no duty under the antitrust laws to create a method (here, Steam Keys) for game developers to sell Steam-enabled games in stores that compete with Steam.".
*PMFN meaning Permanent Most Favoured Nation
The Most Favoured Nation part is an interesting one, something we've seen developers mention before. However, in this lawsuit Valve are saying no real evidence on it existing has been shown. The only example during this that has been shown was for Discord, when a game was going to be given out free and Valve say "what’s missing from Plaintiffs’ narrative about the sixteen games priced the same is any factual allegation that Valve enforced the alleged PMFN or did anything at all to affect, let alone coerce, the developers to sell at the same prices in two store" and goes on to repeat that there's no actual evidence to show that Valve is forcing pricing to be the same between stores.
When it touches on the 30% cut Valve take, it mentions how "it alleges no facts from which the Court could plausibly infer that Valve’s 30% commission (reduced at larger sales volumes) is above the competitive level" and that "30% was a competitive price from the beginning, was still so nearly a decade later in 2013, when Steam allegedly became 'dominant', and nothing is alleged to have happened since then to make it supracompetitive". Valve are basically saying that it remains competitive, and they say that Wolfire are trying to suggest (with no given evidence as to why) that Valve should reduce the cut over time.
It ends by stating again the lawsuit fails to show any "unlawful conduct, antitrust injury, market power" and so on and so they're asking the court to "grant the motion and dismiss Plaintiff Wolfire’s claims, if it does not stay them pending arbitration"
Overall, pretty standard stuff for a case that was probably doomed to failure from the beginning.
From what we can assume from this lawsuit, and the wording involved, is that Valve does appear to have nothing to state developers need to ensure their pricing is the same for regular store sales.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All posts need to follow our rules. For users logged in: please hit the Report Flag icon on any post that breaks the rules or contains illegal / harmful content. Guest readers can email us for any issues.
Makes me wonder if the entire purpose of the lawsuit was so that Wolfire Games could price their games differently on other stores without any comeback from Valve as to the practice. Was it an "unwritten rule" that your game would be thrown out of Steam if you tried to do so? I can't imagine how that would stack up in practical terms. Not many games are ever thrown out of Steam and when they are, it's for highly public reasons.
Such a weird lawsuit.
Such a weird lawsuit.
2 Likes, Who?
Makes me wonder if the entire purpose of the lawsuit was so that Wolfire Games could price their games differently on other stores without any comeback from Valve as to the practice.
They could have done that from the beginning.
1 Likes, Who?
It does make things a little interesting though, from a certain point of view it now gives developers a legal case to point out if it ever comes up that someone claims Valve force pricing or if Valve suddenly do tell a developer they have to match a price.Makes me wonder if the entire purpose of the lawsuit was so that Wolfire Games could price their games differently on other stores without any comeback from Valve as to the practice.
They could have done that from the beginning.
3 Likes, Who?
rustybroomhandle Aug 2, 2021
Have any other devs come forward with similar stories of coercion? Also, why the heck would Valve do this specifically for a fairly insignificant furry-punching game?
I'm not even saying Rosen is lying - he may well have had contact with a particularly crappy Valve rep who had their own fascist interpretation of the rules. I just can't see Valve doing this as official policy in any way.
I'm not even saying Rosen is lying - he may well have had contact with a particularly crappy Valve rep who had their own fascist interpretation of the rules. I just can't see Valve doing this as official policy in any way.
5 Likes, Who?
MisterPaytwick Aug 2, 2021
Creating precedents is important, especially if it is to prevent a giant such as Valve to crush you under contractually-binding papers.
Now I'd expect it to not being specifically against Wolfire Games, nor an official thing, but a systematic yet unofficial thing.
Let's not forget a lot of people have come about Valve's image of the company as being pretty nonfactual (no hierarchy and such), so representatives interpreting in their own way the rules, or applying a set of tacit rules and making implications about them could also not being ruled out.
A lad I knew a while back did publish games on steam and offer platforms and he had the numbers for his own indie titles, Steam was dwarfing the combined other platforms. So I do get where Wolfire is going with that and I think it's good to create a precedent, but I don't have too much hope for them, especially since Valve will most likely delay the whole thing until Wolfire either drop it or break because of it.
On the other hand dropping it early would undermine Wolfire's point and may even make them look like some legal trolls.
A sad thing, considering they are some of the few that really keep in mine Linux for a full native support.
