Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

One Former Valve Dev Says that Steam's 30% Take of Profits is a 'Tax on an Entire Industry' - MMORP

SBFordSBFord Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
edited April 2019 in News & Features Discussion

imageOne Former Valve Dev Says that Steam's 30% Take of Profits is a 'Tax on an Entire Industry' - MMORPG.com News

Richard Geldreich, a former developer at Valve, has come out swinging against his former employer's backbone, Steam. Geldreich was a participant in a thread with Epic's Tim Sweeney as he tried to rebut those who allege that the Epic Game Store client is rife with spyware and that it collects too much information about users. Geldreich weighed in base on his experience and said that Valve collected volumes of information on players but doesn't have to deal with what he sees happening to Epic.

Read the full story here



¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 


«13456714

Comments

  • LililuneLililune Member UncommonPosts: 81
    My favorite is GOG because no launcher crap needed to download my games.
    Steam or Epic it's the same old thing.
    Only interested in making money,don't give a shit about customers.
    I use Steam because Linux and a better launcher.
    But that is all!
    And that war between Epic and Steam is getting ridiculous...
    Whiteshade92SolancerAsm0deusSevenwindOctagon7711SabracF2PlagueAgent_JosephGorwewingoodand 9 others.
  • RexKushmanRexKushman Member RarePosts: 639
    edited April 2019
    My only issue with Epic is that their store/launcher is objectively inferior to Steam. All it is is a launcher with a friends list. No mod support, reviews, game forums, streaming, family share, none of the community features that valve has built. If it wasn't getting exclusives I wouldn't care one bit but to be forced to purchase products from an inferior platform simply rubs me the wrong way.

    All I can do is vote with my wallet as I have done recently by not purchasing anything from them. If they build up their store into something even remotely comparable to Steam I'd have no problems buying games there but they are many years away from being close to that.

    Also, as someone who actually owned Fortnite years before the BR mode was even an idea, I've have more attempted account hijackings on their platform than on any website I've ever been registered on. Now that might not necessarily be their fault, but it makes me extra worried about using them.
    [Deleted User]Gobstopper3DCyber_wastelandDhamon99jonp200Sabracoriya9Agent_JosephCaffynatedGorweand 5 others.

  • MythlaMythla Member UncommonPosts: 25


    My only issue with Epic is that their store/launcher is objectively inferior to Steam. All it is is a launcher with a friends list. No mod support, reviews, game forums, streaming, family share, none of the community features that valve has built. If it wasn't getting exclusives I wouldn't care one bit but to be forced to purchase products from an inferior platform simply rubs me the wrong way.



    All I can do is vote with my wallet as I have done recently by not purchasing anything from them. If they build up their store into something even remotely comparable to Steam I'd have no problems buying games there but they are many years away from being close to that.



    Also, as someone who actually owned Fortnite years before the BR mode was even an idea, I've have more attempted account hijackings on their platform than on any website I've ever been registered on. Now that might not necessarily be their fault, but it makes me extra worried about using them.



    It's these backasswards takes that kill me. Who the hell is "forcing" you to purchase products from Epic? It's the height of selfish entitlement that gamers rant about inconvenience or waiting a few months, in the face of developers who spent YEARS of their lives and (in many cases) health to create said product getting a fair cut.
    RexKushmanHatefullmoshraPhixion13Dhamon99QuizzicalnatpickThuplidruez[Deleted User]and 13 others.
  • LobotomistLobotomist Member EpicPosts: 5,971
    Steam revived PC as desirable development platform for AA games. So killing PC gaming ?
    druezoriya9Agent_Joseph3domScotvelimiriusRemyVorenderKalafaxgastovski1Thaharand 3 others.



  • BruceYeeBruceYee Member EpicPosts: 2,556
    edited April 2019
    What were the details of his departure from Steam and how much higher up management information was he privy to. What was his position at Steam on the Steam totem pole? How does he know all the things he claims to know absolutely if he was just a developer working on say Artifact that was recently let go?

