most are quite happy with the services they get back from that 30% cut.
I agree with most of that, but this part just isn’t true. 30% is highway robbery. It’s a scam. But PC gamers are trained that Steam is where the games are, with few exceptions. If you don’t pay steam their cut, your game doesn’t sell at all.
Consider all that goes into development of a game and compare that to the effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage. Is Steam really providing 30% of the game experience?
I think Steam could be profitable at less than a 10% cut.
effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage
Except that’s not all Valve does. Game files and updates need to be distributed, and that alone is a massive task at the scale Steam operates on, both the storage and transmission of data, and the operating cost of the CDN. Steam Cloud is also not free, it’s covered by the 30% so the players don’t have to pay. Add to that the cost of sales where the discount is covered by Valve.
The EGS isn’t profitable either, it’s kept alive by Fortnite money.
And all that forever too. The developers don’t pay a dime after Steam’s cut to keep the game alive and downloadable and playable. Even Steam keys, you can sell as many as you want outside of Steam, for free.
The devs can just raise the price by 30% if they feel they really need the money. I’ll pay the extra to have it on Steam and just work out of the box in Proton. Unlike Apple, it’s not a monopoly, nothing stopping anyone from just distributing on their own.
Actually they can’t. Steam’s TOS has a “most favored nation” clause that forbids developers from charging less for their games on other platforms (at least this is how I understand it, I’m not a lawyer). From a small developer’s perspective, it sucks that they can’t unburden the player from the 30% where it doesn’t apply. From Valve’s perspective, that would turn Steam into an advertising platform for other stores.
Check isthereanydeals for deals on steam keys that aren’t gray market and lower than Steam. How do they get around it? Well it seems to more apply to retail price and not sales price.
That only applies for steam keys afaik. You can not sell your steam keys cheaper anywhere else, since steam is on the hook for the cost and services. That is fairly logical.
A dev can charge whatever if they deal with all that themself on their own webpage forinstance.
You also recognize that 30% of each game sale applies to each game sale, right?
Do you really think 30% of developing a game is hosting not just the original game, but also the updates and the save files? CDNs only make it cheaper.
Steam is able to charge 30% because they effectively have a walled garden on PC games. Very few publishers are well known enough to successfully sell their game outside of Steam.
It’s not as egregious as the Apple or Google stores, but they’re basically all in this together. It’s like the old mob families where they split territory.
Consequence of what you are proposing is that companies with economies of sale or are willing to operate at a loss due to other sections of the corporation being their main source of profitable revenue would be only ones left. Ironically ensuring higher barriers to entry than there already is. The 10% is more realistic for key resellers than those trying to launch a profitable mainstream platform hosting and distributing everything as opposed to side project that can lose money.
The CD Projekt-owned PC gaming storefront GOG just released a “facts and figures” breakdown of 2022 in an official blog post. The upshot? GOG experienced steady growth in its user base and library while also turning a tidy $1.2 million profit. It’s a heartening turnaround to see as the service actually lost money—$1.15 million to be exact—the previous year.
The cut GOG takes is 30%. Epic operates at a loss and is more a side project they are willing to lose money on, since Fortnite and Unreal is there real money.
GOG also started to limit cloud storage per game to 200 MB
As the size and number of games increase, so does the demand for Cloud Storage. These limits ensure that all players have access to sufficient and manageable space for their game progress, and that we keep the associated costs under control. By optimizing our storage allocation, we aim to continue providing a reliable and user-friendly platform for everyone.
Your game doesn’t sell at all because Steam adds massive value. Steam is the reason PC gaming is what it is.
Retail gets paid for a reason. Distribution has huge value. There isn’t a game out there that doesn’t make way more money paying Steam a 30% commission than they would by not taking advantage of their massive reach.
Steam taking 80% would be a much better offer for developers than Epic taking -50%. You’d still make more on Steam.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
I agree with most of that, but this part just isn’t true. 30% is highway robbery. It’s a scam. But PC gamers are trained that Steam is where the games are, with few exceptions. If you don’t pay steam their cut, your game doesn’t sell at all.
Consider all that goes into development of a game and compare that to the effort/infrastructure to host a download and display a webpage. Is Steam really providing 30% of the game experience?
I think Steam could be profitable at less than a 10% cut.
Except that’s not all Valve does. Game files and updates need to be distributed, and that alone is a massive task at the scale Steam operates on, both the storage and transmission of data, and the operating cost of the CDN. Steam Cloud is also not free, it’s covered by the 30% so the players don’t have to pay. Add to that the cost of sales where the discount is covered by Valve.
The EGS isn’t profitable either, it’s kept alive by Fortnite money.
And all that forever too. The developers don’t pay a dime after Steam’s cut to keep the game alive and downloadable and playable. Even Steam keys, you can sell as many as you want outside of Steam, for free.
The devs can just raise the price by 30% if they feel they really need the money. I’ll pay the extra to have it on Steam and just work out of the box in Proton. Unlike Apple, it’s not a monopoly, nothing stopping anyone from just distributing on their own.
Actually they can’t. Steam’s TOS has a “most favored nation” clause that forbids developers from charging less for their games on other platforms (at least this is how I understand it, I’m not a lawyer). From a small developer’s perspective, it sucks that they can’t unburden the player from the 30% where it doesn’t apply. From Valve’s perspective, that would turn Steam into an advertising platform for other stores.
Check isthereanydeals for deals on steam keys that aren’t gray market and lower than Steam. How do they get around it? Well it seems to more apply to retail price and not sales price.
This is only true for steam keys sold on other platforms afaik
That only applies for steam keys afaik. You can not sell your steam keys cheaper anywhere else, since steam is on the hook for the cost and services. That is fairly logical.
A dev can charge whatever if they deal with all that themself on their own webpage forinstance.
You also recognize that 30% of each game sale applies to each game sale, right?
Do you really think 30% of developing a game is hosting not just the original game, but also the updates and the save files? CDNs only make it cheaper.
Steam is able to charge 30% because they effectively have a walled garden on PC games. Very few publishers are well known enough to successfully sell their game outside of Steam.
It’s not as egregious as the Apple or Google stores, but they’re basically all in this together. It’s like the old mob families where they split territory.
Consequence of what you are proposing is that companies with economies of sale or are willing to operate at a loss due to other sections of the corporation being their main source of profitable revenue would be only ones left. Ironically ensuring higher barriers to entry than there already is. The 10% is more realistic for key resellers than those trying to launch a profitable mainstream platform hosting and distributing everything as opposed to side project that can lose money.
https://www.pcgamer.com/gog-looks-like-its-in-a-much-healthier-spot-after-a-hairy-2021/
The cut GOG takes is 30%. Epic operates at a loss and is more a side project they are willing to lose money on, since Fortnite and Unreal is there real money.
https://kotaku.com/epic-games-store-pc-profitable-google-court-case-apple-1850996972
GOG also started to limit cloud storage per game to 200 MB
https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/18730340487709-Review-your-Cloud-Saves-to-avoid-loss-of-files?product=gog
You’re right. Hosting files is more difficult than creating art for the game. Steam deserves a bigger cut than artists.
Your game doesn’t sell at all because Steam adds massive value. Steam is the reason PC gaming is what it is.
Retail gets paid for a reason. Distribution has huge value. There isn’t a game out there that doesn’t make way more money paying Steam a 30% commission than they would by not taking advantage of their massive reach.
Steam taking 80% would be a much better offer for developers than Epic taking -50%. You’d still make more on Steam.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.
Tim Sweeney himself has said his 12% cut on EGS isn’t sustainable on its own
It certainly isn’t when you’re spending more than that just to get exclusives.
To be fair, 30% cut probably wouldn’t be sustainable. They were hemeraging money last I checked thanks to exclusives and “free” games.
Have you ever seen the interview with game devs that said something along the lines of Steam cut justifying itself just from the fact that hosting your own webstore and selling your game there can result in so much shit just from people refunding and such that the steam cut is actually cheaper in the long term for smaller devs.