Now I'd expect it to not being specifically against Wolfire Games, nor an official thing, but a systematic yet unofficial thing.
Let's not forget a lot of people have come about Valve's image of the company as being pretty nonfactual (no hierarchy and such), so representatives interpreting in their own way the rules, or applying a set of tacit rules and making implications about them could also not being ruled out.
A lad I knew a while back did publish games on steam and offer platforms and he had the numbers for his own indie titles, Steam was dwarfing the combined other platforms. So I do get where Wolfire is going with that and I think it's good to create a precedent, but I don't have too much hope for them, especially since Valve will most likely delay the whole thing until Wolfire either drop it or break because of it.
On the other hand dropping it early would undermine Wolfire's point and may even make them look like some legal trolls.
A sad thing, considering they are some of the few that really keep in mine Linux for a full native support.
1 Likes, Who?
I'm not even saying Rosen is lying - he may well have had contact with a particularly crappy Valve rep who had their own fascist interpretation of the rules. I just can't see Valve doing this as official policy in any way.
Chet Faliszek (no longer at Valve, but still...) already said that such a clause simply does not exist. Rosen also didn't do himself any favors when he just made the claim without any evidence.
If such a clause in the contract, he could have brought it up in the lawsuit. He didn't.
If he was told by a Valve employee that he couldn't sell his games elsewhere for less - why didn't he release those interactions?
8 Likes, Who?
Makes me wonder if the entire purpose of the lawsuit was so that Wolfire Games could price their games differently on other stores without any comeback from Valve as to the practice. Was it an "unwritten rule" that your game would be thrown out of Steam if you tried to do so? I can't imagine how that would stack up in practical terms. Not many games are ever thrown out of Steam and when they are, it's for highly public reasons.Valve's rules are, essentially, "don't take the piss." This guy allegedly cornered some CSR and said, "I'm gonna take the piss," and the CSR said, "don't."
Such a weird lawsuit.
With Sweeney egging him on on Twitter, maybe he thought Valve would give him some money to go away.
4 Likes, Who?
... didn't do himself any favors when he just made the claim without any evidence.
... he could have brought it up in the lawsuit. He didn't.
Reminds me of... something. Someone. Just cannot remember what it was..... Ah, nevermind.
0 Likes
I mean... what else is Valve supposed to say in their statement?
Quite curious where it'll lead in the end.
Especially because one of the issues is apparently a clause one where one party claims it doesn't even exist.
If that's really the case, then... ???????
Quite curious where it'll lead in the end.
Especially because one of the issues is apparently a clause one where one party claims it doesn't even exist.
If that's really the case, then... ???????
0 Likes
To sum up:
Wolfire Games: I want to sell my games on other game stores that still distribute the games via Steam keys, that are downloaded, installed and updated via Valve's Steam servers and which cost Valve resources to maintain, for cheaper than the prices we're selling the games on Steam itself.
Valve: Don't do that. You'll invalidate your agreement with us and we'll remove your games from the Steam store if you do.
Wolfire Games: SCREEEEEEEEEE!
That is incorrect. What Wolfire is alleging is that Valve tried to prohibit Wolfire from selling its games on other stores at a lower price than what they are priced on Steam even if Wolfire did not provide Steam keys for purchases on those other stores (e.g. DRM-free, Epic keys, etc.)
If true, I do feel that Valve is abusing its dominant status in the PC games market. I can understand the requirement that if you distribute Steam keys in other stores then you should not price your games lower than on Steam, but that's not what Wolfire is saying.
3 Likes, Who?
rustybroomhandle Aug 2, 2021
I'm not even saying Rosen is lying - he may well have had contact with a particularly crappy Valve rep who had their own fascist interpretation of the rules. I just can't see Valve doing this as official policy in any way.
Chet Faliszek (no longer at Valve, but still...) already said that such a clause simply does not exist. Rosen also didn't do himself any favors when he just made the claim without any evidence.
If such a clause in the contract, he could have brought it up in the lawsuit. He didn't.
If he was told by a Valve employee that he couldn't sell his games elsewhere for less - why didn't he release those interactions?
Weeeeeell, that's only sort of correct. There's no such clause in the contract, but it is mentioned in the developer guidelines document. The latter is not a binding legal agreement though, but can be the subject of coercion and therefore can be part of the law suit.