    He comes off to me like he is slamming Steam while at the same time pledging his 100% loyalty to 'the other guy' with hopes of getting a job. A little more middle ground and little less bitter ex employee would do this guy some good in my opinion.
    RexKushmanGobstopper3DPhixion13RoindruezCaffynatedGorweFolmenThaharTuor7and 2 others.
  • DauzqulDauzqul Member RarePosts: 1,982
    30% is A LOT. It used to be worth it due to how many users Steam has. However, since they pretty much allow anyone to launch a game on Steam, their store has been bombed with countless asset flips etc. The only games that hit the front page are the games from AAA developers, so Indies get the shaft...

    Not worth 30%.
    ThupliSabracbarasawaFolmenMaddog666infomatzkahhsn
  • joewolf79joewolf79 Member UncommonPosts: 31
    I don't understand why people get so upset over Steam charging 30%. They normalized digital distribution and allow developers to save money that would otherwise have been spent on physical production. Providing companies with a place to sell their products will always cost something and I fail to see how 30% is unreasonable. Especially considering how Steam offers a multiplayer framework for any developers that want to use it. Breaking news, company tries to make money and services have a cost, film at 11.

    As for the data collection, clearly the point is being missed here. Steam will spy on what you do with Steam and check how good your hardware is. Epic will dig into your install of a competitor's software and take the information the competitor collected. For me that crosses a very distinct line. You don't touch other people's stuff.
    RexKushmanChildoftheShadowsCyber_wastelandDhamon99RoinMendeljdnewell[Deleted User]oriya9Agent_Josephand 11 others.
  • SpottyGekkoSpottyGekko Member EpicPosts: 6,916
    If you hate Steam, then you'll love these "shocking revelations" !

    If you like Steam, then you'll dismiss these obvious lies !

    As always, the "truth" is those things that most closely rhyme with your pre-existing bias...
    mklinicThupliFolmenMaddog666mmolouinfomatzjdlamson75
  • RobbgobbRobbgobb Member UncommonPosts: 674
    I am one that I just want to play my games. Most games I get are through Humble now so Steam is main place I play. Probably will use Humble as well for some Switch games when I get one. I know I don't like the Epic launcher and that is enough for me to not use. I also like GoG. I don't care if Epic succeeds or doesn't. I just know they have a long way to go before I use them.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,193
    Someone will try to spin this against Epic, just wait.
    Phixion13barasawaFolmenThaharinfomatz
  • DauzqulDauzqul Member RarePosts: 1,982

    joewolf79 said:

    I don't understand why people get so upset over Steam charging 30%. They normalized digital distribution and allow developers to save money that would otherwise have been spent on physical production. Providing companies with a place to sell their products will always cost something and I fail to see how 30% is unreasonable. Especially considering how Steam offers a multiplayer framework for any developers that want to use it. Breaking news, company tries to make money and services have a cost, film at 11.



    As for the data collection, clearly the point is being missed here. Steam will spy on what you do with Steam and check how good your hardware is. Epic will dig into your install of a competitor's software and take the information the competitor collected. For me that crosses a very distinct line. You don't touch other people's stuff.



    Developers don't need Steam for digital distribution, though. Developers can do it themselves. This is why AoC, Vanguard, Warhammer, EQ2, SWG, etc etc etc all had their own launchers. Very simple to do. Moreover, Steam doesn't have multi-player server hosting. That's completely different. You would have to host and pay a different entity (something like Photon) for multi-player play. Steam is just like a glorified Facebook for gamers.
    QuizzicalJemAs666MadFrenchieAgent_JosephFolmenmetarealmmolouHashbrickaRtFuLThinG
  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,337
    Aren't the steam keys that are distributed by the developers all going towards the developer revenue? Like 100% of it?
    Not that it's easy to do it if you're not an indie or have an already established key distribution platform.
    [Deleted User]Maddog666kahhsn
  • ArskaaaArskaaa Member RarePosts: 1,265
    Just give us google stadia already.
    ChildoftheShadows[Deleted User]rojoArcueid3dombarasawaFolmenMaddog666infomatzHashbrickQuarterStack
  • AnnwynAnnwyn Member UncommonPosts: 2,854
    I really don't get the outrage over the Epic games launcher. I feel like these outraged gamers are not using their heads properly.

