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

2456716

Comments

  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,200
    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
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,934
    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.
    I use Ubuntu. Steam has done a lot to make more games work on Linux and I appreciate that. Epic has been outright hostile to Linux which is strange because you can develop and compile Unreal on Linux. All those exclusives mean games I can't play or don't have reasonable access to. Windows gamers obviously don't really care since they're living in DRM/telemetry central, but it shows how shortsighted people can be when they say Epic exclusives adds choice.

    No exclusives ever add choice. That was true with PS/Xbox/Nintendo vs PC and it's true in this situation. They weren't good 'then' and they're not good now.

    RoinTuor7Maddog666Liljna
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • 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.
    TorvalparrotpholkJemAs666oriya9Agent_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)_/¯
  • parrotpholkparrotpholk Member EpicPosts: 4,602
    Torval said:
    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.
    I use Ubuntu. Steam has done a lot to make more games work on Linux and I appreciate that. Epic has been outright hostile to Linux which is strange because you can develop and compile Unreal on Linux. All those exclusives mean games I can't play or don't have reasonable access to. Windows gamers obviously don't really care since they're living in DRM/telemetry central, but it shows how shortsighted people can be when they say Epic exclusives adds choice.

    No exclusives ever add choice. That was true with PS/Xbox/Nintendo vs PC and it's true in this situation. They weren't good 'then' and they're not good now.

    I like Linux so when I say this I do not mean anything rude by it but caring about Linux is about the same as caring about Mac OS when making or distributing games.  I get why a company would ignore it. 

    I can appreciate that Steam was more inclusive though and in your case then it makes complete sense to rage against the machine in this case. 
    barasawaMaddog666
  • marsxwarmarsxwar Member UncommonPosts: 8
    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
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,213
    edited April 2019
    Xasapis said:


    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.
    Luxury = opulence, richness, etc. Consoles are cheap, PCs are a lot more expensive and luxurious.

    But i don't compare them because they are vastly different.

    Sure, windows is the platform for a PC gamer, but Steam became THE platform for gaming on a PC. Steam did revive the interest of both consumers and developers for the PC, at the cost of sacrificing any game that didn't accept Steam's revenue share model.

    I don't like digital store exclusivity on PC, but if a newcomer shows up and is tearing the monopoly apart, plus also letting devs get more money for their games, i can't condemn that.

    EDIT: also, if the platform was WIndows, everyone would be buying their games on W10 store.
    Maddog666




  • WhiteLanternWhiteLantern Member RarePosts: 2,983
    This is all easily fixed. Get a console.
    velimiriusbarasawaMaddog666

    I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,435
    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.
    And here I thought that the point of a game launcher was to launch games.  I don't want to spend all day staring at a game launcher.  I want it to do its job and get out of the way.  More time spent fussing with a launcher means less time playing games.
    parrotpholkbarasawaMaddog666
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967


    This is all easily fixed. Get a console.



    Not sure if you're joking, but consoles are the epitome of the fuckery that EPIC is doing.

    The better console/platform doesn't win because the loser is always chasing down exclusivity deals to compensate.
    TillerRoinvelimiriusTuor7Maddog666
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • truewarlordtruewarlord Member UncommonPosts: 77

    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.



    Again, Steam always had and has exclusives. You're not even trying bro, it's 100% double stands...

    "
    Steam exclusives? Nice, I LOVE VALVE.
    Epic exclusives? Nooo wayyy let's boycott this new store, MONOOOPOLYYYY...
    "


    Do you even know what monopoly means? Because I'm 100% sure that a new OPTION for developers who may want to pay LESS to share their games in a new platform and ACCEPT a deal of exclusivity is NOT what monopoly means.

    In the other hand, you trying to boycott a new store that want to COMPETE with Steam for developers and consumers... Well, that is not a behavior one against monopoly would have. If you want to pick a side, at least be honest about it.

    barasawaMaddog666mmolouManWithNoTan
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,435
    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.
    For a blatant asset flip, untranslated visual novel that was released long ago in its original language, or shoestring budget indie game that has little hope of ever leaving early access, being hosted for only 30% of little to no revenue is a pretty good deal.  That's why Steam is drowning in such things.

    For a larger budget game that realistically hopes to make make millions of dollars in revenue, you could create your own launcher and hosting servers and so forth from scratch for less money than the millions that Valve will charge to launch your game.  The only reason that such developers even consider selling that game through Steam is that there are a bunch of Steam fanboys who will buy it if it's on Steam but won't buy it if you offer exactly the same game through a different launcher.  In that situation, what Valve is getting paid for mostly is not technical services, but delivering their fanboys to your game.
    TorvalAnnwynMaddog666mmolou
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,435
    Torval said:
    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.
    I use Ubuntu. Steam has done a lot to make more games work on Linux and I appreciate that. Epic has been outright hostile to Linux which is strange because you can develop and compile Unreal on Linux. All those exclusives mean games I can't play or don't have reasonable access to. Windows gamers obviously don't really care since they're living in DRM/telemetry central, but it shows how shortsighted people can be when they say Epic exclusives adds choice.

