most are quite happy with the services they get back from that 30% cut.
I agree with most of that, but this part just isn’t true. 30% is highway robbery. It’s a scam. But PC gamers are trained that Steam is where the games are, with few exceptions. If you don’t pay steam their cut, your game doesn’t sell at all.
Consider all that goes into development of a game and compare that to the effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage. Is Steam really providing 30% of the game experience?
I think Steam could be profitable at less than a 10% cut.
Your game doesn’t sell at all because Steam adds massive value. Steam is the reason PC gaming is what it is.
Retail gets paid for a reason. Distribution has huge value. There isn’t a game out there that doesn’t make way more money paying Steam a 30% commission than they would by not taking advantage of their massive reach.
Steam taking 80% would be a much better offer for developers than Epic taking -50%. You’d still make more on Steam.
steam came at the exact right moment to prevent region locking regulations for online gaming. granted companies and special interests still want to de-globalize gaming for licensing cash, but that’s never going to happen as long as steam is a monopoly. any company taking a cheap shot at steam such as epic or discord or EA can go suck it.
As long as Gaben is alive steam will be the good guy. Even if they charge 30%, and I thinm it’s why things are actually pretty neat on steam on the consumer end, because they can either choose to bill the consumer or the developer, and I’m personally always pro-consumer first - albeit for small indie publishers they should (if they already don’t have); a means to launch a company with their game and not give 30% to Valve and be kept from much needed resources to grow their business, much like Valve would benefit from such deals long-term if the developers do a good job and bring in a lot of buyers with their next title in the future. AAA companies is a whole different matter, no passion, no soul, just money-milking-bullshit, should charge them 50% to 70%! they get off easy with a measly 30%.
But yeah, as for the overall topic itself, I do not understand why anyone would want another netflix situation. I don’t want 300 game libraries and accounts installed on my computer, eating up resources, time, and email space - if I could have just one, super convenient and nice place where all is collected and no foreseeable concern that it will suddenly go bankrupt and die and take my investments with it (like some of the game libraries already have). If that ever becomes the case (e.g. when Gaben dies one day), I’ll be the first to sail the high seas out of spite and convenience. I’m fine with monopolies as long as they benefit the end-user first, like Valve.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage
Except that’s not all Valve does. Game files and updates need to be distributed, and that alone is a massive task at the scale Steam operates on, both the storage and transmission of data, and the operating cost of the CDN. Steam Cloud is also not free, it’s covered by the 30% so the players don’t have to pay for the service separately. Add to that the cost of sales where the discount is covered by Valve.
The EGS isn’t profitable either, it’s kept alive by Fortnite money.
You also recognize that 30% of each game sale applies to each game sale, right?
Do you really think 30% of developing a game is hosting not just the original game, but also the updates and the save files? CDNs only make it cheaper.
Steam is able to charge 30% because they effectively have a walled garden on PC games. Very few publishers are well known enough to successfully sell their game outside of Steam.
It’s not as egregious as the Apple or Google stores, but they’re basically all in this together. It’s like the old mob families where they split territory.
Consequence of what you are proposing is that companies with economies of sale or are willing to operate at a loss due to other sections of the corporation being their main source of profitable revenue would be only ones left. Ironically ensuring higher barriers to entry than there already is. The 10% is more realistic for key resellers than those trying to launch a profitable mainstream platform hosting and distributing everything as opposed to side project that can lose money.
The CD Projekt-owned PC gaming storefront GOG just released a “facts and figures” breakdown of 2022 in an official blog post. The upshot? GOG experienced steady growth in its user base and library while also turning a tidy $1.2 million profit. It’s a heartening turnaround to see as the service actually lost money—$1.15 million to be exact—the previous year.
The cut GOG takes is 30%. Epic operates at a loss and is more a side project they are willing to lose money on, since Fortnite and Unreal is there real money.
GOG also started to limit cloud storage per game to 200 MB
As the size and number of games increase, so does the demand for Cloud Storage. These limits ensure that all players have access to sufficient and manageable space for their game progress, and that we keep the associated costs under control. By optimizing our storage allocation, we aim to continue providing a reliable and user-friendly platform for everyone.