    Steam has enjoyed a near monopoly on PC gaming for over a decade. Yes there are smaller competitors, but they're not big enough to create a real dent in Steam's revenues, and gamers have grown so used to using Steam, that they don't really see the negative aspects that it has on the industry itself.

    Steam is "good" for consumers through all of its social features, but it's simply terrible for developers, in particular indie developers, because Steam takes a huge 30% off the sale. This is partly what's influenced the rise of prices in the video game industry too, due of the ever increasing game development costs and a shrinking profit margin. The Steam Store is also a massive mess of asset-flips because they've stop curating their store, which means that it can be a lot harder for your game to get the visibility it needs to succeed.

    Here comes Epic, offering to take only 12%, and waiving the royalty fees for developers using UE4. That's 18% more money per sale in profit compared to Steam, and make that 23% if the developers used UE4 (there's a 5% royalty for selling a game made with UE4). That's a HUGE difference in revenue for a game developer studio. Even better, the store is curated so you don't get all that asset-flip filth.

    Sure, the Epic Store is missing some features at the moment, many of which are being worked on if you look at their Store roadmap. The Store came out in December I think, and it seems to be doing quite well already, and let's not forget that Steam started out as only a fraction as what it is today. It took time to introduce all of these new features.

    Also, I'm kind of glad that the Epic Store doesn't have player reviews at the moment. I think player reviews are important to warn potential players of good/bad games, but its currently being misused for review bombing older games by immature gamers, so I could imagine review bombing being used to try and destroy newly released games on the Epic Store if they were to release that feature too early.

    Anyway, TLDR: Competition is good, especially if it favors developers.
    ChildoftheShadowsblbetabarasawaFolmenmetarealTuor7Maddog666kahhsn
  • truewarlordtruewarlord Member UncommonPosts: 78
    As far as I know, Valve has exclusives on Steam since... Always.
    Hypocrisy is funny.

    More stores more competition, that is good for customers. Monopoly was and will always be bad for us.

    All this rage against Epic exclusives is a mix of stupidity and double standards.
    ChildoftheShadowsRexKushmanAgent_JosephCaffynatedvelimiriusbarasawaFolmenmetarealThaharSovrathand 6 others.
  • SiveriaSiveria Member UncommonPosts: 1,421
    You have to consider all the other services steam provides, mind you I think a 30% cut is way to high. I mainly use steam because its where all my friends are, and where all my games are, I hate needing to use a new launcher for just 1 game.



    As far as I know, Valve has exclusives on Steam since... Always.

    Hypocrisy is funny.



    More stores more competition, that is good for customers. Monopoly was and will always be bad for us.



    All this rage against Epic exclusives is a mix of stupidity and double standards.



    The rage is because they are bribing them and then blocking it from getting on other platforms, which is the same thing as having a monopoly on it. Why is it ok for epic to do it? but no one else? Think about it, how would releasing borderlands 3 n both steam and epic store at the same time hurt them? if anything it'd be more profitable. Sadly I won't be buying borderlands 3 till its on steam, like I said all my friends are on steam, and i'd like to play games online with my friends. As for single player, there are lots of ways to get to play the game both legally and otherwise if your so inclined.

    I also own all the other borderlands games on steam, so I'd really hate to have to use the epic store client just for the borderlands 3 when I have everything else on steam.
    [Deleted User]KyutaSyukoMaddog666k61977bcbully

    Being a pessimist is a win-win pattern of thinking. If you're a pessimist (I'll admit that I am!) you're either:

    A. Proven right (if something bad happens)

    or

    B. Pleasantly surprised (if something good happens)

    Either way, you can't lose! Try it out sometime!

