Support us on Patreon
PayPalWell this was very much expected wasn't it? A judge has ruled in the case of Wolfire versus Valve to dismiss the case.
As a brief reminder of what's been going on - Wolfire Games took Valve to court over a couple of things like: the 30% cut Valve take, and an apparent clause that forces developers match their prices on Steam to other stores if they release their game elsewhere. Valve of course moved to have it dismissed and now a ruling has been passed down.
In the new filing on November 19, the judge has dismissed and denied the case in part, giving Wolfire leave to amend their case, which going by the documentation Wolfire requested and it has been granted, so we might see Wolfire back again with an amended case at some point (they have 30 days).
Going over why it was dismissed, the ruling makes it pretty clear, mentioning that Valve's store fees have remained a constant, even with competition and even when they weren't the "dominant" force in the market. It additionally mentions an older case with Sommers v. Apple, where Apple had a 99 cent music download fee:
"There, as here, the price remained the same throughout, even during periods of intense competition in the marketplace."
It also notes that other stores have charged less than Valve and failed:
"The market reality, at least as plead in the CAC, is that, in spite of Defendant’s 'supracompetitive' fee, others who charge less have failed, even though they had significant resources at their disposal."
When looking to the footer notes, the filing brings up the "substantial" consumer base on Steam and favoured features on Steam, noting the backlash that generates when a developer chooses to release elsewhere and not on Steam. It wasn't named directly but they're hinting at things like the Epic Store here, which is interesting to see it used like this, so it's actually clearly helped Valve's defence here. Competition is good, obviously.
On the subject of the apparent most favoured nation clause, which is what Wolfire claimed Valve used to force prices to remain the same on Steam as other stores, the documents state the complaint lacks the allegations to actually back it up. Not only that but this too:
"If anything, the facts provided by the CAC, at least with respect to output, suggest the opposite—a consistent increase in the number of games available in the market and on the Steam Platform."
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: GuestValve don't really provide marketing
Well, there are the Steam Next festivals that they do regularly.
its pointless.
steam next select the games they think are worth, wich isnt a bad thing (curation is aways good) but wont help with exposure if you arent selected.
other than that, i think there is a big miss conception here about marketing.
if valve is helping you, but its also helping your competition, they are helping no one.
by competition, i mean competition for the consumers atention, to discover that your game even exists
Last edited by elmapul on 20 November 2021 at 10:49 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: CatKillerWell, perhaps. It's very hard to be sure because they're pretty opaque.Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe 30% is quite likely not justified if you think about Steam like a traditional utilityWhy?
There was an analysis I read relatively recently, based on the figures released through the Epic vs Apple trial (I'll include the link if I happen to find it again) that had Valve's break-even point at around a 20% cut, and GOG's at around 25%. Valve's cut is 20-30%, depending on your sales, and they provide a whole lot in exchange.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: elmapulQuoting: jrtI don't think there is anything wrong with taking 30%. They don't have a monopoly, so they can set the prices and if you don't like them you can still use gog, itch or your own launcher. Ubisoft, League of Legends, Overwatch, Fortnite,... seem all to do fine without steam.
Also, as a Linux user, I don't buy games that do not run on my system. Windows only games that run through proton are therefore sales that wouldn't have happened without Valve's work. Keeping 70% vs. no sale at all sounds like a good deal to me.
that is non sense.
linux has 1% of marketshare.
valve takes 30% of all the sames on a platform with 90% of marketshare.
if you earn 900.000 dollars with an game and valve takes 30%, you end up with 630.000 dollars.
then you sell more 1% wich give you aditionally 9.000 dolars, and out of those valve take 30% and you end up with 6300 extra dolars thanks to valve making your game avaliable for linux.
Maybe I've worded the Linux part wrong. From my personal point of view, I want valve to take a cut because they make the game playable. That the developer doesn't care about the 1% is a different story.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TheSHEEEPSteam is replaceable (in case competitors ever get their shit together... it's a cosmic joke that so far they don't), the games are not.
depend on what kind of game we are talking about, there are countless clones of tetris, so we can say they are replaceable.
i also dont care about owning all platforms out there, i'm happy with a few, as long as i have at least one, i gave up on mario because the cost of an nintendo console for the benefit of an platform isnt worth it, i can play other platform games.
the same goes for fighting games, since im not an expert in any genre to be able to tell the minimum differences between each one.
1 Likes, Who?
slaapliedje Nov 20, 2021
Quoting: GuestFunny thing is, I would use itch.io if they would package it.Quoting: CatKillerQuoting: TheSHEEEPDid Valve develop or market that game? No. They host its data and provide some (good) service around itThey provide quite a lot of marketing, actually. But it's simple: if you don't feel that Steam provides sufficient value, don't put your game on Steam. If all you want is packaging and distribution, use Itch; they are amazing at that.
I really want to agree there....except that it's not so simple for smaller developers. The marketshare is skewed to Steam, and those developers will need to put their games on Steam to stay afloat. That's the problem with lack of a good competitor to Steam (itch serves a different demographic).
Valve don't really provide marketing (at least, I don't think they mention anywhere that they do, making discussions on taking a cut for it immaterial) - if you can get in with their algorithms you have a shot, but from what I hear that's pretty hard to do. More sales come through marketing/news/info on external sites, just to have a chance of sticking out from the crowd.
1 Likes, Who?
Hello first,
And I have great, lets go back to old good times of physical media and let see what today's dev would say after paying for: physical media, transportation, retail space, advertising, publishers. ROM cartridge cost (%) of final game price? 30% unfair... ask farmers (if subsidies removed) or other producer what they get for product and what you pay at checkout.
