you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -1 points 1 week ago (45 children)

So I really hate epic. And the Ai BS. And this moron. But I have an unpopular opinion on steam/valve.

I will say, a couple friends are game devs and they have a very negative outlook on the 30% cut. One told me that there's something like 80 games a month added to steam and that most have a 1-5% success rate. In other words, most of these game developers are being milked by steam(punny coffee joke). So rough math aside, between the steam cut, taxes--I don't know if the steam cut is taxed, overhead; then splitting up pay and likely getting taxed on that, you're basically making pennies. Bantering for Valve is like bantering for Google. Think of it this way, you go to work get paid but 30% of your paycheck is taken but you get nothing out of it. And you're told worship your employer, just like you should worship amazon and walmart.

  • source
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    Your friends can just request Steam keys and sell them outside of the Steam Store. Then there's no 30% cut. That cut only applies to games and software sold on the Steam store.

    Valve does offer the best features on their storefront by far, thus the 30% cut. And honestly comparable storefronts (Sony also 30%, Microsoft also 30% up until August 2021, and Nintendo also 30%) all take comparable cuts. This isn't anything new or unique to Valve.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 1 week ago*

    As an indie dev myself: Indie devs forget during the brick and mortar days up to 80% or more of revenue is consumed by middlemen before reaching the consumer. Steam absolutely makes indie dev sales easier.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Is that the case? I didn't really ask much about it since it becomes a heated discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Only restriction I know for this scheme is you can't sell the keys outside steam for less than you sell on Steam. Otherwise you can just undercut them while still using their services

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    But easy to get around by discounting it for less than the listed price. Isthereanydeals and gg.deals is a great source for historical price trends across multiple storefronts from official to approved key selling stores.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    The real crime is that Valve requires price parity when you independently (no Steam keys) sell your game on a different store, as well as the Steam store. ("Most Favored Nation" clause.) It means that developers are allowed to pocket the profits if a game is sold on a store that has a lower percentage cut, but they aren't allowed to share the lower cost with the customer, because that could encourage people to not use the Steam Store when buying games.

    I've looked through court documents for this. They're sneaky about it, but they implicitly threaten you with your game's sales being crippled by being taken out of their recommendation algorithm. With Steam being the biggest store, that's a death sentence for most indie developers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

    The real crime is that Valve requires price parity when you independently (no Steam keys) sell your game on a different store, as well as the Steam store.

    They don't. Only if you are selling steam keys do they require price parity and only for steam key sales. You cannot sell a Steam key for less than you sell your game on Steam for. You can sell a non-Steam game key on other store fronts for any price you want.

    This is what is being alleged in court by only a handful of developers but there are countless examples of the exact opposite thing being true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    They must've changed their tone recently, because I've read an actual leaked court document, and the Valve representative / employee states (very defensively) that this is what they did. There's accounts of developers confirming this as well, including apparently in the (secret?) contract you sign when you sign up as a developer with Steam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    Link the leaked court document.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    Here. And the reddit thread where I found it.

    edit: Wait, lemme go ahead and quote the quotes from a previous post of mine:

    If we get to a situation -- again, this is rare. If we get to a situation where a partner is telling us that the price needs to be lower on other platforms than it is on Steam, then we will typically choose not to run curated marketing during times where that game is being discounted, if that is where the price is lower, or around a launch if it's a around -- if it's a price at launch time.

    and

    Q. Okay. And part of these conversations is saying, hey, we're not going to offer you curated promotions if you keep doing that, right?

    A. Part of our approach, if we get to a situation where we can't have pricing that is fair for Steam customers is not to amplify marketing with curated markets.

    Q. But these conversations, as you know, also involve the threat not to keep the game on the Steam store at all; is that right?

    A. That is not our typical process.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Curated marketing refers to the front page ads and popup steam runs, not the algorithmic suggestions you refer to in your original comment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    But those can still make or break a game's commercial success, especially during release. It comes down to the same thing: Discouraging developers from making their game available for cheaper on other stores. I'm also not entirely sure that they would stop here, considering they said they do this, they did not say "no" to threatening the removal of a game from the store, and there are accounts of developers saying concerning things.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago*

    So, I take issue with the bit where you said "requires" because it implies that they will refuse to sell your game if you don't list it for the same price on other store fronts. I have seen it phrased this way before, mostly in complaints from the dev Wolfire who made it sound like Valve threatened to completely kick the game off the Steam platform for selling digital copies of the game un-related to Steam at a cheaper price.

    What you're alleging is different but you were unclear about that because you used the phrasing "price parity" and "most favored nation".

    From Wolfire's own mouth:

    But when I asked Valve about this plan, they replied that they would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.

    What this leak shows is not the same thing and even then the alleged Valve employee's statement is that this is not their normal process. That's not the same as them claiming definitively that this is a standard practice, or part of any agreement but I haven't had a chance to read the full document you provided so I'll have the read that before I make any other statements.

    https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    It's the eternal dilemma for game devs. They loathe the 30% cut (even though it's the same for every console, except you don't have any choice there) but at the same time steam does offer discoverability and platform features the devs and gamers love.

    I would have loved if Epic could compete with steam, but they instead chose to just throw money at gamers instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago

    Valve offers an awful lot for that 30%. It's not their fault every game doesn't take off. It's not like indie devs can't sell the game themselves on their own site if they want. It just means they have to take on all the marketing responsibilities themselves and are going to miss selling to people that only buy off steam because it's so much easier to manage your updates and shit on that platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Way more than 80 games are being released. It not 2 decades ago anymore where a decent indie title was enough to get you noticed.

