377
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
377 points (97.5% liked)
Games
16957 readers
606 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
30% seems rather high
but... when they handle payments, refunds, advertising (within their application) and game download costs (server infrastructure?), etc etc etc. it doesnt seem that crazy.
at least, for a lot of indie developers, not having to worry about those things, might easily be worth those 30%
Not to mention the reviews, community hubs, workshop, video streaming and recording, controller support, cloud saves, family sharing.
30% may be a lot, but it's not like they're just sitting on it.
EA and Ubisoft don't offer (most of) those features with their launchers where they do get the full proceeds.
Not to mention Steam/Valve uses a significant portion of their resources to develop Proton.
Putting pressure on Microsoft is PRICELESS.
I remember PirateSoftware talking about the remote play online co-op on steam, I think I found it here:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Iu4kpM692vI
Definitely doesn't seem to be sitting on it. Hell man, I have re-bought some games on other platforms just to re-play it on my Steam Deck.
I can't defend/accost the 30% simply due to my lack of knowledge in the industry.
A couple of times, Steam Achievements have been a deciding factor in me not pirating a game. I know it's dumb but ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
I'd say it's very reasonable. Steam is EXPENSIVE. If you know anything about bandwidth, it's the insane cost. They don't do many exclusivity deals, and they even let you sell steam keys elsewhere with 0 cut for steam without giving users a degraded experience.
For it to "even out" they'd only have to increase your reach ~50%.
They do way more than that. And they give you an inherent legitimacy that putting it on your own site doesn't. It's not just handling refunds; it's the certainty as an end user that you'll get one hassle free.
Without Steam (or another retailer with similar traits), selling an indie game would be closer to a pipe dream than really hard. In almost all cases (and this seems to apply even to AAA publishers as most of them come back), the 30% they're taking is money you wouldn't have without them.
I think there are a lot of people who weren't around for, or don't remember, how buying digital titles was before Steam got quite so popular.
It was pretty rare, and the overwhelming majority of indie games were released for free. There just wasn't many good ways to get the word out, and most ways of taking payment were costly enough to set up that it was rarely worth trying to get some meager amount of pay if you were just a one man show with no external financial backing.
All of this is true but the ugly truth people don’t want to unpack is this is largely because over 90% of PC game purchases occur on Steam, meaning it’s not that they give you an advantage much as you’re nearly dead in the water if you aren’t on Steam unless you’re a AAA game made by a major dev. I’m sure they help as well but that market dominance means they’re essential more than anything.
Valve didn’t do something nefarious to get there, let me be clear. They run overall what most consider a good operation. But saying “they’re so helpful and expand your reach” is like saying “google search helped expand my business’s reach so much” when the reality is if you can’t be found on google you practically don’t exist due to their dominance in search.
TL;DR: Choosing not to be on steam unless you’re on console or a major AAA game is choosing not to exist. And sometimes I worry what kind of company we’ll see in the future if they don’t maintain their company culture/philosophy down the line.
Edit: see the defensive responses for my point 🤷♂️
And exactly none of that matters because Valve has never attempted to maliciously take market share. If someone else wants to step in all they have to do is stop being shit. Steam has tons of issues. From the limited UI adaptability for devs to the rather archaic games list and somewhat silly discussions forums from the 90s, all the way to the convoluted larger menu system.
Yet rather than put any real effort into things we get shitty launchers from 9 different companies ONLY selling their limited scope of bullshit.
Plenty of amazing companies change. We have to think about that man. They have my trust now and I really like valve - I have a steamdeck, I have hundreds of games on steam, they’re great. But you can’t seriously act like having all of that dominance in one company isn’t a potential liability down the road. Again, companies change. Gaben isn’t immortal.
But they do give you an advantage. If steam didn't exist at all, without a comparable replacement, it would not be possible for you to move a real quantity of units at all. The market they provide has massive value, and their market share is a product of genuinely being far and away better than any alternative.
People don't refuse to buy games on Epic or Origin or Uplay just because they need everything in one place. It's because all of those platforms are so much worse that they degrade the experience of games purchased through them.
That’s highly speculative. But again, I like valve and think steam is beyond a net good. We need to be asking these questions though. Market dominance is a risk in any hands.
You can’t discount the fact that if you are not on Steam then your game basically didn’t release on computer. You can’t just hand wave away that factor. It’s baked in.
Again, that's because every other way to distribute games is terrible.
And it doesn't really matter, because any sales you actually drive yourself you can give them 0% of, with free steam keys. Sales through their storefront are inherently partly driven by their value add.
I didn’t say their success wasn’t due to offering a great product over a sea of bad ones. That isn’t relevant nor am I contesting it.
Of course it's relevant.
It's why the PC market is what it is.
I am not arguing about why the market is the way it is, it’s not relevant.
I am saying regardless of how we got here, valve controls the PC game market, and that will always be a liability no matter who is in control. We have to be sober about this.
Valve controls the PC market because they created the PC market and are responsible for the overwhelming majority of its progress. And they have done nothing remotely abusive with it.
They've justified their cut and are fully entitled to it.
I agree they have not been abusive, but no they are not entitled to anything. That is a ridiculous outlook. You’re talking about a for-profit company dude. Stop letting your worship of Gabe cloud your judgment. Again, I like valve/steam a lot. I use it practically every day and I am happy to. The service is fantastic and they have earned their place at the top. But I really do not understand how you can’t see the potential issue with such overwhelming dominance. You seriously think there is nothing to worry about ever?
How they got to the top is not relevant.
They are entitled to a fair cut of sales through their platform. That's how platforms work.
Dude the tunnel vision here jfc. I’m done. Last word is all yours. I’m sure it’s very important to you.
You're the one disqualifying the huge service they're providing.
They're exactly as entitled to their cut of sales on their platform as the developers of the games are to get paid for their game.
This is an anecdote, but it is also absolutely not speculation. I won't install Epic, I avoid most AAA launchers/required accounts, prefer GOG, and get most of my games on Steam. Epic and many other studio launcher apps are hostile to the consumers or just a royal pain to use. I have a couple Sony games. Why should I have to be online to play a 20-year-old single-player game that I bought through Steam? So now I check if they have that garbage before I buy them through Steam.
I think Steam could afford to charge less, but I don't think most smaller companies could get a basic store up for less than they charge (and the big companies have the tools to determine if thos is saving them money), and that still doesn't get you everything Steam brings to the table, consumer confidence being the most important.
30% is industry standard (although it is starting to change). Until recently, both Apple and Google took 30% cuts from their phone app stores. Numbers I can find for GoG range from 30%-50%. Epic games is like 12%.