And all that forever too. The developers don’t pay a dime after Steam’s cut to keep the game alive and downloadable and playable. Even Steam keys, you can sell as many as you want outside of Steam, for free.
The devs can just raise the price by 30% if they feel they really need the money. I’ll pay the extra to have it on Steam and just work out of the box in Proton. Unlike Apple, it’s not a monopoly, nothing stopping anyone from just distributing on their own.
Actually they can’t. Steam’s TOS has a “most favored nation” clause that forbids developers from charging less for their games on other platforms (at least this is how I understand it, I’m not a lawyer). From a small developer’s perspective, it sucks that they can’t unburden the player from the 30% where it doesn’t apply. From Valve’s perspective, that would turn Steam into an advertising platform for other stores.
They can sell it for whatever price they want on other platforms.
What they can’t do is sell the freely generated Steam keys on other stores for less than the cost of selling them on Steam.
So they cannot put a game on Steam, then generate 100 free keys and put them on Greenman Games for 30% less than Steam. They can definitely put it on Epic for 30% less and let Epic pay the hosting and distribution.
That only applies for steam keys afaik. You can not sell your steam keys cheaper anywhere else, since steam is on the hook for the cost and services. That is fairly logical.
A dev can charge whatever if they deal with all that themself on their own webpage forinstance.
Check isthereanydeals for deals on steam keys that aren’t gray market and lower than Steam. How do they get around it? Well it seems to more apply to retail price and not sales price.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Sub for any gaming related content!
Rules:
1: No spam or advertising. This basically means no linking to your own content on blogs, YouTube, Twitch, etc.
2: No bigotry or gatekeeping. This should be obvious, but neither of those things will be tolerated. This goes for linked content too; if the site has some heavy “anti-woke” energy, you probably shouldn’t be posting it here.
3: No untagged game spoilers. If the game was recently released or not released at all yet, use the Spoiler tag (the little ⚠️ button) in the body text, and avoid typing spoilers in the title. It should also be avoided to openly talk about major story spoilers, even in old games.
I agree with most of that, but this part just isn’t true. 30% is highway robbery. It’s a scam. But PC gamers are trained that Steam is where the games are, with few exceptions. If you don’t pay steam their cut, your game doesn’t sell at all.
Consider all that goes into development of a game and compare that to the effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage. Is Steam really providing 30% of the game experience?
I think Steam could be profitable at less than a 10% cut.
Tim Sweeney himself has said his 12% cut on EGS isn’t sustainable on its own
To be fair, 30% cut probably wouldn’t be sustainable. They were hemeraging money last I checked thanks to exclusives and “free” games.
It certainly isn’t when you’re spending more than that just to get exclusives.
Your game doesn’t sell at all because Steam adds massive value. Steam is the reason PC gaming is what it is.
Retail gets paid for a reason. Distribution has huge value. There isn’t a game out there that doesn’t make way more money paying Steam a 30% commission than they would by not taking advantage of their massive reach.
Steam taking 80% would be a much better offer for developers than Epic taking -50%. You’d still make more on Steam.
steam came at the exact right moment to prevent region locking regulations for online gaming. granted companies and special interests still want to de-globalize gaming for licensing cash, but that’s never going to happen as long as steam is a monopoly. any company taking a cheap shot at steam such as epic or discord or EA can go suck it.
As long as Gaben is alive steam will be the good guy. Even if they charge 30%, and I thinm it’s why things are actually pretty neat on steam on the consumer end, because they can either choose to bill the consumer or the developer, and I’m personally always pro-consumer first - albeit for small indie publishers they should (if they already don’t have); a means to launch a company with their game and not give 30% to Valve and be kept from much needed resources to grow their business, much like Valve would benefit from such deals long-term if the developers do a good job and bring in a lot of buyers with their next title in the future. AAA companies is a whole different matter, no passion, no soul, just money-milking-bullshit, should charge them 50% to 70%! they get off easy with a measly 30%.