Last edited by rustybroomhandle on 2 August 2021 at 7:15 pm UTC
0 Likes
I'm not even saying Rosen is lying - he may well have had contact with a particularly crappy Valve rep who had their own fascist interpretation of the rules. I just can't see Valve doing this as official policy in any way.
Chet Faliszek (no longer at Valve, but still...) already said that such a clause simply does not exist. Rosen also didn't do himself any favors when he just made the claim without any evidence.
If such a clause in the contract, he could have brought it up in the lawsuit. He didn't.
If he was told by a Valve employee that he couldn't sell his games elsewhere for less - why didn't he release those interactions?
Weeeeeell, that's only sort of correct. There's no such clause in the contract, but it is mentioned in the developer guidelines document. The latter is not a binding legal agreement though, but can be the subject of coercion and therefore can be part of the law suit.
Where is this?
1 Likes, Who?
That is incorrect. What Wolfire is alleging is that Valve tried to prohibit Wolfire from selling its games on other stores at a lower price than what they are priced on Steam even if Wolfire did not provide Steam keys for purchases on those other stores (e.g. DRM-free, Epic keys, etc.)
If true, I do feel that Valve is abusing its dominant status in the PC games market. I can understand the requirement that if you distribute Steam keys in other stores then you should not price your games lower than on Steam, but that's not what Wolfire is saying.
That's confusing. I mean I could easily be mistaken, but why on earth would Valve even file the motion regarding:
"Plaintiffs’ allegations that Valve's Steam Key rules amount to an unlawful PMFN* fail for the straightforward reason that Valve, which created and owns Steam, has no duty under the antitrust laws to create a method (here, Steam Keys) for game developers to sell Steam-enabled games in stores that compete with Steam."if it wasn't involving 3rd party distribution of Steam keys? It seems extraneous and non sequitur if that's the case.
Not sure who's telling the truth, thus my use of the word "alleging", but here's some previously posted background: David Rosen of Wolfire Games explains why they're taking on Valve in a lawsuit
In particular, from Rosen's blog post: "But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM."
Last edited by seamoose on 2 August 2021 at 8:30 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
rustybroomhandle Aug 2, 2021
I'm not even saying Rosen is lying - he may well have had contact with a particularly crappy Valve rep who had their own fascist interpretation of the rules. I just can't see Valve doing this as official policy in any way.
Chet Faliszek (no longer at Valve, but still...) already said that such a clause simply does not exist. Rosen also didn't do himself any favors when he just made the claim without any evidence.
If such a clause in the contract, he could have brought it up in the lawsuit. He didn't.
If he was told by a Valve employee that he couldn't sell his games elsewhere for less - why didn't he release those interactions?
Weeeeeell, that's only sort of correct. There's no such clause in the contract, but it is mentioned in the developer guidelines document. The latter is not a binding legal agreement though, but can be the subject of coercion and therefore can be part of the law suit.
Where is this?
When you get Steam Partnered (as I am) you have to agree to a contract, but on the partner web site there are pages with some guidelines.
0 Likes
When you get Steam Partnered (as I am) you have to agree to a contract, but on the partner web site there are pages with some guidelines.
Thank you for the clarification. If assume it's all under NDA, including the guidelines, hence why neither party in the suit is actually posting the verbage or any communications. Probably be filed under seal to the court, right?
0 Likes
That is incorrect. What Wolfire is alleging is that Valve tried to prohibit Wolfire from selling its games on other stores at a lower price than what they are priced on Steam even if Wolfire did not provide Steam keys for purchases on those other stores (e.g. DRM-free, Epic keys, etc.)
If true, I do feel that Valve is abusing its dominant status in the PC games market. I can understand the requirement that if you distribute Steam keys in other stores then you should not price your games lower than on Steam, but that's not what Wolfire is saying.
That's confusing. I mean I could easily be mistaken, but why on earth would Valve even file the motion regarding:
"Plaintiffs’ allegations that Valve's Steam Key rules amount to an unlawful PMFN* fail for the straightforward reason that Valve, which created and owns Steam, has no duty under the antitrust laws to create a method (here, Steam Keys) for game developers to sell Steam-enabled games in stores that compete with Steam."if it wasn't involving 3rd party distribution of Steam keys? It seems extraneous and non sequitur if that's the case.
Not sure who's telling the truth, thus my use of the word "alleging", but here's some previously posted background: David Rosen of Wolfire Games explains why they're taking on Valve in a lawsuit
In particular, from Rosen's blog post: "But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM."
