It's actually pretty easy to argue it's fair once you look at everything. Steam offers a shit ton of resources for that 30%, including hosting, distribution, patching, workshop, etc. And that's not even getting into the fact that the dev can get all of that AND get steam keys that they can distribute themselves (meaning valve doesn't get a cut of that) that still utilizes the same infra.
I wish I could find it, but I recently saw a video of Thor (@piratesoftware, does his own game dev and used to work for Blizzard) talking about this and going into even more detail than I can remember at the moment.
The cut would be less if competition was possible. I will bet my arm, first child and souls on this.
And you'd lose all of that.
Competition isn't possible? EGS is an active competitor that only takes 12% and they still can't get fucking anywhere because their store fucking sucks. GoG exists and also takes 30%, their store/launcher are ok, but they don't offer nearly as much for that 30%, but they make up for that with drm free games. There are other minor players out there, so competition is definitely possible, but not one of them offers a comparable product.
The only way steam would lower their cut is if someone came along and made a game store that actually offered a significant portion of the services steam offered and was about as good but also had a lower cut of sales. But good luck finding someone who can do all of that and also takes less than 30%.
You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. Having some small competition that's not ever going to threaten you because you can leverage your dominant position is also a case of a monopoly.
Epic poured billions of Fortnite money with little to show for it. How is anyone going to compete with a platform that most gamers have all of their games on? This is why they need to be broken up or brought to order via regulations. Companies are not your friends.
Success is not illegal. Valve isn't buying up smaller competing storefronts, or paying off developers for exclusivity, or burying competition in legal fees and prepared 80-page lawsuits. The only thing holding back real competition is the competing platforms being dogshit.
I was excited for the EGS when it was announced. Then it turned out to be a garbage platform with the shady exclusivity deals that turned Steam into an ad platform for games that had been poached by Epic. Valve responded to it with the Steam Deck and Proton.
Leveraging dominant position to keep your monopoly is illegal even in the US.
Allegations of leveraging a dominant market position doesn't mean its actually happening.
Valve had nothing to do with its competitors being garbage
What are they doing to leverage their dominant position?
At some point you're so entrenched in the market you don't have to do anything anymore. I was quite surprised that Valve somehow evaded EU Digital Markets Act gatekeeper criteria.
Ok but you made a claim that they were leveraging their market position to maintain a monopoly. So please describe how they are doing that in any way shape or form.
Just because someone claims something to sue a company does not mean it’s true. You gotta go through the whole court process and prove it.
It says Valve "forces" game publishers to sign up to so-called price parity obligations, preventing titles being sold at cheaper prices on rival platforms
I’ve never seen any publisher claim this, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. But it sure doesn’t sound like that has anything to do with being a monopoly. Epic, GoG, Ubisoft, etc. could all do the exact same thing.
Anyway, thanks for the link. I was not the one to downvote you on your last comment. You did what I asked.
I give up. Are you an American or something?
How is anyone going to compete with a platform that most gamers have all of their games on?
They could offer their games DRM-free, guarantee that their multiplayer games have LAN or provide servers and/or at least provide that information clearly to the consumer, write an open source drop-in replacement for Steam Input and Workshop, guarantee more uptime on their matchmaking/friends servers, retain old versions of games that they distribute, and allow for user-customized or open source clients to fit all sorts of UI preferences, off the top of my head.
Those things are up to developers / publishers, not the marketplace.
GOG mandates that all games must be DRM-free, so when I shop there, I know what I'm getting. Valve has tags that tell me if a game supports LAN, but developers aren't required to report that, so I can't tell if a multiplayer game I'm buying is built to last if the developer didn't think to list it; if they were required to, that would be different. People lean on Steam Input and Workshop because those features are made easy for them, but using them means you don't get those benefits outside of Steam, so there should be an open, third party alternative that developers can easily switch to if they're familiar with developing for Steam; a company running a non-Steam store has an incentive to develop this. Matchmaking and friends servers, as they exist today, are frequently provided by the storefront, so when Steam servers go down for maintenance and I'm in the middle of an online match of Skullgirls, we get disconnected, and we have to wait until they come back up; there are ways to increase uptime and prevent this interruption, but Valve hasn't improved the situation in at least 15 years.