But yeah, as for the overall topic itself, I do not understand why anyone would want another netflix situation. I don’t want 300 game libraries and accounts installed on my computer, eating up resources, time, and email space - if I could have just one, super convenient and nice place where all is collected and no foreseeable concern that it will suddenly go bankrupt and die and take my investments with it (like some of the game libraries already have). If that ever becomes the case (e.g. when Gaben dies one day), I’ll be the first to sail the high seas out of spite and convenience. I’m fine with monopolies as long as they benefit the end-user first, like Valve.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
Except that’s not all Valve does. Game files and updates need to be distributed, and that alone is a massive task at the scale Steam operates on, both the storage and transmission of data, and the operating cost of the CDN. Steam Cloud is also not free, it’s covered by the 30% so the players don’t have to pay for the service separately. Add to that the cost of sales where the discount is covered by Valve.
The EGS isn’t profitable either, it’s kept alive by Fortnite money.
You also recognize that 30% of each game sale applies to each game sale, right?
Do you really think 30% of developing a game is hosting not just the original game, but also the updates and the save files? CDNs only make it cheaper.
Steam is able to charge 30% because they effectively have a walled garden on PC games. Very few publishers are well known enough to successfully sell their game outside of Steam.
It’s not as egregious as the Apple or Google stores, but they’re basically all in this together. It’s like the old mob families where they split territory.
Consequence of what you are proposing is that companies with economies of sale or are willing to operate at a loss due to other sections of the corporation being their main source of profitable revenue would be only ones left. Ironically ensuring higher barriers to entry than there already is. The 10% is more realistic for key resellers than those trying to launch a profitable mainstream platform hosting and distributing everything as opposed to side project that can lose money.
https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-looks-like-its-in-a-much-healthier-spot-after-a-hairy-2021/
The cut GOG takes is 30%. Epic operates at a loss and is more a side project they are willing to lose money on, since Fortnite and Unreal is there real money.
https://kotaku.com/epic-games-store-pc-profitable-google-court-case-apple-1850996972
GOG also started to limit cloud storage per game to 200 MB
https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/18730340487709-Review-your-Cloud-Saves-to-avoid-loss-of-files?product=gog
You’re right. Hosting files is more difficult than creating art for the game. Steam deserves a bigger cut than artists.
And all that forever too. The developers don’t pay a dime after Steam’s cut to keep the game alive and downloadable and playable. Even Steam keys, you can sell as many as you want outside of Steam, for free.
The devs can just raise the price by 30% if they feel they really need the money. I’ll pay the extra to have it on Steam and just work out of the box in Proton. Unlike Apple, it’s not a monopoly, nothing stopping anyone from just distributing on their own.
Actually they can’t. Steam’s TOS has a “most favored nation” clause that forbids developers from charging less for their games on other platforms (at least this is how I understand it, I’m not a lawyer). From a small developer’s perspective, it sucks that they can’t unburden the player from the 30% where it doesn’t apply. From Valve’s perspective, that would turn Steam into an advertising platform for other stores.
This is factually incorrect.
They can sell it for whatever price they want on other platforms.
What they can’t do is sell the freely generated Steam keys on other stores for less than the cost of selling them on Steam.
So they cannot put a game on Steam, then generate 100 free keys and put them on Greenman Games for 30% less than Steam. They can definitely put it on Epic for 30% less and let Epic pay the hosting and distribution.
That only applies for steam keys afaik. You can not sell your steam keys cheaper anywhere else, since steam is on the hook for the cost and services. That is fairly logical.
A dev can charge whatever if they deal with all that themself on their own webpage forinstance.
edit: had a hrd time finding the video i knew i had seen this on : https://v.redd.it/xnl8xyki4h5d1/DASH_1080.mp4
This is only true for steam keys sold on other platforms.
Check isthereanydeals for deals on steam keys that aren’t gray market and lower than Steam. How do they get around it? Well it seems to more apply to retail price and not sales price.