Yes, but then in the actual lawsuit they don't mention this case at all which is highly suspicious. I mean that since he claims that this happened to Wolfire directly then he should have access to first hand evidence but yet the single mention of anything like this in the lawsuit is point 155:
155.Valve has also threatened publishers that offered lower prices on other platforms, insisting that customers using the Steam Store should get a similar deal or else Valve may remove the publisher’s games from the Steam Gaming Platform altogether.
Valve has also interrogated publishers about their deals on smaller platforms like Humble Bundle or Discord that offer lower commission rates than Steam.
For example, Valve contacted publishers who released their games at a lower price on those competing platforms to demandsimilar deals on Steam.
Because of Valve’s pressure tactics, publishers were forced to revise their deals with Humble Bundle and Discord or withdraw their games from those platforms all together.
This could also be interpreted as some publishers simply replying "its, its, it's because Valve forced us" when Wolfire and Discord asked why the publishers withdrew their games. But then in his blog he claims to have first hand experience and yet zero mentioning of this in the lawsuit, it's not even in there as a claim so Rosen cannot even be used as a witness of his first hand experience (but IANAL) by Wolfires lawyers and that is beyond suspicious.
0 Likes
In particular, from Rosen's blog post: "But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM."
"This plan" wasn't just selling their game elsewhere at a lower price, which everyone is free to do, and they do, it was
I decided that I would provide my game "Overgrowth" at a lower price to take advantage of the lower commission rates. I intended to write a blog post about the results.He wanted to publicise how he was giving Steam customers the worst deal and try to ride the notoriety to more sales. Given Valve's longstanding policy of "don't habitually give Steam customers the worst deal," they said no. He tried to wave his willy around and then stepped on it himself.
6 Likes, Who?
TheRiddick Aug 2, 2021
Really Valves biggest defense here is; What about Apple!?¿ I mean the Apple store cases with Epic are still ongoing, but they were not about the cost to use the platform anyway.
I think eventually however Valve will need to make it so Indie developers can pay less on their platform, maybe they can tie it to the release of Source3.0 engine? I don't know...
I think eventually however Valve will need to make it so Indie developers can pay less on their platform, maybe they can tie it to the release of Source3.0 engine? I don't know...
0 Likes
I think eventually however Valve will need to make it so Indie developers can pay less on their platform, maybe they can tie it to the release of Source3.0 engine? I don't know...Most games on Steam are indies. If Valve make things more expensive for the big guys then they'll pull out (rather than, say, EA starting to put their things on Steam again) and the platform suffers. That's why, when they did do a price cut, it was the games that sold lots of copies that benefitted and not the squillions of tiny games.
2 Likes, Who?
orochi_kyo Aug 3, 2021
The lack of malice around here is astounding. This guy just literally dares to present a lawsuit with ZERO evidence and people are just guessing what could be the motivation of this person nobody knew about before this lawsuit.
Valve doesnt need to delay this, doesnt need to put anything on hold, if this lawsuit goes to court it will only show that the whole thing is some trolling just to give to consumers the idea Valve is evil, literally political stuff, "my contender is bad, evil and mean and make other people accept ruthless conditions, but I don't have any proof of it, vote for me".
Personally, I want Valve to be the evil Corp some people around here think it is, and counter-sue this guy and take every single dime from him and take his crappy game out of Steam. He knows what he is dealing with, a company that wants always to look politically correct, that is the reason he didn't sue EA, Epic or Ubisoft, he could be in jail now, because those companies doesnt give a dime about what customers think, just put some game for free and people will completely forget how 5h1tty they are.
Last edited by orochi_kyo on 3 August 2021 at 4:01 am UTC
Valve doesnt need to delay this, doesnt need to put anything on hold, if this lawsuit goes to court it will only show that the whole thing is some trolling just to give to consumers the idea Valve is evil, literally political stuff, "my contender is bad, evil and mean and make other people accept ruthless conditions, but I don't have any proof of it, vote for me".
Personally, I want Valve to be the evil Corp some people around here think it is, and counter-sue this guy and take every single dime from him and take his crappy game out of Steam. He knows what he is dealing with, a company that wants always to look politically correct, that is the reason he didn't sue EA, Epic or Ubisoft, he could be in jail now, because those companies doesnt give a dime about what customers think, just put some game for free and people will completely forget how 5h1tty they are.
Last edited by orochi_kyo on 3 August 2021 at 4:01 am UTC
2 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me