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,722

    DMKano said:

    Its worth pointing out that Valve has changed its % cut depending on sales

    Under 10mil valve takes a 30%

    10mil to 50 mil valve takes 25%

    Over 50 mil valve takes 20%





    This, in my eyes, is only beneficial to the bigger companies that are pretty much guaranteed to sell more than 50 million dollars. Everyone else, AKA the smaller studios that could benefit from a 12-88% split are stuck with 30-70%
    [Deleted User]barasawaFolmenMaddog666mmoloukahhsn




  • joewolf79joewolf79 Member UncommonPosts: 31

    Dauzqul said:



    joewolf79 said:


    I don't understand why people get so upset over Steam charging 30%. They normalized digital distribution and allow developers to save money that would otherwise have been spent on physical production. Providing companies with a place to sell their products will always cost something and I fail to see how 30% is unreasonable. Especially considering how Steam offers a multiplayer framework for any developers that want to use it. Breaking news, company tries to make money and services have a cost, film at 11.





    As for the data collection, clearly the point is being missed here. Steam will spy on what you do with Steam and check how good your hardware is. Epic will dig into your install of a competitor's software and take the information the competitor collected. For me that crosses a very distinct line. You don't touch other people's stuff.






    Developers don't need Steam for digital distribution, though. Developers can do it themselves. This is why AoC, Vanguard, Warhammer, EQ2, SWG, etc etc etc all had their own launchers. Very simple to do. Moreover, Steam doesn't have multi-player server hosting. That's completely different. You would have to host and pay a different entity (something like Photon) for multi-player play. Steam is just like a glorified Facebook for gamers.



    True, no developer absolutely needs Steam if they are able and willing to sell their products on their own or elsewhere. However for some developers it makes sense to let Valve handle the sale of their products. I think people tend to ignore just how complex it is to process financial transactions internationally and manage all the various tax laws.
    DauzqulMendelJemAs666GorweFolmenThaharkahhsn
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,722


    Steam revived PC as desirable development platform for AA games. So killing PC gaming ?



    it was a monopoly. If you didn't release your game on Steam, and therefore accept only a portion of the revenue, your game was doomed. I think they were, in a way, killing PC gaming outside of their platform.
    FolmenTuor7Maddog666kahhsn




  • TillerTiller Member LegendaryPosts: 11,403
    edited April 2019
    I don't care where I get my games, I just want them all in one place and on sale. The idea for a game launcher launcher is still a good idea though, even if it was an April fools joke.




    [Deleted User]RexKushmanSabracArskaaa
    SWG Bloodfin vet
    Elder Jedi/Elder Bounty Hunter
     
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,193
    Siveria said:
    You have to consider all the other services steam provides, mind you I think a 30% cut is way to high. I mainly use steam because its where all my friends are, and where all my games are, I hate needing to use a new launcher for just 1 game.



    As far as I know, Valve has exclusives on Steam since... Always.

    Hypocrisy is funny.



    More stores more competition, that is good for customers. Monopoly was and will always be bad for us.



    All this rage against Epic exclusives is a mix of stupidity and double standards.



    The rage is because they are bribing them and then blocking it from getting on other platforms, which is the same thing as having a monopoly on it. Why is it ok for epic to do it? but no one else? Think about it, how would releasing borderlands 3 n both steam and epic store at the same time hurt them? if anything it'd be more profitable. Sadly I won't be buying borderlands 3 till its on steam, like I said all my friends are on steam, and i'd like to play games online with my friends. As for single player, there are lots of ways to get to play the game both legally and otherwise if your so inclined.

    I also own all the other borderlands games on steam, so I'd really hate to have to use the epic store client just for the borderlands 3 when I have everything else on steam.
    Bribing isn't really the word I would use and it's nothing even remotely like a monopoly. You are out of the ballpark.

    Where you buy the game doesn't affect your gameplay or "where your friends are". You're just using it as an excuse to throw a fit, really. If you really wanted to you could still run Steam within the game anyway. You just choose not to think.

    I hate having launchers at all, but if I'm going to choose one I'm going to choose either a) the cheapest option or b) the one that gives the developer the most amount of money. 

    Steam created a place that some consumers liked to use and kept raising their rates to suck more money from developers without earning it. 

