You can agree that this is great without being stupid. 12% would be great for developers. This is great for consumers. They’re different things. It’d be nice for Steam to take less of the developer’s money. I hope you can agree with that.
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
Laying off employees is not a sign of being unsuccessful. In fact, in many cases it’s the opposite. Also Epic as a storefront is horrific, and Tim is a cunt, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that very few people actually buy from them.
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Yes, 0% would be better. What’s your point? Valve is charging 30%. That’s worse than 12%, correct? It’s better. Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
No one is saying we want to go back to that. Them being better than that does not make them good. Hitler killed a smaller percentage of the population than Genghis Khan, but that doesn’t make Hitler not evil, right?
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
They make an incredible amount of money. Their employees are extremely generously rewarded. This means the 30% is well over what is required. I can’t give a number of what they need, and neither can you. Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team. It has nothing to do with distribution or engine development. Even still, Fortnite was profitable. It was just less profitable.
Why do we have to defend every action Valve takes? Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day? That was a fairy tale that I thought people here were over.
I’m a Linux gamer. I appreciate what they’ve done. I’ve been on Steam for I don’t even know how long at this point. That sure as hell doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out what they do that’s wrong. If anything, it should be the opposite. I don’t want them to become bad, so I need to call out when they’re doing the wrong thing.
Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
I’m not defending them. I’m saying that a service has to be financially successful, something that many people on lemmy seemingly forgot after reading too much Marx. Are they making more than they need? Absolutely. But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don’t think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution. I’ve worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.
So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don’t really see why. The service they provide is just worth that much. I think it’s a fantasy that companies can suddenly start to charge less just because they already have a lot of money.
Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team.
Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.
Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day?
You can. I just don’t agree with that criticism. Valve does shitty things at times. The fact that they are really opaque when it comes to algorithms and support decisions is shit, the price parity rule, while being standard in the industry, is shit and the lack of control for early access games is pretty shit - we can criticize all that and more.
And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That’s your right. However, I’m just not agreeing with that stance. That isn’t defending a company, even tho you’re trying to frame it as such. That’s just me having a different opinion. And you trying to frame disagreement as “being loyal to a company” is a great way to completely stifle a discussion. Why even argue at that point, just insult me and move on lmao.
I’m not defending them. I’m saying that a service has to be financially successful…
No, the comment above brought up the stupid argument to defend them. You implying they need to to remain solvent is defending them too. How many yachts does Gaben have? How generously are the employees paid? Clearly they’re making more than enough money with 30%. Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it’s certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?
But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don’t think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution.
I said this already, but this is assuming the sales wouldn’t happen if Steam didn’t exist. I doubt it. The sales numbers would be approximately the same, provided by someone else. They just have almost full market domination, so you don’t have a choice but to sell on Steam. It isn’t because it’s so great for the developers. It’s because they don’t have a choice.
I’ve worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.
“Thats just the way things are” isn’t an argument. “Slavery is just the way we do things! You can’t say it’s bad! We wouldn’t make a profit otherwise!” Not a good argument, right?
So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don’t really see why.
To help developers. It seems like you’re purely capitalism brained. My argument was that it’d be better for developers. I didn’t say they’d make more profit. There’s a lot of bad things you can do to make more money. It doesn’t mean you should. It’d be good for the industry if they charged less. It’d allow smaller studios to make a profit for more niche games.
The service they provide is just worth that much.
Again, there isn’t a choice (for developers). It makes it worth it in the same way it’s worth it to hand over my wallet when someone points a gun to my head. It doesn’t mean it’s the best outcome for the developer if other options were equally viable.
Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.
IIRC, no. It was Fortnite specific.
And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That’s your right. However, I’m just not agreeing with that stance. That isn’t defending a company, even tho you’re trying to frame it as such.
What do you define “defending” as? You’re making arguments supporting the behavior. Who in the world wouldn’t define that as defence? I’m not framing it as defence. It just is.
Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it’s certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?
Yes. But nobody knows. It certainly is lower. But again, and this is the last time I say this: A service needs to be finanically successful. This business is more than just it’s operating cost. On top of that, I’ll say this one again: The service is just worth it. Nobody in the world offers such an easy handling of the entire distribution chain combined with such a massive audience.
