Valve CEO Krogman: “It’s Not the CEO’s Responsibility to Make the Decision”
“The only reason we’re being forced to cut half a percent off of what Steam is making to Valve, and we’re going to argue that that’s fair, and that’s not why the Valve employees came to the company, is because they wanted to make a profit and they don’t want the employee of the company, they have a better opportunity than them,” Krogman tells Ars Technica.
When I spoke with Krogman on a conference call two weeks ago, he was taking care of some family matters by helping to take care of two young children and a daughter, ages 5 and 9. According to Krogman, he does not consider himself a family man, and not in a biological sense, anyway.
Krogman was discussing Valve’s decision to cut the company a little over half a percent of its revenues in order to make it a viable enterprise—a company that Krogman has held since 1995. The CEO does not consider himself a capitalist—a word Krogman has heard all his life.
“It’s one thing for a company to sell the good [stuff] that they’re making. I don’t see why I should have to pay for it. You can have it your way,” Krogman said. “No, I don’t see how that should be the case. And it’s not the CEO’s responsibility to make the decision that a majority of shareholders make.
The CEO of the company, Gabe Newell, is no longer a board member, as he is no longer with the company after the 2008 death of his father. And Krogman is still the CEO.
“My father was a shareholder of the company,” Krogman said. “So I get that it means my job is less important to me, but again, I am not a shareholder. And so he didn’t die as a shareholder.
I wondered if that’s why Newell didn’t want to make the decision that a majority of shareholders are responsible for making. Krogman didn’t buy into that argument, however.
The Valve Response to the Wolfire Video Games Antitrust Litigation.
This article appeared in the Dec. 13, 2004, issue of The Computer Times.
“I know this is a tough issue that is going to take a lot to understand,” says Valve’s lawyer, Christopher Lillich. “But the reality is that it is a complex issue that we think really can provide a lot of intellectual property protection to the gamers.
The company, Valve Corporation, has filed a motion asking federal judge Arthur L. Golden to permanently enjoin Electronic Arts Ltd. , EA Games from infringing two of Valve’s patents. This motion is part of a broader case in which Valve and a group of publishers, including Electronic Arts and Rockstar Games have been suing EA for allegedly committing antitrust violations.
In the motion, Valve’s lawyer argues that the patents in question are “unquestionably valid and important to the video gaming market. ” Valve’s lawyers argue that both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 do not infringe upon Valve’s patents, and that the company’s console owners are not being harmed by the alleged anticompetitive behavior.
The companies hope to demonstrate that the patent holder’s decision to protect its intellectual property (IP) is a “market making decision,” according to the motion. In fact, according to these defendants, the idea that the sale of consumer electronic devices infringes upon an IP holder’s patent is flawed, and that such a situation is “precisely the kind of competitive harm that antitrust law is intended to address.
Valve is not seeking to invalidate either the patents or the consoles. In fact, Valve’s lawyers acknowledge that those devices do infringe upon two of its patents. However, for the same reasons that make these devices unenforceable as to its games, Valve seeks a permanent injunction in this case.
In its brief, Valve’s lawyers argue that there is a “fundamental difference between a patent infringement case and a price fixing case” — that the case before the court involves a single specific product at a specific price.
“There is a clear and well-known difference between a patent infringement case and a case where a patent owner raises the price of a single product,” says the motion. “A patent holder does not raise the prices of more than one product.
Valve’s 30 % payment is nothing out of the ordinary – a response to GDC and Wolfire.
See the full article, including a detailed summary of why Valve’s payment system is problematic. | Original Source: PC Gamer, January 17, 1998.
I think you’ll find that I’m pretty consistent throughout this article. Here, I’ll try to respond to a variety of questions from you, the reader, about why it’s worth the extra cost and hassle of Valve’s payment system, especially since Valve is working to improve their own in-game economy.
