Since the headline blew it, the game mentioned is called Cosmoteer.
You know what also justifies Valve’s 30% cut? Their outstanding efforts in getting games to run on Linux, and the overall impact that this had on the Linux community.
For most developers, that’s not much of a value. The Linux share of the gaming market only exists because of Steam. 99% of those gamers would just play on Windows if Valve hadn’t pu in the effort.
It is good for Linux though.
It absolutely is.
In this thread:
Steam is bad because they are a company that makes money. They would be better if they made no money and all games were advertised at their expense. Oh and I must post my game on Steam because it’s their fault no one else has bothered to even try and make a truly viable alternative.
Bad-faith nonsense is worse than directed abuse.
I’d rather have someone tell me to fuck myself than push this ‘you just don’t LIKE it!’ horseshit. Or pretend the only alternative to being a monopoly taking a shitload of money is to be a charity that makes zero dollars. Other numbers exist. Be serious, god damn you.
I have not much against steam.
But gog is a more than viable alternative to steam.
Let’s not act as if there’s no alternative when itch.io or gog exists.
Has steam more features? Yes. Is better for some things? Yes. Is the only viable alternative as a game store? No.
I like GoG. I like that they push companies to remove DRM. I like that I can make offline backups of my games.
I prefer GoG over Steam when possible, but Steam is still infinitely more user friendly, and if the game in question is heavily multiplayer-focused, I’ll probably pick Steam over GoG just to use Steam’s multiplayer infrastructure.
GOG has had games that fail to maintain parity with Steam releases.
GOG requires workarounds on Linux moreso than Steam.
The first is not totally GOG’s fault but they should take action. If GOG is truly about preservation, they should make Linux a priority.
My second biggest gaming library is GOG. I love them in theory but Steam wipes the floor with them in terms of who gets my business in part because of those.
A few indie devs who hated the idea of storefronts because of the bad taste of Apple self published only on their website. When they finally (after years) switched to steam, every single one of them shared how they got like a multiplier of sales.
One indie dev shared how he made more in revenue in a month on Steam than he did in a decade of self publishing.
That’s life-changing.
Apple is the same deal, though. There’s a reason there’s a lot more solo devs/small teams making money on iOS than Android. Their ecosystem doesn’t do all the work for you, but it absolutely provides a lot of help. You might not like, for example, the Human Interface guidelines, but the enforced consistency in behavior makes a lot more people a lot more willing to buy things.
It’s also just the standard for selling your game on a big storefront.
Is this controversial? You’re paying for the storefront.
You aren’t even paying anything, you literally just give them a cut of your turnover when you don’t sell anything they carry the costs of it.
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%
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
A couple of times, Steam Achievements have been a deciding factor in me not pirating a game. I know it’s dumb but ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
Not to mention Steam/Valve uses a significant portion of their resources to develop Proton.
Putting pressure on Microsoft is PRICELESS.
It’s worth it if you’re in the 1% of titles that succeed because of Steam. The next question is should any company have that kind of power. Steam’s monopoly is a real problem. Microsoft had less of a monopoly on computers when they got investigated.
That’s not true at all. Steam does a lot more than just list a title…and there is a ton of shit games that are put out there, they don’t make it because they’re shit, not because they’re not part of some magical 1%. Tons and tons of indie games have made it because of steam. They akso don’t have a monopoly, its just what most people use. There is still the epic market, itch.io, gog, humble, etc all of which you can choose to sell on or not.
It’s a de facto monopoly, just like windows was a de facto monopoly despite macos and Linux existing. There are plenty of good games that don’t make it on Steam, and Valve does very little for the money.
I don’t think you understand the level of requirement and cost to host and keep stable a system like steam does for no cost to the user.
Just a few days ago, I wrote a comment about how you would theoretically try and become a significant competitor to Steam, and one of the points I raised was that Steam’s storefront and recommendations are very generous (compared to others). It makes a huge difference that even indie games can appear on the front page regularly, both improving user and dev experiences. Players find games that they enjoy, while devs pay a very small amount to get effective, targetted advertisements.
I found weird ass games like Age of Decadence because of steam. I dount I wouldve found that lovingly crafted load of slavic jank without steam, or atleast it wouldve been until Warlocracy made a video on it.
My library and tastes are pretty eclectic so I think Steam’s recommendation engine struggles with me lol. That said, I love how it sends me shit no one seems to know about at the time, like Kenshi, Volcanoids, PULSAR, etc.