Couple question: Cut for nintendo, sony, xbox, apple, google stores? If only xbox type rental services left, no unit sales, (true) indies will be royally screwed?
Epic, with fight against 30% cut, showed which "indie" devs I need to avoid. Thanks, saved me a bit and will save more in future too.
And I have great, lets go back to old good times of physical media and let see what today's dev would say after paying for: physical media, transportation, retail space, advertising, publishers. ROM cartridge cost (%) of final game price? 30% unfair... ask farmers (if subsidies removed) or other producer what they get for product and what you pay at checkout.
Couple question: Cut for nintendo, sony, xbox, apple, google stores? If only xbox type rental services left, no unit sales, (true) indies will be royally screwed?
Epic, with fight against 30% cut, showed which "indie" devs I need to avoid. Thanks, saved me a bit and will save more in future too.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TheSHEEEPYou are again arguing the strawman that Valve makes better use of their excessive cuts than others do.
How nice. Not the point, not argued against by anyone. Stop it.
Cost+investment+profit would be a perfectly acceptable basis for funding even if Steam were the regulated utility that Purple Library Guy was contemplating.
You've still made no argument that Valve's share is "excessive" other than that developers want more money.
Quoting: TheSHEEEPNo, the argument is that developers deserve more money from their sales.
Oh, my bad: developers really want more money.
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: TheSHEEEPQuoting: CatKillerDevelopers aren't paying for anything, customers are.That's semantics, really.
I'd say customers give 100% of the money to the developers, which have to forward 30% of it to Valve. Or customers give 100% to Valve, which withhold 30% from the developer - that's probably more correct.
Either way, developers lose 30% of what the customers were paying for their game. The developers are the ones losing more money in that scenario than they should.
Keep in mind that taxes go on top of that, in the EU that's about 20% gone additionally (unless you add 20% to the price in VAT countries, which I don't think anyone really does).
So from the get-go you lose 50% of value. Ouch. I'd be pissed about that, too.
Did Valve develop or market that game? No. They host its data and provide some (good) service around it - which is fair to compensate, of course, but 1/3rd is excessive. 1/4th or 5th would be much more reasonable, you don't have to do the lowballing that Epic does to just cover the expenses (of the hosting/service).
Developers can go with other stores that takes a lower cut like Epic Store if they are not happy.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: CatKillerYou've still made no argument that Valve's share is "excessive" other than that developers want more money.I have, as have others, you just didn't read or understand it or chose not to.
I'm just going to quote myself:
Quoting: TheSHEEEPI actually work in this field and no, it isn't free. But you don't need 30% for that. Not even remotely.FFS, going back, you yourself quoted some source that Valve's breaking even point was 20% (which is bogus if you look at the costs they have just for hosting games and operating their storefront, but hey, even that number still proves the point).
15% would be much closer to cover maintenance and still have a small profit.
...
As a developer, if I sell something on a storefront, I'm fine paying the maintenance cost of what I actually use and a bit extra for the storefront's profit - but anything beyond that I'd not be okay with.
That's a profit margin of 10%. Ten percent. That's not "a bit extra" that I wrote above.
Such a profit margin is unheard of in most fields on this planet.
Wholesale/retail is about 2-3%, services about 6-7%, online retail 1-5%. 10% puts you closer to Apple, and I don't think I need to elaborate how Apple is not exactly engaging in ethical business practice
Yet even Apple reduced their cut to 15% for smaller devs and are still in wild profit margin regions.
But somehow that's not supposed be "excessive"?!
How can you even arrive at that conclusion?
Quoting: LeopardDevelopers can go with other stores that takes a lower cut like Epic Store if they are not happy.While I'm quoting myself since people do not read what has been written already, I might as well go on...
Quoting: TheSHEEEPAs others have pointed out, that's not a choice that especially small devs have.
Many gamers quite simply demand a Steam release or they won't buy a game. So, what choice does a developer have here, really?
Lose more money than you should on a sale or lose the entire sale. Hmm...
Big names can somewhat pull that off.
Small devs? I could maybe name a handful that have successfully sold a game outside of Steam.
I honestly find it shocking how people on a gaming forum are so blindly defending bad practices of a huge corporation while simultaneously being anti-developers (the ones providing games for them, usually not by working nicely paid and safe 8-5 jobs) by insisting they should just pay an excessive share and shut up about it just to get their game hosted where most people expect it.
Either way, I'm outta this thread, getting a bit tired of repeating what I or others have already explained.
Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 21 November 2021 at 8:38 am UTC
0 Likes
rustybroomhandle Nov 21, 2021
Quoting: GuestQuoting: CatKillerQuoting: GuestValve don't really provide marketingThey have millions of pairs of eyeballs they can put your game in front of, and they've invested heavily in putting it in front of the eyeballs of customers that are likely to buy your game, as well as providing detailed sales data about which regions are interested in your game and when interest is generated. If you have a better term for that than "marketing," please share.
Except Steam doesn't put a person's game in front of the eyeballs of customers. It could be argued that way long ago, but not anymore. Steam provides the marketplace, but a developer must still do their own marketing to make it stand out from the rest.
--edit
Again, which is really inconsequential - I don't believe Valve officially offer marketing in general for their normal cut, though obviously will have agreements with certain publishers. That's special case I would think, not part of the generic 30% (or less, if you're one of the bigger publishers that will move enough units).
Steam Next festival
0 Likes
See more from me