    No exclusives ever add choice. That was true with PS/Xbox/Nintendo vs PC and it's true in this situation. They weren't good 'then' and they're not good now.

    I like Linux so when I say this I do not mean anything rude by it but caring about Linux is about the same as caring about Mac OS when making or distributing games.  I get why a company would ignore it. 

    I can appreciate that Steam was more inclusive though and in your case then it makes complete sense to rage against the machine in this case. 
    There's no intrinsic reason why Linux can't be good at gaming.  For years, it wasn't good enough for servers.  And then it was good enough, and now most servers run Linux.  If Valve can standardize things on Linux to the point that it's good enough for gaming, then eliminating Microsoft's OS fees would sure justify a considerable store fee on the games.  That's what they're trying to do, and I hope that they succeed and make a ton of money by doing so.

    And that Steam itself mostly dies in favor of some open-source game launcher a decade or so later, after Valve has made enough money off of killing Windows to make their investment in making it happen worth it many times over.
    TorvalGorweMaddog666
  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,717
    You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.

    I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
    Maddog666
  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Member EpicPosts: 3,967

    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.



    Again, Steam always had and has exclusives. You're not even trying bro, it's 100% double stands...

    "
    Steam exclusives? Nice, I LOVE VALVE.
    Epic exclusives? Nooo wayyy let's boycott this new store, MONOOOPOLYYYY...
    "


    Do you even know what monopoly means? Because I'm 100% sure that a new OPTION for developers who may want to pay LESS to share their games in a new platform and ACCEPT a deal of exclusivity is NOT what monopoly means.

    In the other hand, you trying to boycott a new store that want to COMPETE with Steam for developers and consumers... Well, that is not a behavior one against monopoly would have. If you want to pick a side, at least be honest about it.

    You're misusing the word monopoly and contradicting it too.

    A monopoly isn't being the most viable, or naturally sole entity. A monopoly is when an entity makes acquisitions and moves to guarantee exclusive control over an industry.

    Also if you're claiming Steam already had a monopoly, what purpose would a Steam exclusive have if there wasn't any other competitors?

    You have to make your mind up over which it's going to be.
    TorvalRoinMaddog666ManWithNoTan
    "As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*" 

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • paul43paul43 Member UncommonPosts: 188
    I don't get it,as someone mentioned earlier, physical copies sold in stores cost more to distribute than 30% from steam. What does Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft take in their console stores? Doubt it's free to list there. 

    When you list your game on steam, you get free advertisement to millions of players. Just sell your game on you own website if you want. Plenty do that. 
    FlyByKnightAgent_JosephTuor7Maddog666
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,435
    marsxwar said:
    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.
    You say that as if you don't realize that it's possible to have game forums and ratings and so forth outside of a game launcher.  While using a site that does exactly that.

    I need a microwave, and I need a refrigerator, but I don't need a single device that functions as both a microwave and a refrigerator.  Why would I want the same program to both launch games and have forums about the game?  Yes, Steam has game forums, but let's not pretend that their forums are actually good as forum software goes.
    Maddog666
  • ShaighShaigh Member RarePosts: 2,020
    The difference is $7.20 on epic and $18 on steam. 100k copies sold on a platform means $1M difference in earnings for the company making the title. A $60 title on epic store would have to cost $75 for the same copy on steam.

    If you want to pay less to the people actually making the game you now have to wait 6-12 months so you can get it on steam.
    barasawaMaddog666
    The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.
  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid Member EpicPosts: 10,213
    edited April 2019
    Xthos said:
    You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.

    I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
    you said "probably", so your defense of steam's revenue model is based on information you actually don't know.

    I don't know either, but it's definitely not 50%. That would have killed physical games on consoles faster than Steam killed it on PC. Which reminds me, fuck steam for killing physical PC games and forcing DRM.
    Maddog666




  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,200
    Quizzical said:
    marsxwar said:
    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.
    You say that as if you don't realize that it's possible to have game forums and ratings and so forth outside of a game launcher.  While using a site that does exactly that.

    I need a microwave, and I need a refrigerator, but I don't need a single device that functions as both a microwave and a refrigerator.  Why would I want the same program to both launch games and have forums about the game?  Yes, Steam has game forums, but let's not pretend that their forums are actually good as forum software goes.
    I would add that it's probably worse to limit your review resources to any single location considering biases and group mentality anyway. 
    QuizzicalMaddog666
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,435
    Xthos said:
    You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.

    I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
    I'm not sure when the last time I bought a game from a brick and mortar store was.  It was probably before Steam even existed.  By the time Steam launched, I was generally buying games either by downloading them elsewhere or by ordering a box online and having it shipped.

    Valve didn't invent downloading games.  What made Steam different from the many online game launchers that preceded it is that Steam would eventually have games from many different developers and publishers rather than just one publisher with a launcher for their own games.
    Tuor7
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,435
    Shaigh said:
    The difference is $7.20 on epic and $18 on steam. 100k copies sold on a platform means $1M difference in earnings for the company making the title. A $60 title on epic store would have to cost $75 for the same copy on steam.

