Well 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: GuestQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: GuestQuoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: GuestQuoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: 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
Sorry, but is there some point you're trying to make?
Yes, in response to your "Steam doesn't put a person's game in front of the eyeballs of customers" which I have demonstrated is just not true. There are also other mechanisms within Steam that are constantly being developed like recommendation systems, etc.
Well Steam doesn't. The developer/publisher still has to make it happen. Steam is a marketplace - it provides the infrastructure, but don't confuse that with actively marketing someone's game for them. And those other mechanisms all rely on gobbling up existing user data, moving it through some algorithms, and feeding the output back to the users; it's the typical case of Valve having the customer base do such work without Valve needing to put much effort in. Is there some kind of problem with that I'm not aware of?
If Valve put a title up front & centre on their store, then that won't come out of the 30% cut. That's from something extra.
Valve specifically puts on sales for certain games. They are for example planing a "Games from Germany" event that will happen in a few months.
It's their incentive to do that... to sell more games. To sell more games you gotta put them in front of people.
Valve has a sale != Valve will market my games for me.
It's putting the games right on the storefront with a popup. What more do you want?
0 Likes
Quoting: TheSHEEEPKeep 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.
That's completely no sense. VAT is applies on the final price, so the 20% cut you mention applies for both Valve and the developer. Either way, VAT is a tax for the consumer, not the producer. So, using a linear cut on the income is wrong (or maybe you should get to talk with your accountant).
Also, in many countries the VAT retention is made by the local banks/credit companies. For example, in Argentina you pay the price that Steams mentions and in your credit card summary you get extra items with the taxes.
1 Likes, Who?
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...
They can also publish on Steam and sell keys by them self, reducing the 30% cut that Steam takes.
The scenario is definitely far away from the "no choice" you try to depict.
Last edited by x_wing on 21 November 2021 at 6:08 pm UTC
0 Likes
rustybroomhandle Nov 21, 2021
Quoting: GuestQuoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: GuestQuoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: GuestQuoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: 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
Sorry, but is there some point you're trying to make?
Yes, in response to your "Steam doesn't put a person's game in front of the eyeballs of customers" which I have demonstrated is just not true. There are also other mechanisms within Steam that are constantly being developed like recommendation systems, etc.
Well Steam doesn't. The developer/publisher still has to make it happen.
Wrong. What does the developer have to do? Enlighten us.
1. The recommendation systems are data driven and automated.
2. Sales you *can* do yourself, but for the regular Steam sales, Valve sends an email with a link when there's an upcoming sale and all a dev/pub has to do is opt in and define the allowed discount percentage.
3. If you are referring to devs streaming their games during festivals as the devs having to do everything themselves. That'd bs because if you don't do streams, you still get in the listings, people can still play the demos, etc.
Stop arguing your wrong opinion.
Wait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)? And what, exactly, are you saying I'm wrong about? Are you actually suggesting that a dev just puts their game on Steam and....magically Valve take care of the marketing for free?
Actually I'm not even sure what you have a problem with. I'm guessing, and purely a guess at this point, that you might perhaps think that Steam sales count as marketing, and holding sales is a service that contribute to part of the 30% cut Valve takes? That doesn't seem right. Please be specific.
You're making bath faith arguments.
Your argument is that Valve does no marketing. I listed three things that most definitely is marketing. Yes, sales too - those come in many flavors that draw attention to the product. And no, outside of Steam, developers have to do their own marketing, but on Steam Valve do all the above mentioned things to drive purchases.
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestQuoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: GuestWait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)? And what, exactly, are you saying I'm wrong about? Are you actually suggesting that a dev just puts their game on Steam and....magically Valve take care of the marketing for free?
Actually I'm not even sure what you have a problem with. I'm guessing, and purely a guess at this point, that you might perhaps think that Steam sales count as marketing, and holding sales is a service that contribute to part of the 30% cut Valve takes? That doesn't seem right. Please be specific.
You're making bath faith arguments.
Your argument is that Valve does no marketing. I listed three things that most definitely is marketing. Yes, sales too - those come in many flavors that draw attention to the product. And no, outside of Steam, developers have to do their own marketing, but on Steam Valve do all the above mentioned things to drive purchases.
Bath faith arguments? Is that supposed to mean something? I feel like you're trying to be insulting, but sorry that's entirely lost on me.
I said Valve does no marketing for a game with the 30% cut they take. It's simply not a service they provide that should be counted towards such a cut. They do marketing of a sort - obviously with certain publishers for front page splashes on new releases, or for their own benefit, there are additional factors at play.
However, quite how you see a single title inside of possibly hundreds during a sale as marketing that title, I'm at a bit of a loss about. Also how it comes as a service from that 30% cut?
