crossmr
- 0 Posts
- 13 Comments
https://kotaku.com/superhot-game-gets-review-bombed-after-removing-depicti-1847352470
This was in direct response to changes in the game, any negative reviews because of changes made to the game are legitimate reviews, not a ‘review bomb’.
triggering Valve’s anti-review-bombing tech to kick in and filter out the flood of bad-faith evaluations.
https://kotaku.com/valve-says-it-will-remove-off-topic-review-bombs-from-s-1833332643
“We’re going to identify off-topic review bombs, and remove them from the Review Score.”
Of course Steam is the arbiter of what they deem ‘off-topic’
It’s not insinuating anything like that. It’s stating a simple fact that they got 6 Billion dollars for basically zero effort and resources. All of the things you’ve described are to allow people to buy more games. They cement valve simply as a store front and platform but not a game developer.
This is the point as to why Half life and most other games were basically dropped. Valve made 6 billion in passive income while trying to build a game selling and delivery platform. Even the best game in the world isn’t going to make that kind of income and it’s likely to take more effort than what they’ve done already.
This isn’t anyone playing anything. This is a story about how people bought $19 billion worth of games and then never played them (which would suggest they likely never downloaded them either). Valve made over $6 billion and used no more resources than serving up the store page and the payment processing.
and this is why Valve is in no rush to pump out games like they used to. Why they have no real burning desire to continue half life. They made enough money to keep the lights on indefinitely by doing no more than simply letting an automatic process run that any first year web developer could set up.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/2830720/FreeInfantry/
Free Infantry. I wouldn’t say I’m hooked, but it would be great if this really took off again. Was a great game back in the day. I’ve completely forgotten how to play it or do anything and mostly fumble around.
For the base game, which I think 30% is still more, I think it certainly makes sense. Because they’re providing a complete solution.
For in-app purchases or unlock purchases, whether or not the purchase is in-app, the solution isn’t complete, and not worth the 30% they charge on those transactions. It would be trivial for every transaction to have a custom field where you could store an array of what was purchased in in that purchase and have it returned when the transaction was checked. Boom, complete solution. Specifically for in-app purchases if they wanted to take 5% since all they’re doing is the job of Stripe and nothing more, then I’d consider that fair.
They lowered the cut for people who didn’t need it. Massive publishers selling tons of games. Arguably indie games that only sell a few copies need a larger cut than EA on their latest blockbuster.
There isn’t much in the way of scale here. Their bandwidth isn’t monitored on a per game basis, and if that was a factor in the cost they’d be basing the cut on the size of your game. Some 1 gb indie game pays the same cut or larger than a 100gb mammoth from EA. Valve is also way more strict with that indie game in getting itself published than they are with the EA game as well.
But there is always an excuse. Epic tried that. Companies complained.
Their sales used to give you a reusable $10 off coupon. That didn’t change the amount the companies got when someone bought their game. It only changed how much they paid. When one of the Witcher games had that coupon applied to it, the developer got pissed off and changed the price of the game so that it was a cent or two below the threshold to activate the coupon, and then fans of the dev were excusing it claiming that they couldn’t let the price be lower because it would ‘devalue’ the game.
if a game was $30 on Steam and $25 on Epic (as a regular price), or some other service, you’d undoubtedly hear the same rhetoric.
Epic’s cut is 12% not 30%. They also waive the 5% royalty fee over $1 million for sales on the Epic Store if you use Unreal. Epic doesn’t control the prices. Devs set the prices. They leave the price the same on Epic so that they can actually get a little more for each sale.
What the should do on a $60 game though is to set the price at like $56 on Epic, it would encourage people to save a couple bucks there, while still getting them more than steam after the cuts.
They do prevent you from linking to your own store within your Steam game though. Even though they don’t provide a complete solution for things like microtransactions and DLC.
How it works on Steam:
- User makes an in-app purchase using the steam wallet integration
- Steam processes the payment taking 30% and gives you a reference number for that transaction
- You query that transaction every time the player logs in to see if they’ve refunded it or not. That transaction doesn’t actually contain any information about what they bought though.
- You then maintain a separate purchasing server whose whole job it is is to keep a record of what the player purchased in reference to that transaction number.
For that Valve wants 30% of in-app/DLC purchases. At that point it’s stripe and nothing more. Unlike standalone DLC Or expansions, these unlock purchases don’t come with serving any additional content in the form of downloads.
If you make your own service to handle these transactions (with only a 3-4% transaction rate) Valve will prevent you from linking to it, or mentioning it anywhere on your page, forums or within the game itself. You need to direct players elsewhere and then mention it. Even for cross-platform games where having Steam maintain a transaction list for a portion of the users is just a needless additional layer.
Your claim was that it never happened, this was just a single well known example of it happening.
Also it isn’t fully automatic. Valve claims that people are involved ‘evaluating it’, and the result of the evaluation was that reviews were not counted.