“Thats just the way things are” isn’t an argument.
While that’s true, that wasn’t my argument. My argument is that 30% is usually a fairly decent sweet spot for a platform when it comes to running a distribution system. I’ve build quite a few marketplaces in my time, and the standard fees were between 20% and 40%, all depending on how much work the platform had to do.
Again, there isn’t a choice (for developers).
There’s plenty of choice. You can choose not to sell your game on steam, put it on the EGS exclusively and accept that you’re never going to reach the audience you’d do with steam. Now you just gotta figure out if the lesser sales at 12% are more profitable than the more sales at 30%.
What do you define “defending” as?
You make defending sound like I’m a company white-knight that’ll defend a company from any wrongdoing ever, which simply isn’t the case. Valve does some shitty things and I have called them out for it. I just don’t think the 30% cut is bad in any capacity.
There’s plenty of choice. You can choose not to sell your game on steam, put it on the EGS exclusively and accept that you’re never going to reach the audience you’d do with steam. Now you just gotta figure out if the lesser sales at 12% are more profitable than the more sales at 30%.
Yeah, it won’t be more profitable. It isn’t a choice. There is a small choice for some games of distributing it yourself. This is incredibly cheap (which proves Valve’s profit margin is insane), but 99% of players won’t leave Steam. This means it isn’t a choice for all but a few niche games. Starsector, for example, distributes it on their own, so they get a 100% cut. The players who want to play that are generally more intelligent and can get it off of Steam. For something like CoD, that’s marketed towards mass appeal go the absolute minimum of technological literacy, you have to be on Steam. There isn’t a choice.
You make defending sound like I’m a company white-knight that’ll defend a company from any wrongdoing ever, which simply isn’t the case. Valve does some shitty things and I have called them out for it. I just don’t think the 30% cut is bad in any capacity.
You’ve already agreed it’s worse than it being lower. You don’t think it’s bad enough to be upset over, but you agree it’s worse than it could be. That’s the difference. I won’t stop at “better than it could be.” I’ll always argue for more from a company, and you should too.
Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
Because it’s pretty fucking obvious that the 12% cut was just Tim Swiney trying to grab market share for EGS without actually putting in the work to develop it.
Remember how it took over 2 years for them to add a cart? Remember how they just laid off 1000 employees? Using Fortnite money to pay for exclusive deals and game givaways instead of actually developing the store hasn’t turned out profitable.
Also, ever notice how nobody was complaining about Steam’s cut before that? And let’s not forget that Steam Greenlight and subsequent opening up of allowing nearly any game onto their platform is what made the indie market more than an extremely small niche. Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem, which benefits everyone, including indie studioa
Again, that was from the Fortnite team. It’s like if Valve laid off people working on DOTA, it doesn’t mean the storefront is doing poorly.
Also, ever notice how nobody was complaining about Steam’s cut before that?
Yeah… you weren’t paying attention then. People have been complaining about it before their storefront existed. This has been discussed a lot. Steam actually doesn’t take 30%. That’s the default. Big games, despite making more money, actually pay less, as dumb as that sounds.
Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem…
Citation needed. Some is. How much is going towards Gaben’s several yachts?
Only if we assume a sale not made on Steam is a sale lost. If Steam didn’t get the sale and the purchase was made somewhere with a higher return instead, the dev would make more from the sale. Odds are, if Valve didn’t have almost full market control, people would still buy games, they’d just buy them somewhere else.
By that logic valve would be justified with even 95% cut if network efect was even stronger. That’s stupid logic that only thinks in terms of working with what you have. Valve already takes a cut and not a hard value. It’s in their very business to increase sales and they shouldn’t be additionally rewarded for such because by increased sales they already get the money.
Fair enough - I was thinking in terms of choice rather than justification. A better question, then, would be: what is a fair percentage given Steam’s services both developer-side and player-side (more satisfied players are also a perk for developers)?
Plus, their investment into Linux gaming and FOSS in general are preventing PC gaming from being locked down to a singled OS that becomes a walled garden.
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable, a lower cut would be nice for smaller devs but I don’t see why Valve would when every other platform of Steam’s size also takes 30%.