    Steam doesn't deserve my money. They didn't earn it.
    truewarlordFolmenMaddog666
  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,337


    Steam revived PC as desirable development platform for AA games. So killing PC gaming ?



    it was a monopoly. If you didn't release your game on Steam, and therefore accept only a portion of the revenue, your game was doomed. I think they were, in a way, killing PC gaming outside of their platform.
    The platform was windows on PC. How were they killing it "outside" of it?
    Steam is a big reason the PC platform remained relevant. The other big reason is that PCs are entry level electronic equipment for the majority of people, while consoles are luxury devices.
    Tuor7Maddog666mmolou
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member EpicPosts: 2,193
    joewolf79 said:

    Dauzqul said:



    joewolf79 said:


    I don't understand why people get so upset over Steam charging 30%. They normalized digital distribution and allow developers to save money that would otherwise have been spent on physical production. Providing companies with a place to sell their products will always cost something and I fail to see how 30% is unreasonable. Especially considering how Steam offers a multiplayer framework for any developers that want to use it. Breaking news, company tries to make money and services have a cost, film at 11.





    As for the data collection, clearly the point is being missed here. Steam will spy on what you do with Steam and check how good your hardware is. Epic will dig into your install of a competitor's software and take the information the competitor collected. For me that crosses a very distinct line. You don't touch other people's stuff.






    Developers don't need Steam for digital distribution, though. Developers can do it themselves. This is why AoC, Vanguard, Warhammer, EQ2, SWG, etc etc etc all had their own launchers. Very simple to do. Moreover, Steam doesn't have multi-player server hosting. That's completely different. You would have to host and pay a different entity (something like Photon) for multi-player play. Steam is just like a glorified Facebook for gamers.



    True, no developer absolutely needs Steam if they are able and willing to sell their products on their own or elsewhere. However for some developers it makes sense to let Valve handle the sale of their products. I think people tend to ignore just how complex it is to process financial transactions internationally and manage all the various tax laws.
    Nope, the only thing they use Steam for is exposure and that is absolutely the only thing. They don't need them for distribution. Distribution is the easiest part of software.
    Maddog666
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967
    edited April 2019
    Why are developers behaving like they're being forced to sell physical items at a brick and mortar who is owned by the mob?

    Valve/Steam put their work and time in to building their consumer base and distribution platform. Everyone was giving them s#!% in the beginning.

    Nobody has a problem with EPIC providing an alternative (outside of it being garbage in comparison).

    The problem is all these jaded crybaby developers (and the knobbers who cosign them) who don't like the idea of paying a 30% split can't grasp the concept of going independent or leveraging ALL major platforms to maximize revenue. They're picking a side in a platform war they have no business getting involved in. Maybe they think if they put their crumby Battle Royale game exclusively on EPIC next to Fortnite they can buy a Lambo.

    Bottom line is Steam is feature rich and super convenient for people who use it. Trying to draw a line in the sand and make people leave feature rich convenience for bare bones trash so you can make more money is dumb and fucks the industry up. BETA MAX vs VHS anyone?

    I'm not a developer, and I don't make money off your exclusive better split with EPIC. As a consumer I'm on the better platform (clearly), FUCK any developer who won't distribute to me in addition to lesser pleb platforms.
    [Deleted User][Deleted User]JemAs666oriya9Agent_JosephRoinThaharTuor7Maddog666IsilithTehroth
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • marsxwarmarsxwar Member UncommonPosts: 17
    Yes, thank god to Epic, their launcher that lets developers decide if people get to rate their games and delete comments anytime they want, love the anti consumerism. The launcher that has half the feature as Steam.

    Yet these people comes out crying steam needs competition just for the sake of competition. The best part about this is the assumption that you have to put games on steam in the first place, having your own launcher for a specific game has never been done before apparently.

    These devs are willingly putting their games on Steam, and there for accepting that steam takes a percentage of their profit, and then go and bitch about it on twitter.

    It's fitting that he likes a launcher with an opt in rating system by the devs, his game on steam is a trainwreck, and I guess he doesn't want people to know that before asking for money.
    RexKushmanTuor7Maddog666
Sign In or Register to comment.