After all, it was you who asked Valve’s founder, Gabe Newell, why they’re paying all that extra money (roughly $20,000 a head just for the game they’ve made now) just to run their own storefront, and you made the same question about the cost of advertising games at GDC in October. So to answer your question, it’s because Valve’s a bit extra of a cash cow.
In fact, most people don’t even know that Valve is in this for themselves, and that’s probably in part because of the extra cost and hassle of Valve’s system (they were a bit embarrassed to run their own store in late November when they realized, after all the outcry from their ad-free gamers, that they still couldn’t really compete with Valve’s advertising-supported model).
However, they’re making money through this, and they’re pretty happy about it. They’ve got their own developer support team, and they’re actually doing some good for Steam gamers and Valve’s competitors (see the article on how they’ve helped improve the sales of Steam).
In contrast, Valve says they have a $1. 2 billion in cash on hand, plus around $300,000 in assets that have not yet been made, and that’s the way it’s always been. But there’s always been a tension between paying out “just enough” for developers, and having enough on hand to make them happy. The only real question that still remains is whether Valve is still going to try to pay developers enough to make them happy.
For instance, I asked Valve’s CEO, Gabe Newell, if they were going to go all out to make the game they made even cheaper that they are now. He did not offer an opinion.
Valve vs. Wolfire: ” Patentiffs fail to allege illegal conduct, market energy or market energy ”
Patently Apple Fails to State Law Violations Under the US Code As Amended and Reauthorized By Section 8(e) of the Sherman Antitrust Act. By Michael S. Katz, Attorney at Law. Copyright © 2008 Michael S. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided the text or photographs are presented in its entirety and without copying or use restrictions. This notice was published July 2, 2008.
On April 22, 2011 the U. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) approved the application of Valve Software, Inc. (now the Valve Corporation) for a U. patent for “Gameplay System,” U. 5,846,086, and on the same day Valve and Wolfire announced they would soon be offering a competitive online game in the form of “Wolfire Online,” or “Wolfire. ” “We are pleased to announce that we are working with Valve and Wolfire to create an online play mode that will leverage the enormous user base of Wolfire, and is designed to create new and exciting gameplay experiences,” Wolfire CEO Patrick Gaspard said in a press message on April 22, 2011. “Our play mode is the most popular one in the games industry. It’s already available on Steam and it’s already available for the PC, Mac OS X and Linux. ” “We are committed to providing Wolfire Online with the stability and reliability that gamers deserve,” Wolfire’s Gaspard said, adding that he expects Wolfire Online to be the most popular game on Steam. While this news came on the heels of the February announcement of the launch of Steam’s own competing multiplayer application, Wolfire, the press release did not mention that either Wolfire or Steam was based upon the same source code.
The press material, which was posted on the Valve website, did not disclose that Wolfire was based upon the same source code as the newly filed USPTO patent application, which had been authorized earlier that month. The press material provided no information about the use of the same code base by Wolfire or Steam, nor was any information provided concerning the legality of using Wolfire’s or Steam’s source code in games.
Tips of the Day in Computer Games
There have been so many great and memorable computer games that come about in the gaming industry, that it’s hard to know where to start in talking about each one. Well, I’m here to help. First off, I’ll point you to some old classics that are classics for a reason. They really are classics, and it’s not just because of their history, but because games like Pac-man and Tetris are all the rage.
I’ll start off the series of articles with an article that I’ve known for a loooong time, and I’ve never really given it, but it’s in my collection of old classics. This game I’m talking about is the one that is probably the most popular of all three Tetris games. I’m also talking about Tetris as Tetris was commonly referred to in the United States due to the availability of the game’s arcade cabinet. I will also be referring to this game as the Game Boy game.
Related Posts:
Spread the love“The only reason we’re being forced to cut half a percent off of what Steam is making to Valve, and we’re going to argue that that’s fair, and that’s not why the Valve employees came to the company, is because they wanted to make a profit and they don’t want the employee of…