Yeah, though my tastes seem to be a rather close to a venn diagram circle with Mandaloregaming which is disconcerting at times. Maybe a bit more post apocalyptia on my part.
Yeah it’s becoming a bit uncanny when I pickup a game and see Mandalore, SplatterCat, or AlphaBetaGamer covering it a few days later.
I have mixed feelings on it.
When I was putting out games, publishing on Steam would mean a guaranteed 1 million impressions on the “New releases” list. That’s incredible exposure for an indie title, which often succeed or fail on exposure alone.
But 30% can be a lot for those same indie teams, especially combined with taxes. You can put years of work into a title and lose half the money it earns to groups that didn’t directly contribute at all. It can easily be enough money that long-term support or follow up games just aren’t viable. It can be your entire outsourcing budget or a whole employee for a year.
And after that initial exposure, you’re not getting much for your perputual 30%. The value of Steamworks can vary greatly game by game so you could end up paying $30k for $100 of bandwidth and minor marketing through things like sales and rich presence.
I would much prefer to see something like “30% after the first $X in sales”. Their cut would kick in only after they’ve demonstrated their value as a platform and small teams wouldn’t have to watch a company with billions of dollars take a very large bite out of their very small pie.
Then generate the steamkey(for free) and sell them elsewhere! Steam is toatally Ok with that, as long as the price is the same.
Anyone who is old enough to remember trying to buy digital copies of games pre-Steam knows how much value Stream brings to the table.
If it’s not on Steam, I don’t even consider it.
That’s a sad take. You are just closing doors on yourself.
I use all the stores available.
As much as I like steam, I’m not putting all my digital eggs in one basket.
The day steam decides to shutdown or remove my account, I lose all those games. No thanks.
Blind faith ain’t for me.
If that happens I’ll just start pirating the games I want again unless there’s a decent competitor. Until then the convenience steam offers is worth the money.
Ah, Cosmoteer. Extremely fun for like 10 hours, then you realize there is nothing left to do. I guess that dev has made a fortune off of it though, so hats off to that guy.
Yeah I enjoyed it for longer than that but it just becomes so tedious once you have a few ships.
I prefer Starsector and Avorion.
“Steam will probably still outsell everything else combined by 100x”
Yeah, it’s a monopoly.
That’s not a complaint. It’s not a value judgement. People think the word is automatically negative or criminal, because of how often that market power gets abused - but it is just the label for having that market power. Valve is not a trust. Valve does not do any anti-competitive practices. (Their 30% cut is obscene, but it’s the same obscenity demanded by other monopoly storefronts.) Nonetheless, company after company keeps saying:
This store is the only store that really matters.
If you’re not on this store, you’re probably fucked.
We have a word for that.
Totally agree. They definitely have a monopoly in PC game distribution, but this feels different than most other situations. They are not forcing anything on anyone. This is really the consumer’s choice. The thing is, they offer a great service and consumers don’t really have much to complain about. The only time you would need to complain about something is if you lost your entire steam library. Which is a reminder that you don’t really own these games, you are renting them.
Think about other monopolies. Microsoft has a dominant force in the PC OS. You have other options like MacOS and Linux, but if you wanted to switch from windows to MacOS, you really can’t. Microsoft can force products onto people like edge browser or ads.
Comcast and Cox are monopolies as they normally service specific regional areas and stay out of each other’s way. Because of this, there is no competition when looking for an ISP and both companies generally act on bad practices and milk the consumers for everything they can.
The more you dig deeper into it, you’ll find that all these companies try and fuck over the consumer. The difference with Valve, is that they can fuck over the producer moreso than the consumer. The only other company I can think of that is similar is eBay. eBay is really a monopoly for an auction like or used goods marketplace. The consumer is more protected than the producer.
Tbh, I don’t know the ins and outs of the game development process, but at least for smaller teams and games, 30% seems very reasonable to get your game out there. I am in the process of making a game now and I am fine with that fee and not having to deal with all the headaches. I just want to make a game, publish it, and make some money.
Losing an entire third of your revenue, straight off the top, is egregious. It’s the figure console manufacturers settled on when they had game developers by the balls. Seeing it continue with a company that controls nothing about the platform they serve says a lot about how much power is inherent to simply having a supermajority market share.
Steam shoved its way onto everyone’s computer as mandatory DRM for Half-Life 2. Calling that move “forward-thinking” would not be a compliment.