Honestly, even those are pretty overkill to make a competing storefront. All you'd have to do is to offer lower prices and/or take a smaller percentage while matching at least a fraction of Steam's functionality (unlike Epic) or actively working to screw over customers (also unlike Epic). If a store sold games consistantly 5% cheaper than Steam, even without controller options, good support, a built-in forum, explicit Linux support, ect., I'm confident it would be reasonably successful. Just look at Humble and Fanatical. While they do (mostly) sell Steam keys, their prices are arguably what made them a success, not the features you get after redeaming the Steam keys.
Even beside that, the ideas you provided are all pretty minor. If you're willing to throw more significant amounts of money at the platform, like many before have, you can go a lot further than that even. For example, seeing as Steam's discovery algorithm is one of the bigger benifits Steam provides, you could one-up them by providing off-platform marketing for games launching on your platform. This would be a way to bring devlopers and players alike to use your platform without screwing over either. Similarly, you could take a page out of Epic's book and do giveaways regularly. Alternatively, you could use a less generous system such as "buy anything and get x game free" or "every $10 spent gives you a chance to win x game bundle" to make it more sustainable, and/or allow you to market specific underperforming games. It isn't that hard to come up with ideas that would allow a competitor to do well. You just have to do that rather than putting all your resources into trying to take games away from players, and harvest their data.
If EGS mandated those things it would be as successful as GOG. Which is irrelevant compared to Steam. Steam didn't become successful because of tags. It's because they were first.
GOG is successful and profitable. EGS loses hundreds of millions of dollars.
Boutique shop successful, therefore Amazon is not a monopoly.
GOG succeeds in one key area that gives me a reason to shop there. Steam succeeds in other areas. Epic succeeds in none. If GOG wants to supplant Steam, they need to be good in that key area and the areas that I value from Steam. If Epic wants to supplant Steam, they need to give a single shit about what their customers want.
Epic poured billions of Fortnite money with little to show for it.
Yes, Into fortnite, not EGS. The eggs spent all their money on timed exclusives instead of a better product, and that's why they failed to make a steam competitor.
Those free games weren't actually free, Epic paid for them, you know.
Oh, I know. I got exactly 1 free game from EGS, which I promptly bought on stream myself once I realized that EGS had no offline mode (so the game I had been playing refused to launch during an Internet outage).
And that's one of the many reasons EGS isn't able to get a significant market share, because as I said initially, EGS fucking sucks. If they spent half as much on improving the store as they do for timed exclusives and trying to lure people in with free games, they might actually get somewhere.
You dont seem to understand what a monopoly is either since steam isnt one
They make billions in profit, fuck off with it being fair.
Making money isn't evil.
Making billions always happens at the expense of people like you and me.
Show us on the doll where the Valve hurt you
It's not a Valve issue, it's a capitalism issue and you're a victim of it just like I am.
Oh, I see. You're still in highschool.
Have fun with that.
Nice arguments you've got there, show me how having 1% of the population having 63% of the wealth doesn't cause any problems for you.
Valve causes zero problems for me.
How much of the population do you interact with outside of the internet?
Because you're intentionally ignoring the fact that every time you buy a game you're paying more than you really need to, therefore you're keeping less of your wealth than you should.
Yeah man, that ten dollar game I bought six months ago was so overpriced. I'm such a slave, amIright
and when people point out that you're being overcharged for stuff you're defending the people overcharging you.
What exactly is your point? The comment you linked to has me saying I am poor, and the comment your replying to says the same thing. Ten bucks for one full video game in six months is not being overcharged. A pair of jeans is more than ten bucks.
If you're arguing that the only good game is a free game, I'm not going to agree with you. I will happily pirate "AAA" games, but indie games I'll pay for.
Highschool freshman edge bs is annoying as hell. You're not as smart as you think you are.
Blame the game not the player, it's not like they are doing some next level weird shit like all the competition does. This rigged economic system allowed this situation.
As an Indie dev, a 30% cut of profit could be the death of my one man studio (if I ever get around to actually starting it)
Ok, so then handle all of that yourself at cost. Which will lead to the death of your studio faster?