    If you want to pay less to the people actually making the game you now have to wait 6-12 months so you can get it on steam.
    Think of it as a new form of waiting until a while after launch for the game to go on sale so that you don't have to give as much money to the game's developer.  Except that instead of you paying less, you pay the same price as if you had bought it at launch, and just more of that money goes to the developer of your favorite launcher.
    Maddog666bcbully
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,200
    That's the part that amazes me the most. People are so hell bent on something that costs them nothing to use that they would rather rip off the developer, the one's making the friggin game. People waiting a year to buy it on Steam are cutting a higher percentage from the developer and others are downright talking about stealing it.

    It's childish and pathetic, really.
    Quizzicaltruewarlordgervaise1GdemamibarasawaThaharMaddog666bcbully
  • XthosXthos Member UncommonPosts: 2,717
    edited April 2019
    Xthos said:
    You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.

    I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
    you said "probably", so your defense of steam's revenue model is based on information you actually don't know.

    I don't know either, but it's definitely not 50%. That would have killed physical games on consoles faster than Steam killed it on PC. Which reminds me, fuck steam for killing physical PC games and forcing DRM.

          Went and looked, accessories use to be 50%, games 15%ish, and consoles and such were supposedly only 2-3%, with rebates to sellers if they had to lower prices from most companies.  I also think this may have gone up, since this persons info was personal from owning a store in 2009/2010, and said most companies started using a middle man for games (no ones does stuff for free).
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,753
    Xthos said:
    You use to have to buy video games at the brick and mortar stores....Stores probably took 50% of the profit/sale. So I don't see personally how 30% is killing anything. I rarely use any of it, I play mostly mmorpgs, and I don't use anyones services to launch it. I have one game I play on steam, just because it is the easiest to connect with the person I play with, it is a older title.

    I remember wondering why more companies didn't digitally sell their stuff, when no one was doing it. That 50% is what probably made digital popular, and if too many people get tired of 20-30%, someone will do it cheaper and despite loyalties, people/companies will go there. It may take a while, as it is hard to compete against someone that is established.
    How much developers got varied. Bigger companies launching "bigger" games would get a better deal etc. And these deals brought exposure - displays in store, games on shelves etc.

    To get an idea though Funcom when it launched Age of Conan got c. 22-24% per copy according to their formal investor results at the time. Distribution in some countries cost a few % more. A typical marker for big company games was c. 30% for a typical bulk purchase deal with no return.

    Now a part of the 70% (say) was the fact that distributors would be left holding unsold copies of games if the title tanked, or once interest waned etc. Which resulted in discounting so the average % per game is "always" less. Hence games that would walk off the shelves command a higher %; the distributor might get a lower % but would expect to end up with "zero" stock. 

    When Steam came along and offered to do the job for just 30% ...... bricks and mortar had a hard time competing. And - obviously - with digital there is no "physical" waste. And Steam had some exclusives as well.

    Fast forward and UbiSoft, EA etc. decided to take things further and nurture their own stores; better for them.

    And now we have the Epic Store offering to do the job for less. Its the new kid on the block and isn't yet fully functional although there is a toad map for them adding features e.g. Linux support.

    Steam succeeded because it charged less; and whilst there was no cost saving to consumers in te short term in the long term developers making more per copy means they can consider a lower target price to recoup costs and make a profit. If things stay as they are there is no reason why Epic shouldn't succeed in the same way. And again in the long term consumers should benefit going forward.

    And if people want to pay an extra 18% for some extra frills then maybe Steam could charge for that as a service outside of the cost of the game!
    QuizzicalwingoodMaddog666bcbully
  • jonp200jonp200 Member UncommonPosts: 455
    I'm not really in either camp but you have to take into account the origin of all of this. Back in the day, I represented a number of software distributors when the primary form of distribution was physical copies. While producing physical media isn't all that expensive, the distribution is ; packing shipping, merchandising, returns, etc. Most games had an effective shelf life of maybe 45 days after which they were returned, destroyed, or marked down to the retailer with funds from the distributor or a combination of funds from the distributor and published; depending to the sale contract. Aside from the occasional title that just flew off the shelf and sold out, the average cost of distribution was likely about the same or more.

    Now digital platforms offered the promise or reducing all of those costs but it appears they remain similar for the published (Based on Steam's cut) Steam also has a very liberal return policy which is good for gamers overall and I'm sure that cuts into profits.

    So publishers crying poverty doesn't really ring true to me but at the same time, I certainly understand their desire to cut costs and increase profits. The industry has become very much like other forms of entertainment. A hit tile leads to big bucks. Something less than stellar; not so much. A dud? It can be the end.

    As to Steam; you can say what you want but I like the platform. I've had an overall great experience with it and I really like their return policy though I have only used it couple times. Their work with Proton is good for gamers too. I would love to leave Windows behind completely as a gaming platform. That won't happen until I can play AAA titles on Linux and have it be a decent gaming experience consistently and there hasn't been a lot of movement on improving the game experience on Linux for years (Will give a shout out to Codeweavers and WINE)
    TorvalmallettjtbarasawaThahartinoberserkTuor7Alverantjdnewell

    Seaspite
    Playing ESO on my X-Box


Sign In or Register to comment.