Taking 1/3 of your revenue when they quadruple it absolutely is not egregious. Steam is the reason you’re capable of making a living selling PC games to begin with.
PC gaming existed for decades before Steam and wouldn’t magically disappear without it.
Steam increases sales because it’s the only store customers use.
Taking the same kind of money Nintendo charges for the privilege of publishing on Switch, just to be on the de-facto monopoly that Valve has secured, is not some kind of favor. It’s a sign of the power they wield. They didn’t help you make the game. They didn’t invent the video card. They don’t even make the OS that 95% of their customers use.
They’re a middleman.
For massive studios.
Indie games would not have the tiniest chance in hell of succeeding without Steam massively amplifying their reach. If you have a budget under a million, Steam is the best thing that’s ever happened to you and nothing is close.
Indie games would not have the tiniest chance in hell of succeeding without Steam massively amplifying their reach.
BECAUSE IT’S A MONOPOLY.
The internet is not some big-money-only affair, where independent creators have no chance of breakout grassroots success. Digital publishing has been the best thing ever for small games, except every platform is centralized, so there’s still some gigantic arbitrary gatekeeper.
Praising that gatekeeper as if they invented the internet is not a serious argument. Indie developers like this one have been held back - the game’s exactly the same, and it was just as available to anyone with a credit card, but it sold fuck-all beforehand because people only use one store.
Even without Steam around, do you really think Average Joe is going to check a bunch of storefronts looking for a game? Nah, they’re going to see what comes up on Twitch/YouTube and then play that. That would have meant nothing but sponsored garbage forever. Steam saved us from that fate with Greenlight and later opening the door entirely (and favouring indies in their upcoming and new lists)
Do you remember Direct2Drive? Opened up in 2004, digital storefront for games run by IGN? No? That’s ok, neither does anyone else, and it had the pull of fucking IGN. That’s the market Steam was launching into at the time, a time when many people were openly exclaiming PC gaming was dying.
At the time gamer chat was a mostly text-based affair over several places and services, and voice was the realm of the few people with the skills to get TeamSpeak/Ventrilo/Mumble going or a connection to those people. Steam did something wild and brought the whole community together in one place. All the games, all the gamers, and all the developers in one place.
That’s how Steam ended up a monopoly, and with their collection of mature services no one is going to beat them at everything. If you want to beat them you’re going to need to focus on one aspect of their service, beat that, and then work with other people who have targeted other parts of the service and connect. In other words, you need to do the exact opposite of Battle.net/Epic/Uplay/Origin/etc. but none of those companies will do that because they are too selfish to give up any part of the profits.
Only the FOSS community would have the required mentality and why would they step on Steam? Linux gaming has never been this good. It’s almost like the only people who could take on Steam view it as an asset.
Oh and just to be clear: virtually no other service has even tried to do anything but be a worse version of Steam. GOG and Itch.io instead opted to focus on what made them different and thus occupy meaningful niches, but everyone else continues to be worthless to this day and they only have themselves to blame.
We’re pretending Steam (who has done literally nothing to suppress any other platform) doesn’t exist. There is no “monopoly” involved in the discussion
It’s because people don’t have any interest in buying digital products from individuals, especially products that necessarily must change over time. Steam is the entire reason being an indie developer can be done, and very probably most of the reason most AAA PC ports exist at all. Without Steam, console gaming would quite possibly be the only option if you wanted modern demanding games.
Where does it say you can only choose one store?
Upload to all and get all the benefits. Lower prise on those with lower cut, more exposure on those that don’t.
I don’t know if steam does this since I have no experience selling on steam, but generally when you sell anything anywhere the sales channels will often demand that you give them the lowest retail price. Most commonly done by ones that give the most exposure since they have that much more power. Failure to do so will result in some penalty (Amazon prevents your offer from being in buy box) or just outright refusal to take your product (such as Walmart).
Additionally, customers complain too when you sell at two different pricing elsewhere. If you’re a company that gives virtually no support (like you sell pickles or whatever), you prob don’t care. But for things like games, you’ll get bombarded with demands that they got ripped off by buying from one place and ask for difference in pricing or submit a refund request. Refunds are more expensive to sellers than not selling at all since you still have to pay transaction/refund fees by payment processors. Or if physical product, cost of shipping as well.
Different sales channels having different pricing isn’t really an option. It’s not really worth it. You’ll get problems left and right.