Seriously though, a $15 game selling just 100k copies is still $1m to you (before taxes) and has no upkeep. You do all that steam does yourself, you're going to drown in operations costs and upkeep time.
I agree with you but at the same time I feel like I should point out that this is the China fallacy, where there's a billion people in China and if you could just tap into even 0.3% of their market you would make bank.
While it's technically true, the fallacy behind it overshadows the difficulty of acquiring that percentage of the market. The grand majority of games released never become cash positive, and over 50% of games on steam alone never make more than $4,000.
This is not an issue with distribution, it's an issue with marketing and market fit, and accompanied by the base fact of that if you're the kind of person who is good at making games, it would be a rarity for you to also be the kind of person that's good at marketing the games you made.
Those are two entirely different wheelhouses that function best with two entirely different personality types, and that's not covering all of the different disciplines that you need to make a game or run a game making company in the first place.
Use Steams competitors then if you don't want to pay Steams cut. If you're getting less overall from them, that tells you all you need to know about the validity of Steams fees
I think you missed my point. I am in favor of steam and valve by far, my quibble is with the idea that anyone can sell 100,000 copies of a $15 game.
For every Stardew Valley there are thousands of other games no one has ever heard of and that almost no one bought.
By all means though, make great games. I'll be buying them on steam.
Ah fair. My reading comprehension also failed there because I thought you were the same person the person you responded to was responding to was (Person I thought you were - Person you responded to - you - me: if that makes what I said make more sense). I guess my response though is that discoverability is going to be an issue for any new game regardless of whether someone chooses to put their game on Steam or not (and I'd argue that not putting their game on Steam would negatively impact their discoverability, hence another point in favour of Steams cut)
edit: (I actively hate Epic though, so consider taking their money as losing the possibility of ever getting mine. I am NOT for console exclusive bs on the PC marketplace, and Epic is actively trying to make that a thing. So if you except money from epic to go exclusive on their store, I'm only ever going to pirate your game, if I can even be bothered to play it at all)
It's actually pretty easy to argue it's fair once you look at everything. Steam offers a shit ton of resources for that 30%, including hosting, distribution, patching, workshop, etc. And that's not even getting into the fact that the dev can get all of that AND get steam keys that they can distribute themselves (meaning valve doesn't get a cut of that) that still utilizes the same infra.
I wish I could find it, but I recently saw a video of Thor (@piratesoftware, does his own game dev and used to work for Blizzard) talking about this and going into even more detail than I can remember at the moment.
The cut would be less if competition was possible. I will bet my arm, first child and souls on this.
And you'd lose all of that.
Competition isn't possible? EGS is an active competitor that only takes 12% and they still can't get fucking anywhere because their store fucking sucks. GoG exists and also takes 30%, their store/launcher are ok, but they don't offer nearly as much for that 30%, but they make up for that with drm free games. There are other minor players out there, so competition is definitely possible, but not one of them offers a comparable product.
The only way steam would lower their cut is if someone came along and made a game store that actually offered a significant portion of the services steam offered and was about as good but also had a lower cut of sales. But good luck finding someone who can do all of that and also takes less than 30%.
You don't seem to understand what a monopoly is. Having some small competition that's not ever going to threaten you because you can leverage your dominant position is also a case of a monopoly.
Epic poured billions of Fortnite money with little to show for it. How is anyone going to compete with a platform that most gamers have all of their games on? This is why they need to be broken up or brought to order via regulations. Companies are not your friends.
Success is not illegal. Valve isn't buying up smaller competing storefronts, or paying off developers for exclusivity, or burying competition in legal fees and prepared 80-page lawsuits. The only thing holding back real competition is the competing platforms being dogshit.
I was excited for the EGS when it was announced. Then it turned out to be a garbage platform with the shady exclusivity deals that turned Steam into an ad platform for games that had been poached by Epic. Valve responded to it with the Steam Deck and Proton.
Leveraging dominant position to keep your monopoly is illegal even in the US.
Allegations of leveraging a dominant market position doesn't mean its actually happening.
