this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
792 points (98.2% liked)
PC Gaming
8536 readers
1283 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Valve's 30% is high, sure. But you're not seeing the total cost of selling a game.
And yes, I've done this before.
Besides the user count, besides all other factors. Digital sales are kinda hard.
You need to offer the actual game. If you're selling an indie game that's a few hundred megs, well you get to go sign up for a service to deliver it. Could be as simple as a google drive link, but because this is business use you get to pay business prices.
Are they charging a flat rate per month, per gig? Per download? Some combinations?
Now there's updates and patches that need to be delivered. Same deal as before, but also now you need to handle the actual patching. Do you ship one big patch that checks for previous patches? Small individual patches that your users have to figure out what one they need?
Does your game have multiplayer? Well damn have fun with that.
What about support and refunds and GDPR stuff? Gotta factor all of that in too.
Now we get to do payment processing. You get to pay a company to accept payments on your behalf because you are NOT doing that yourself you WILL get stuck on inane and silly laws.
That's part of it. Paying steam 3 bucks on my 10 dollar game to handle ALL of that? Yeah that's fair. Could it be cheaper? Sure. a lot of things could. I don't spend months on a game and then cheap out on the most important part: sales.
My time is valuable and worth 30%
Not to mention Valve's effort with Proton, allowing non-Windows gamers enjoy what they pay for on multiple platforms with great ease; their efforts have been massive for gaming on Linux, and without it, I wouldn't have paid for a lot of games, earning their developers a whole lot of absolutely nothing.
Also the community hub, the workshop, the review system, the cloud saving, the functional wishlist, the gifting system, the shopping cart, the anti-cheat (you're better of with it than without it), the discovery queue, the sales dedicated to specific types of games that actually help people discover games and drive the revenue up for the developers, the (I think) complete transaction history, the refunds system, the friends and the chat and profiles - and probably many more things that I'm either not aware of or couldn't list off the tip of my tongue, combined with internal works that, again, do help the devs in the end.
Steam is much more than a place where one pays for a game to then simply download and play it. It's much greater and more functional than that. None of the developers have to put their games on Steam - nobody forces Epic Games Store or GOG to be this subpar in comparison. Same way nobody forces gamers to use Steam. People use Steam because they love it - or because there's no good-enough alternative, but that's hardly Valve's fault.
Steam charging 30% is not just worth it, but also surprising, given what putting your game on Steam gets you as the developer, and what it gets us, the players.
And their VR efforts. VR seems to have lost popularity lately, but I was really glad that someone out there was competing with Palmer Luckey, especially once he sold out to Facebook.
And... holy shit, I just found out he's Matt Gaetz' brother in law. That explains a lot.
Nobody is arguing that valve shouldn't be compensated for the value they provide. Many of us do, however, argue they are taking too much. Their revenue per employee being so much higher than anyone else in the market supports that argument.
Uh huh, and I’m sure you’re privy to the exact financial breakdowns?
If someone could actually provide a better service than steam at a better price point, they would. The epic games store is shit, uplay is shit, origin is shit.
RTFA, it is right there ffs
I agree with you, but its not an argument in Valve's favor, that is unless you support monopolies. "They should take whatever they can, because no one else is competition." Yeah, great. Capitalism at work. I agree that's what they should do if we're talking pure capitalist ideology, maximize profit at any cost. Is it the right thing to do though. They obviously (from the topic of this thread) make more than enough to pay every employee extremely well and then have a ton left over. They don't need to charge 30% to get by.
Let's not describe this as "paying valve three bucks" because that's not accurate and is misleading.
It's paying valve 30% of your revenue.
They didn't frame it as "paying valve three bucks". They said "paying valve 3 bucks on my 10 dollar game". The phrase "paying pennies on the dollar" comes to mind as a common idiom for saying you're paying a small fraction of the total, and neither literally means nor implies paying actual pennies.
Usually it does refer to paying less than 20% or so, yes. Not literal pennies, though.
What if it’s a ten cent game and you’re paying steam three cents each sale?
It is misleading. It is 30% of the entire revenue of the game. And it is objective whether Valve deserves 30% of that revenue. It's also true that games aren't locked to the Steam platform and can absolutely make money outside of Valve's influence. History has shown though that it is less profitable then being inside the Steam ecosystem.
Except that Steam allow their keys to be sold on other platforms and don't take a cut on those. So it is 30% on the key sold on steam, but 0% on the other storefront.
So there is no reason to not go on steam because it doesn't restrict you to steam.
You still need Steam on your computer to install it which means if your computer no longer supports Steam you are out of luck.
If your computer doesn’t support Steam, there’s really no reason to install Steam, because better chance than not your computer doesn’t support almost any game you’d want to play on Steam.
There are still plenty of stubborn people that cling to Windows 7, Steam dropped support a few months back when they upgraded the... Electron version, I believe? Had something to do with chrome/chromium removing win 7 support.
Steam is 20 years old so we have now reached a point where people have retro gaming machines where parts of their libraries come from Steam.
If your computer is incapable of even running Ubuntu. Then I don't think it's worth using.
It is not a great trend, but you need a launcher anyway today be it Steam, Origin or any other launchers.
Only GOG offers DRM free games but it is not the norm.
Some games on steam are DRM free, meaning that you can run the game without opening Steam.
I'd rather have physical copies of my games, but it doesn't exist anymore unless you pirate it.
With that said, Steam is the most convenient and feature complete and that is why it is so widespread. Epic games with their money printer Fortnite could not reproduce a fraction of Steam dev tools and functionality.
You're better off never learning how little of what you pay your food actually goes to the producer, then...
Shockingly I'm also mad about that. I suppose you support that situation?