Wolfire versus Valve antitrust lawsuit gets dismissed

Valve don't really provide marketing

They 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?

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.

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.

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...

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

Valve don't really provide marketing

They 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.

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.

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?

I 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

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)?

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.

Wait, 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

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.

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?

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)?

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

....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.)

Any 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.

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.

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?

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)?

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.

Wait, 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?

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.

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.

30% 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.

30% 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