Valve had nothing to do with its competitors being garbage
What are they doing to leverage their dominant position?
At some point you're so entrenched in the market you don't have to do anything anymore. I was quite surprised that Valve somehow evaded EU Digital Markets Act gatekeeper criteria.
Ok but you made a claim that they were leveraging their market position to maintain a monopoly. So please describe how they are doing that in any way shape or form.
There you go: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpwwyj6v24xo
Just because someone claims something to sue a company does not mean it’s true. You gotta go through the whole court process and prove it.
I’ve never seen any publisher claim this, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. But it sure doesn’t sound like that has anything to do with being a monopoly. Epic, GoG, Ubisoft, etc. could all do the exact same thing.
Anyway, thanks for the link. I was not the one to downvote you on your last comment. You did what I asked.
I give up. Are you an American or something?
They could offer their games DRM-free, guarantee that their multiplayer games have LAN or provide servers and/or at least provide that information clearly to the consumer, write an open source drop-in replacement for Steam Input and Workshop, guarantee more uptime on their matchmaking/friends servers, retain old versions of games that they distribute, and allow for user-customized or open source clients to fit all sorts of UI preferences, off the top of my head.
Those things are up to developers / publishers, not the marketplace.
GOG mandates that all games must be DRM-free, so when I shop there, I know what I'm getting. Valve has tags that tell me if a game supports LAN, but developers aren't required to report that, so I can't tell if a multiplayer game I'm buying is built to last if the developer didn't think to list it; if they were required to, that would be different. People lean on Steam Input and Workshop because those features are made easy for them, but using them means you don't get those benefits outside of Steam, so there should be an open, third party alternative that developers can easily switch to if they're familiar with developing for Steam; a company running a non-Steam store has an incentive to develop this. Matchmaking and friends servers, as they exist today, are frequently provided by the storefront, so when Steam servers go down for maintenance and I'm in the middle of an online match of Skullgirls, we get disconnected, and we have to wait until they come back up; there are ways to increase uptime and prevent this interruption, but Valve hasn't improved the situation in at least 15 years.
Honestly, even those are pretty overkill to make a competing storefront. All you'd have to do is to offer lower prices and/or take a smaller percentage while matching at least a fraction of Steam's functionality (unlike Epic) or actively working to screw over customers (also unlike Epic). If a store sold games consistantly 5% cheaper than Steam, even without controller options, good support, a built-in forum, explicit Linux support, ect., I'm confident it would be reasonably successful. Just look at Humble and Fanatical. While they do (mostly) sell Steam keys, their prices are arguably what made them a success, not the features you get after redeaming the Steam keys.
Even beside that, the ideas you provided are all pretty minor. If you're willing to throw more significant amounts of money at the platform, like many before have, you can go a lot further than that even. For example, seeing as Steam's discovery algorithm is one of the bigger benifits Steam provides, you could one-up them by providing off-platform marketing for games launching on your platform. This would be a way to bring devlopers and players alike to use your platform without screwing over either. Similarly, you could take a page out of Epic's book and do giveaways regularly. Alternatively, you could use a less generous system such as "buy anything and get x game free" or "every $10 spent gives you a chance to win x game bundle" to make it more sustainable, and/or allow you to market specific underperforming games. It isn't that hard to come up with ideas that would allow a competitor to do well. You just have to do that rather than putting all your resources into trying to take games away from players, and harvest their data.
If EGS mandated those things it would be as successful as GOG. Which is irrelevant compared to Steam. Steam didn't become successful because of tags. It's because they were first.
GOG is successful and profitable. EGS loses hundreds of millions of dollars.
Boutique shop successful, therefore Amazon is not a monopoly.
GOG succeeds in one key area that gives me a reason to shop there. Steam succeeds in other areas. Epic succeeds in none. If GOG wants to supplant Steam, they need to be good in that key area and the areas that I value from Steam. If Epic wants to supplant Steam, they need to give a single shit about what their customers want.
Yes, Into fortnite, not EGS. The eggs spent all their money on timed exclusives instead of a better product, and that's why they failed to make a steam competitor.
Those free games weren't actually free, Epic paid for them, you know.