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable…
Citation needed. They’re still operating, while paying games for exclusivity, and giving away games for free (at their own cost). Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite, but to say it isn’t profitable when they’re giving away this much money is a big claim. Also, Valve would be significantly more profitable at the same rate, because they have almost total market capture. Even if Epic isn’t profitable (I’ve seen no evidence of this) we can’t extrapolate to say Vlave wouldn’t be.
You can agree that this is great without being stupid. 12% would be great for developers. This is great for consumers. They’re different things. It’d be nice for Steam to take less of the developer’s money. I hope you can agree with that.
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
Laying off employees is not a sign of being unsuccessful. In fact, in many cases it’s the opposite. Also Epic as a storefront is horrific, and Tim is a cunt, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that very few people actually buy from them.
Yes, 0% would be better. What’s your point? Valve is charging 30%. That’s worse than 12%, correct? It’s better. Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
No one is saying we want to go back to that. Them being better than that does not make them good. Hitler killed a smaller percentage of the population than Genghis Khan, but that doesn’t make Hitler not evil, right?
They make an incredible amount of money. Their employees are extremely generously rewarded. This means the 30% is well over what is required. I can’t give a number of what they need, and neither can you. Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team. It has nothing to do with distribution or engine development. Even still, Fortnite was profitable. It was just less profitable.
Why do we have to defend every action Valve takes? Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day? That was a fairy tale that I thought people here were over.
I’m a Linux gamer. I appreciate what they’ve done. I’ve been on Steam for I don’t even know how long at this point. That sure as hell doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out what they do that’s wrong. If anything, it should be the opposite. I don’t want them to become bad, so I need to call out when they’re doing the wrong thing.
I’m not defending them. I’m saying that a service has to be financially successful, something that many people on lemmy seemingly forgot after reading too much Marx. Are they making more than they need? Absolutely. But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don’t think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution. I’ve worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.
So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don’t really see why. The service they provide is just worth that much. I think it’s a fantasy that companies can suddenly start to charge less just because they already have a lot of money.
Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.
You can. I just don’t agree with that criticism. Valve does shitty things at times. The fact that they are really opaque when it comes to algorithms and support decisions is shit, the price parity rule, while being standard in the industry, is shit and the lack of control for early access games is pretty shit - we can criticize all that and more.
And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That’s your right. However, I’m just not agreeing with that stance. That isn’t defending a company, even tho you’re trying to frame it as such. That’s just me having a different opinion. And you trying to frame disagreement as “being loyal to a company” is a great way to completely stifle a discussion. Why even argue at that point, just insult me and move on lmao.
No, the comment above brought up the stupid argument to defend them. You implying they need to to remain solvent is defending them too. How many yachts does Gaben have? How generously are the employees paid? Clearly they’re making more than enough money with 30%. Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it’s certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?
I said this already, but this is assuming the sales wouldn’t happen if Steam didn’t exist. I doubt it. The sales numbers would be approximately the same, provided by someone else. They just have almost full market domination, so you don’t have a choice but to sell on Steam. It isn’t because it’s so great for the developers. It’s because they don’t have a choice.
“Thats just the way things are” isn’t an argument. “Slavery is just the way we do things! You can’t say it’s bad! We wouldn’t make a profit otherwise!” Not a good argument, right?
To help developers. It seems like you’re purely capitalism brained. My argument was that it’d be better for developers. I didn’t say they’d make more profit. There’s a lot of bad things you can do to make more money. It doesn’t mean you should. It’d be good for the industry if they charged less. It’d allow smaller studios to make a profit for more niche games.
Again, there isn’t a choice (for developers). It makes it worth it in the same way it’s worth it to hand over my wallet when someone points a gun to my head. It doesn’t mean it’s the best outcome for the developer if other options were equally viable.
IIRC, no. It was Fortnite specific.
What do you define “defending” as? You’re making arguments supporting the behavior. Who in the world wouldn’t define that as defence? I’m not framing it as defence. It just is.
Yes. But nobody knows. It certainly is lower. But again, and this is the last time I say this: A service needs to be finanically successful. This business is more than just it’s operating cost. On top of that, I’ll say this one again: The service is just worth it. Nobody in the world offers such an easy handling of the entire distribution chain combined with such a massive audience.