    Biggest challenge now isn't even the 30% cut but just people even knowing your game exists with the massively low barrier to games now. You aren't just competing against triple a titles, but every other aspiring indie dev hoping to make the next Balatro.

    Its a plus now if your games get pirated, since that means among the thousands of gamss released per month you have a chance to actually have people know your game exists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago* (8 children)

    "Get nothing out of it?" Go ahead and spin up a store front that processes payments with every major channel, then come back to me in a decade when you've got that up and I'll give you your next task.

    Could just as easily argue it's Valve who isn't getting anything for your ten shovelware asset flip titles getting no sales, but they still have to pay for your overhead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    If you want to kiss valves' ass, be my guest. A company with 300 or so employees making a 3-4 billion profit last year is the same as Uber. Everyone's just a contractor and should be happy they use the platform. I'm not arguing if walmart or amazon is better. They both suck and they're stores. Valve has a nice history of suck as well as all the rest, everyone turns a blind eye to this. So I'm not going to pretend they're the good guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    You say it like it is bad, but isn't it actually a good thing that a company chooses the profitable route over an unsustainable model that requires infinite growth and leads to constant employee turnover?

    Practice of running companies at a loss and only being kept afloat because of VC money seems to make everything worse. Company that is losing money while those at top rakes money seems to be what makes competitors harder as it requires huge outside capital to survive long enough for over a decade losing money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    Most people that go into making games don't go into it for profit. Do you think my friend went to make a Halo game because it was to make money or because it was fun to have a lan party?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

    I'm talking about you bringing up Uber as a positive example of a way to run a business. I don't think you know what you are talking about if you are using Uber to defend your position. Because Uber is one of the worst examples of a good company.

    That you think it is some indie passion project is very questionable when it comes to the grasp of companies and how terrible they can be for customers and employees. Unsustainable mass corporations like Uber is what is leading to bunch of borrowed money flowing around and inflating the stock market while those at top get rich, get government subsidies, and firing their employees with all they care about being projected valuation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    I think that was misinterpreted. Uber is absolute trash of a company.

    I know what it's like to be a contractor. All work and none of the benefits.

    I was trying to bring up the mess 343 was without saying it. Hundreds of "contractors" got laid off on release. There was a whole lot of tom-fuckery around that game. Microslop didn't want to give a few hundred people a crumb of the pie.

    A lot of companies enjoy the dancing monkey in a top hat. So we're on the same page, sorry auto correct messes up what I write sometimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago*

    Yeah, there was a misunderstanding. Uber made me think you thought it would be better if Steam started overspending and overhiring and going public, which hasn't really worked out well for customers with the services undergoing enshitification as increasing profits every quarter becomes the goal.

    And leads to people being fired too despite record profits the previous quarter with bonuses for upper management.

    So Uber being brought up was confusing, since I hadn't understood the angle you were going for.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Do you think my friend went to make a Halo game because it was to make money or because it was fun to have a lan party?

    Do you think Bungie initially developed Halo for fun, or to make money?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 0 points 1 week ago (5 children)
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

    Yeah most people don't remember being forced to get steam to play cs. And the fun of going from 150fps to sub 30fps. Nor buying HL2 day one and having to wait 3 weeks to play it--I should have just bought the cd version at the local store sigh

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 1 week ago

    I hated steam for years because I was forced to use it for HL. It's good now though. I always find it surprising when people think it's worshipping to say "this product actually is better than the others". It is. And that is all I see anyone saying. That is not worshipping.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -3 points 1 week ago (7 children)

    Steam/Valve are not the good guys, they seem more normal because they are not complete shit like all other large gaming companies.

    The 30% cut is clearly not market driven. Network effects are not an inherent property of Steam itself.

    They also pioneered lootboxes and tried to do their best to scam on refunds (typical American bullshit).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 week ago (6 children)

    The 30% cut is clearly not market driven

    How is it not? The market is gaming platforms for developers (i.e you're not in the market as a gamer), and every other platforms are either 30% with good features, or 12% but no features.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    I meant market in the real sense not the American polemical form.

    A real market-driven price/cut is determined by supply and demand, the 30% figure was chosen by some American oligarchs that Valve decided to copy.

    Have you ever wondered why it's not 29.1% or 34.5% and the 30% figure never changes (other than than for well connected insiders?). How can market driven price never change, especially in a highly dynamic globalized market like gaming?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    The market has spoken, no one has been able to provide a better service for less, so 30 stays. Technically they could even have increased the cut because of that if you follow market rules.

    But even then, you can get a lower cut on Steam if you are a very big publisher, so the 30% figure is not set in stone.

    And again, the market is not gaming as a whole but gaming platforms, of which there are very few players, and none have tried to really compete with steam as a platform. Most publishers platforms were entirely driven by maximizing their profit, not competing. Most of them are basic digital storefronts, and not platforms.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    Totally! The market has spoken!

    It just so happens that all major service providers have the same 30% figure irrespective of their specific vertical focus, the geographic component of their industry or even the developments in their vertical over the past 20-25 years?

    That's how a market works! Right?

    P.S. You can also set it to 100% (you physical can if you want), that's not what we are discussing though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    have you ever wondered why no one can provide the services Valve does for cheaper than Valve does? Is it because of their famously anticompetitive practices, their notorious lobbying and threats to politicians, their strong-arm manipulation of vendors against each other? Perhaps they have some other method of defeating market forces?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment