[beerlord]

I feel uncomfortable that smaller developers will be less profitable because they... don't have as much negotiating power?

Valve is being very Walmart-esque with this move.

Already game developers are the lowest paid workers in the IT industry - and a lot of it has to do with the huge revenue shares ('platform taxes') charged by the monopoly platform holders.

I'm not arguing against any change, it just seems spiteful that Valve are sticking it to the little guys who can't go anywhere else. If those tiers ($10m and $50m to reach 25% and 20% respectively) had a zero removed from them, I would be more understanding.

This could have been a great chance to improve Steam overall, by reducing the commissions for all developers (in order to fend off a future Epic store - one undoubtedly tied into UE4, and probably with a 12% commission, based on statements from Tim Sweeney), and increasing the quality on the low-end slightly with a Steam Direct fee increase from $100 to $500.

[philjohn]

On the other hand - the big publishers need Valve less, so from a purely business perspective it makes a ton of sense to keep them on the platform, which is the biggest storefront for purchasing games.

Yes, smaller developers have to pay more, but they're getting a heck of a lot of exposure for that take, without having to spend big on traditional advertising like the large publishers have to.

[beerlord]

That is unfortunately not correct. A large amount of advertising and PR is very necessary to receive any attention for a launch on Steam.

Unfortunately a mere 'launch' on Steam has been devalued, by Valve allowing anyone with $100 to launch on the platform (and the majority of the launches on Steam are very low quality as a result).

If you want to make a middle class income from launching games on Steam, you will need to become very familiar with online advertising. Have a look at the Positech blog for details.

Indie devs are now realising why the big studios spend 30% of their budgets on marketing...

Of course, it all gets a bit easier once you have an existing profile, an existing fan base, etc.

[zeroname]

It's not just lack of marketing, it's the fact that there are now far more games, but gamers have neither more money nor time to compensate.

There are too many game developers, it's as simple as that. Too many millennials don't want the regular old "grown up" jobs anymore, they want to be creatives or artists and the market just can't soak them all up.

If you think it's hard as a game developer, try living off painting or sculpture or music or literature. The vast majority never get there. Meanwhile, a game programmer at least has ordinary programming jobs to fall back on - if they can stomach it.

[slfnflctd]

I don't know how they do it, honestly. Back in the day, when things were simpler, being a game dev sounded pretty cool. Now? No thank you. Lower wages, longer hours, much more difficult work, and 'fans' who continuously insult you in the worst possible ways no matter what you do... sounds like a nightmare. If I'm going to go the creative route I think I'd be happier on the sidewalk with a guitar.

Career-wise, I would much rather help a middle manager figure out how to best crunch the data on their quarterly reports. It can actually be more interesting than it sounds on the surface, and if you're competent everyone's happy at the end.

[beerlord]

An advantage the Gaming Industry holds is that it is completely global.

The salaries for game artists and programmers in Eastern Europe are actually quite high, by local standards. And when you consider the very low cost of living in those countries, they are even appealing at a global level.

Working for a games studio in those countries, particularly if key management are Westerners or the local studio is a branch of a Western company, also gives a professional and modern work environment, whereas many older (non-Gaming) companies in Eastern Europe still have old-fashioned work styles (managers holding less respect for workers, for example) which are somewhat a legacy of the Communist era.

Los Angeles is 147% more expensive to live in than Wroclaw (4th biggest city in Poland) for example. https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/comparison/wroclaw...

Typical Unity Developer salaries in these mid-sized Polish cities are about $35,000 annually, which enables an excellent upper-middle-class lifestyle. Plus, because the cost base in Eastern Europe is so low, if the game your company makes is very successful, you stand to receive a very large bonus.

[Dylan16807]

Maybe. But the odds are far worse when Steam won't even filter out garbage asset flips that took three hours to make.

[zeroname]

I have never seen any of these on "my" Steam. It's not part of my shopping experience in any way.

I know they exist because Jim Sterling sometimes makes funny videos about them, but I can't fathom how they make a significant impact on "genuine" developers.

[giobox]

You only need to read their blogs to see how it’s hurting the “good” indie developers. Heck just use steam - the discoverability of good indie software has suffered hugely as Steam dramatically lowered the cost of entry to the platform. It’s now incredibly hard to stand out. The numbers speak for themselves, with steam going from adding several hundred games a year to their catalogue to nearly 8000 last year. The growth curve is accelerating too - there was “only” 4000 or so games added in 2016.

Having some small but achievable degree of barrier to entry was a huge help in keeping the store free of trash software.

[mysterydip]

To add some statistics to this, there were 7600 games released on steam in 2017, almost double the 4200 the year before, and 13 times more than the 500 released in 2013. It used to be the case that getting on steam was "guaranteed exposure", but no longer.

[ken]

Economically this is true, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with it. The whole reason I got into computers in the first place is because it put everyone on equal footing.

As a kid I could write a program on my C=64 that was equal in every way to a commercial program that my parents bought. Personal computers were the great equalizer. (You don't even need a company! Magazines published amateur submissions all the time.) There's no other field I can think of where a kid could use a standard piece of equipment that they find around the house, and use it to build something on par with the top professionals in the world. Maybe a piano.

Valve and Steam (and all the other "app stores") were surely built by a lot of the people who grew up on personal computers in the same the way I did. I'm saddened to see that they're using their business success to help big companies get bigger. The economic value of the personal computer has changed from "equality for the little guy" to "leverage for the big guy".

This is what Bret Victor meant by "When I see a violation of [my] principle, I don't think of that as an opportunity. [...] I see a tragedy. To me it feels like a moral wrong, it feels like an injustice."

[zeroname]

I don't get your historic analogy. Yes, you could make a game that rivaled the games of the big guys, all on your own. However, there's no way you could've gotten your game into the major sales outlets without a publisher. That publisher would've never given you a 70% cut. In that regard, you're far better off now.

[Shivetya]

developers can get more exposure on Twitch by paying a decently sized streamer to play their game. Showing people your game in play is far more important than placement on a shopping platform

[simias]

>Already game developers are the lowest paid workers in the IT industry - and a lot of it has to do with the huge revenue shares ('platform taxes') charged by the monopoly platform holders.

I'm not convinced. IMO game developers are lowest paid because it's one of the rare segments of software development where there are no shortage of applicants. It's glamorous, all the kids want to make video games when they grow up, it's more rewarding to tell people that you've been working on the latest Red Red Redemption than that you've been debugging an SPI driver all week.

So you end up with an industry with a lot of turnover because they mostly hire hopeful young devs, underpay and overwork them until they burn out. And then you have 10 new freshly graduated folks waiting to take their place.

I seriously doubt that things would be massively different if platforms where cheaper or more open. I mean, AAA studio like Rockstar are known for their terrible working conditions, I don't think that's because of "monopoly platform holders".

[rochak]

That will be sad since most of the games I buy are from indie developers. They put good amount of work in their games and don't charge much too. If Valve keeps doing this kind of stuff and forces them to move to other marketplaces, I will move too.

[zeroname]

If you look into it you will find that you can buy many indie games directly from the developer and still get a Steam key.

If you don't want that Valve charges "too much" from indies, then you should be proactive and join other marketplaces. It's a hen-egg situation.

[giobox]

Just move already! Indie games are much easier to obtain from rival storefronts than big budget releases, and can usually be had with better terms (DRM free etc, like gog.com).

It’s relatively rare for an indie developer to distribute exclusively via Steam.

[zeroname]

> Already game developers are the lowest paid workers in the IT industry

That is not true if you factor out all the people developing games independently on their own dime, against better financial advice. To counteract that, there just aren't enough developers working on enterprise Java architecture for no money, out of passion.

It's also only fair that people who get to work on "fun" things like games are paid less. If they don't think it's fun, they can switch industries and earn more. Nobody is doomed to be a game developer.

> I'm not arguing against any change, it just seems spiteful that Valve are sticking it to the little guys who can't go anywhere else.

The little guys can go to itch.io, which charges as low as 0% commission. They may even have more visibility on there than on Steam, given that it's a smaller pond. There's also the Humble Store, which leaves commission up to the buyer.

> This could have been a great chance to improve Steam overall, by reducing the commissions for all developers...

They did reduce commissions for everyone by 5%. The extra 5% is for those who are at risk of moving off the platform because they can create their own visibility.

[beerlord]

See for yourself:

https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018/#salary

> The little guys can go to itch.io, which charges as low as 0% commission. They may even have more visibility on there than on Steam, given that it's a smaller pond. There's also the Humble Store, which leaves commission up to the buyer.

Steam has a monopoly. There is no alternative for anyone with revenue below $10 million (hence this change). Itch.io yields about 1% of the revenue of Steam.

The best you can do is sell Steam keys direct from your website, using the Humble Widget which charges 5%. However you will suffer from reduced visibility on the Steam store (since visibility is based on sales).

> They did reduce commissions for everyone by 5%.

No, only once a game reaches $10 million of total sales revenue.

[zeroname]

> See for yourself: > https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018/#salary

Like I said, you need to factor out those unsuccessful developers that don't make any money. This is self-reported data is of questionable merit, but if you switch to US, game developers aren't at the bottom anymore and none of the salaries listed are bad in any way.

Again, if you do what you love, you should be able to stomach a pay hit. If you don't love it after all, don't wait for the industry to change, change industries yourself.

> Itch.io yields about 1% of the revenue of Steam.

That doesn't generalize across different titles. Maybe some title has zero visibility on Steam, but some visibility on itch.io. Then you're better off with itch.io.

Either way, it's just a guess.

> No, only once a game reaches $10 million of total sales revenue.

I misread that, my bad.

[leafo]

> That doesn't generalize across different titles. Maybe some title has zero visibility on Steam, but some visibility on itch.io. Then you're better off with itch.io.

as the person who runs itch.io, I can say that this is true

[suby]

> (since visibility is based on sales).

This is a point I don't see mentioned often enough. I've wondered in the past if it's actually better to forego every other platform in order to increase visibility through Steam. Higher sales means that Valve will promote you more, which may offset whatever revenue you'd be generating from sources like itch.io. Would be interested to hear if anyone has any opinions or idea about this.