While that’s true, that wasn’t my argument. My argument is that 30% is usually a fairly decent sweet spot for a platform when it comes to running a distribution system. I’ve build quite a few marketplaces in my time, and the standard fees were between 20% and 40%, all depending on how much work the platform had to do.
There’s plenty of choice. You can choose not to sell your game on steam, put it on the EGS exclusively and accept that you’re never going to reach the audience you’d do with steam. Now you just gotta figure out if the lesser sales at 12% are more profitable than the more sales at 30%.
You make defending sound like I’m a company white-knight that’ll defend a company from any wrongdoing ever, which simply isn’t the case. Valve does some shitty things and I have called them out for it. I just don’t think the 30% cut is bad in any capacity.
Yeah, it won’t be more profitable. It isn’t a choice. There is a small choice for some games of distributing it yourself. This is incredibly cheap (which proves Valve’s profit margin is insane), but 99% of players won’t leave Steam. This means it isn’t a choice for all but a few niche games. Starsector, for example, distributes it on their own, so they get a 100% cut. The players who want to play that are generally more intelligent and can get it off of Steam. For something like CoD, that’s marketed towards mass appeal go the absolute minimum of technological literacy, you have to be on Steam. There isn’t a choice.
You’ve already agreed it’s worse than it being lower. You don’t think it’s bad enough to be upset over, but you agree it’s worse than it could be. That’s the difference. I won’t stop at “better than it could be.” I’ll always argue for more from a company, and you should too.
Because it’s pretty fucking obvious that the 12% cut was just Tim Swiney trying to grab market share for EGS without actually putting in the work to develop it.
Remember how it took over 2 years for them to add a cart? Remember how they just laid off 1000 employees? Using Fortnite money to pay for exclusive deals and game givaways instead of actually developing the store hasn’t turned out profitable.
Also, ever notice how nobody was complaining about Steam’s cut before that? And let’s not forget that Steam Greenlight and subsequent opening up of allowing nearly any game onto their platform is what made the indie market more than an extremely small niche. Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem, which benefits everyone, including indie studioa
Again, that was from the Fortnite team. It’s like if Valve laid off people working on DOTA, it doesn’t mean the storefront is doing poorly.
Yeah… you weren’t paying attention then. People have been complaining about it before their storefront existed. This has been discussed a lot. Steam actually doesn’t take 30%. That’s the default. Big games, despite making more money, actually pay less, as dumb as that sounds.
Citation needed. Some is. How much is going towards Gaben’s several yachts?
As long as Steam can give at least 25.8 percent more sales than Epic (or other place that offers 12%), it’s a better deal for developers as well.
(math: (1-0.12)/(1-0.30)=1.2571=1+25.71%)
Only if we assume a sale not made on Steam is a sale lost. If Steam didn’t get the sale and the purchase was made somewhere with a higher return instead, the dev would make more from the sale. Odds are, if Valve didn’t have almost full market control, people would still buy games, they’d just buy them somewhere else.
By that logic valve would be justified with even 95% cut if network efect was even stronger. That’s stupid logic that only thinks in terms of working with what you have. Valve already takes a cut and not a hard value. It’s in their very business to increase sales and they shouldn’t be additionally rewarded for such because by increased sales they already get the money.
Fair enough - I was thinking in terms of choice rather than justification. A better question, then, would be: what is a fair percentage given Steam’s services both developer-side and player-side (more satisfied players are also a perk for developers)?
Plus, their investment into Linux gaming and FOSS in general are preventing PC gaming from being locked down to a singled OS that becomes a walled garden.
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable, a lower cut would be nice for smaller devs but I don’t see why Valve would when every other platform of Steam’s size also takes 30%.
Citation needed. They’re still operating, while paying games for exclusivity, and giving away games for free (at their own cost). Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite, but to say it isn’t profitable when they’re giving away this much money is a big claim. Also, Valve would be significantly more profitable at the same rate, because they have almost total market capture. Even if Epic isn’t profitable (I’ve seen no evidence of this) we can’t extrapolate to say Vlave wouldn’t be.
If it needs to be subsidized by Fortnite then it’s by definition not profitable
Them giving away a ton of money does not mean the distribution alone isn’t profitable.