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: Guest....and yeah, I should just stop here, walk away. I really should, but if I can't say something that boils down to as simple as "Steam is a marketplace, not a marketing firm" without being attacked, do I even want to be in this community anymore? Maybe I'll just block more users, keep going for a bit longer.
I'd like to keep you around.
(I didn't see harsh attacks TBH, but I didn't read everything carefully, so I might have missed stuff.)
0 Likes
Quoting: kuhpunktAny example?
Let's turn that around: Let's say part of the cut is for marketing, and let's say, the cut is reduced by this part, what do you think Valve could reasonably do less without shooting its own foot?
Valve wants to have sales, that's how the make money. They have to put in front of each nose what said nose might buy in their very own interest.
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: 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?
To what end?
To know what you mean... how hard can it be?
0 Likes
Quoting: EikeQuoting: 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.
That's always bugging me so damn much. The dumbest nonsense gets excuses with "it's just my opinion."
Toast Hawaii is disgusting, imho. That's an opinion. Nothing you can prove. The Earth isn't flat. That's a fact. Can't be disputed. Not an opinion.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: GuestQuoting: Purple Library GuyQuoting: 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.
Valve obviously want people to buy more from Steam, so they'll have incentives for that - various sales, basically. Difference though is that such things are for Steam, or could go so far as to say opportunistic adverts for specific, groups of games. They can't do it for every single game though, and it's not guaranteed, so it simply can't be considered a service that's part of the 30% cut.
I really didn't think it would be such a contentious statement, especially because it's nothing to do with whether the cut is worth it or not, nothing to do with Wolfire.
....and yeah, I should just stop here, walk away. I really should, but if I can't say something that boils down to as simple as "Steam is a marketplace, not a marketing firm" without being attacked, do I even want to be in this community anymore? Maybe I'll just block more users, keep going for a bit longer.
Who is attacking you here? You just talk about markering. I ask you what marketing that would be. You say: there is plenty... What?
0 Likes
Quoting: kuhpunktQuoting: GuestQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: 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?
To what end?
To know what you mean... how hard can it be?
Putting up advertising posters in the city (at least one per game).
I'm wondering as well, to what end you need this, though.
0 Likes
Quoting: TheSHEEEP30% cut is and remains too much for what little work Valve has "per unit sold"/per game hosted and for most devs not using what "additional value services"
Pretty sure there are other reasonable metrics—the most direct one would be if you could compare how many sales you'd have gotten *not* being on Steam with the sales you got on Steam. If the on-Steam number is more than 30% higher than what you'd have gotten not on Steam, you and Valve are both winning.
0 Likes
Quoting: jthillQuoting: TheSHEEEP30% cut is and remains too much for what little work Valve has "per unit sold"/per game hosted and for most devs not using what "additional value services"
Pretty sure there are other reasonable metrics—the most direct one would be if you could compare how many sales you'd have gotten *not* being on Steam with the sales you got on Steam. If the on-Steam number is more than 30% higher than what you'd have gotten not on Steam, you and Valve are both winning.
Of course you're losing if you're not on Steam. That's what makes it a de facto monopoly.
Library Guy wrote something good about this "reasonable" lately. Is it something developers should pay to be more successful? Totally. Could it be lower? I guess so.
Last edited by Eike on 22 November 2021 at 6:57 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me