Oh, I know. I got exactly 1 free game from EGS, which I promptly bought on stream myself once I realized that EGS had no offline mode (so the game I had been playing refused to launch during an Internet outage).
And that's one of the many reasons EGS isn't able to get a significant market share, because as I said initially, EGS fucking sucks. If they spent half as much on improving the store as they do for timed exclusives and trying to lure people in with free games, they might actually get somewhere.
You dont seem to understand what a monopoly is either since steam isnt one
They make billions in profit, fuck off with it being fair.
Making money isn't evil.
Making billions always happens at the expense of people like you and me.
Show us on the doll where the Valve hurt you
It's not a Valve issue, it's a capitalism issue and you're a victim of it just like I am.
Oh, I see. You're still in highschool.
Have fun with that.
Nice arguments you've got there, show me how having 1% of the population having 63% of the wealth doesn't cause any problems for you.
Valve causes zero problems for me.
How much of the population do you interact with outside of the internet?
Because you're intentionally ignoring the fact that every time you buy a game you're paying more than you really need to, therefore you're keeping less of your wealth than you should.
Yeah man, that ten dollar game I bought six months ago was so overpriced. I'm such a slave, amIright
Funny how you're talking about being poor
https://lemm.ee/comment/12887154
and when people point out that you're being overcharged for stuff you're defending the people overcharging you.
What exactly is your point? The comment you linked to has me saying I am poor, and the comment your replying to says the same thing. Ten bucks for one full video game in six months is not being overcharged. A pair of jeans is more than ten bucks.
If you're arguing that the only good game is a free game, I'm not going to agree with you. I will happily pirate "AAA" games, but indie games I'll pay for.
Highschool freshman edge bs is annoying as hell. You're not as smart as you think you are.
Waah it's not faaaair!
Fair isn't a thing.
Blame the game not the player, it's not like they are doing some next level weird shit like all the competition does. This rigged economic system allowed this situation.
As an Indie dev, a 30% cut of profit could be the death of my one man studio (if I ever get around to actually starting it)
Ok, so then handle all of that yourself at cost. Which will lead to the death of your studio faster?
Seriously though, a $15 game selling just 100k copies is still $1m to you (before taxes) and has no upkeep. You do all that steam does yourself, you're going to drown in operations costs and upkeep time.
I agree with you but at the same time I feel like I should point out that this is the China fallacy, where there's a billion people in China and if you could just tap into even 0.3% of their market you would make bank.
While it's technically true, the fallacy behind it overshadows the difficulty of acquiring that percentage of the market. The grand majority of games released never become cash positive, and over 50% of games on steam alone never make more than $4,000.
https://vginsights.com/insights/article/infographic-indie-game-revenues-on-steam
This is not an issue with distribution, it's an issue with marketing and market fit, and accompanied by the base fact of that if you're the kind of person who is good at making games, it would be a rarity for you to also be the kind of person that's good at marketing the games you made.
Those are two entirely different wheelhouses that function best with two entirely different personality types, and that's not covering all of the different disciplines that you need to make a game or run a game making company in the first place.
Use Steams competitors then if you don't want to pay Steams cut. If you're getting less overall from them, that tells you all you need to know about the validity of Steams fees
I think you missed my point. I am in favor of steam and valve by far, my quibble is with the idea that anyone can sell 100,000 copies of a $15 game.
For every Stardew Valley there are thousands of other games no one has ever heard of and that almost no one bought.
By all means though, make great games. I'll be buying them on steam.
Ah fair. My reading comprehension also failed there because I thought you were the same person the person you responded to was responding to was (Person I thought you were - Person you responded to - you - me: if that makes what I said make more sense). I guess my response though is that discoverability is going to be an issue for any new game regardless of whether someone chooses to put their game on Steam or not (and I'd argue that not putting their game on Steam would negatively impact their discoverability, hence another point in favour of Steams cut)
edit: (I actively hate Epic though, so consider taking their money as losing the possibility of ever getting mine. I am NOT for console exclusive bs on the PC marketplace, and Epic is actively trying to make that a thing. So if you except money from epic to go exclusive on their store, I'm only ever going to pirate your game, if I can even be bothered to play it at all)