Valve provide a marketplace with Steam, provides many services, but does not provide marketing. If it were an actual physical marketplace, then Valve (through Steam) would provide the space, would provide notice boards, power, a little hut for wares. They might even try to encourage people into the marketplace area. But they won't market those wares to others, won't make one hut stand out from any other, from the basic area rental (i.e the 30% cut).
...are you saying that Valve actually will? Because that's not a service they can provide for every game. Of course not. Are you saying they're charging for a service they can't provide?
Is there anything Valve could do that you would consider marketing?
0 Likes
Quoting: TheSHEEEPQuoting: micke1mI don't see a problem with valves fee, if you don't like it you don't have to release on Steam.As 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.
In other words it's worth it. The customers prefers Steam because they feel it's superior. The devs can always release on multiple services and if anyone want to buy there they are free to do so.
I will not buy a game on a service that does not support linux, Steam is just way better in this regard, as well as others.
Valve has done lots of good things for Linux gaming and drivers etc, obviously they do it for themselves but it still helps Linux. Epic, GOG etc don't give a fuck about us.
Last edited by micke1m on 21 November 2021 at 10:42 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestWait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)?I have a serious philosophical problem with what you just said. It is not the case.
Some people think the earth is flat. That is their opinion. It is wrong. The earth is not flat. One might say they are entitled to their opinion, but that does not make it stop being wrong. Something being an opinion does not put it magically outside the realm of factual verification. Even opinions about more abstract things can often be categorically wrong--for instance, if the opinion is internally contradictory.
There are some opinions that are not falsifiable, and others that are almost by definition correct. So for instance, if it is my opinion that I like bacon, having the opinion and actually liking bacon are so close to the same thing that my opinion on that is almost by definition correct. But that only works for opinions about that sort of inherently subjective stuff, not for opinions about the outside world.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestWait, I've actually got people taking issue with me saying that Valve doesn't do the marketing of other people's games for them, for free.I think what you've got is people taking issue with you saying that Valve doesn't do (some of the) marketing of other people's games for them, for a 30% cut.
Who's right seems to be coming down to a question of definition: What is marketing? What counts as marketing? I'm not a marketer and I hate marketing, so I avoid knowing what a professional would consider counts. So I don't know the answer to those questions. It does seem as if Valve do some things that stimulate people's games to be sold more.
Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 22 November 2021 at 5:21 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: GuestQuoting: rustybroomhandleQuoting: GuestWait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)? And what, exactly, are you saying I'm wrong about? Are you actually suggesting that a dev just puts their game on Steam and....magically Valve take care of the marketing for free?
Actually I'm not even sure what you have a problem with. I'm guessing, and purely a guess at this point, that you might perhaps think that Steam sales count as marketing, and holding sales is a service that contribute to part of the 30% cut Valve takes? That doesn't seem right. Please be specific.
You're making bath faith arguments.
Your argument is that Valve does no marketing. I listed three things that most definitely is marketing. Yes, sales too - those come in many flavors that draw attention to the product. And no, outside of Steam, developers have to do their own marketing, but on Steam Valve do all the above mentioned things to drive purchases.
Bath faith arguments? Is that supposed to mean something? I feel like you're trying to be insulting, but sorry that's entirely lost on me.
I said Valve does no marketing for a game with the 30% cut they take. It's simply not a service they provide that should be counted towards such a cut. They do marketing of a sort - obviously with certain publishers for front page splashes on new releases, or for their own benefit, there are additional factors at play.
However, quite how you see a single title inside of possibly hundreds during a sale as marketing that title, I'm at a bit of a loss about. Also how it comes as a service from that 30% cut?
Valve provide a marketplace with Steam, provides many services, but does not provide marketing. If it were an actual physical marketplace, then Valve (through Steam) would provide the space, would provide notice boards, power, a little hut for wares. They might even try to encourage people into the marketplace area. But they won't market those wares to others, won't make one hut stand out from any other, from the basic area rental (i.e the 30% cut).
...are you saying that Valve actually will? Because that's not a service they can provide for every game. Of course not. Are you saying they're charging for a service they can't provide?
Is there anything Valve could do that you would consider marketing?
Plenty, but I don't think they even should.
Any example?
0 Likes
Quoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: GuestWait....you're saying simultaneously that someone is wrong, but it's an opinion (which by definition is subjective and therefore wrong/right do not apply)?I have a serious philosophical problem with what you just said. It is not the case.
Some people think the earth is flat. That is their opinion. It is wrong. The earth is not flat.
The question here is what people would call an opinion. There's a saying: "Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts." I wouldn't call "earth is flat" an opinion.
Last edited by Eike on 22 November 2021 at 11:39 am UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me