[nananana9]

They also nickel and dime the adults, but only the ones who make the games.

It's fine though, because they're nice to players and they've brainwashed them into giving their money to Valve instead of to the developers who actually make the games they fucking play.

[jvanderbot]

Without steam, I'd still be playing my CD version of Homeworld 2.

I have paid $10 for every $1 of game I play, perhaps as high as $100:$1. A 30% cut of that seems totally reasonable. I have hundreds of games I keep just in case, and have played 10s of games I'd never have considered because they dont appear in Game Informer, PC Gamer, GoG, Twitch, Youtube, or other channels. They just are magically brought to me by steam, and I buy it and try it because I'm an adult now.

If game creators hate this, I feel bad for them, but I don't want anything to change as a consumer.

[j_maffe]

Of course 30% seems reasonble to you, you're not the creator of the games. It's quite confusing to me that you're endorsing the side that has an insane ROI instead of the side that is sufferring greatly to make ends meet.

[efsavage]

A 70% take would have blown the minds of developers pre-Steam. Retailers took 40% and were ruthless about shelf space and inventory. Distributors took 20%. Plus you had to actually make a box/CD/etc. They were lucky to keep 30% not pay it.

This doesn't mean Valve is perfect but if a developer is "suffering" because of a 30% cut they probably need to improve their pricing/game/community/etc.

[account42]

Retailers and distributors had actual costs they needed to cover for the services they provided. Steam largely does not seeing how profitable they are.

[charcircuit]

The economy is not static. A good deal in the past is not necessarily a good deal in the present.

[mschuster91]

It still is a damn good deal. Steam abstracts a whole lot of messes. In ye olde times you as a game developer had to acquire a publisher for each country you'd plan on selling your game to deal with local distribution structures and laws, taxes, payments, update distributions, DRM and anti-cheat, user management...

Steam conveniently abstracts all of that for you. One stop shop. No complex deals just to deal with getting paid for your game (or additional content), barely any chargeback fraud, you don't even have to deal with stuff such as Germany's highly complex age rating because Steam abstracts that with a questionnaire. Steam claimed to recognize and support 237 countries [1], although that list includes disputed countries, so take it with a grain of salt, but in general I'd say unless a country is affected by US sanctions (i.e. North Korea, Iran, Russia, Belarus) or has its own restrictions (i.e. China), chances are 99% you as a publisher can sell your game in this country with everything being taken care of.

And on top of that, gamers likely will already have a Steam account with payment already set up, which means far, far less friction than the likes of Epic Games impose.

That definitely is worth a cut.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40263518

[charcircuit]

>taxes, payments

The market rate for this is low single digit percents.

>update distributions

Bandwidth is not worth a percentage of game revenue. If it were it would be <1%.

>DRM

Steam's DRM is terrible.

>anti-cheat

Also terrible.

>user management...

This is not worth a percentage of revenue.

All of these together is not worth 30%. The only thing worth 30% is the ability for the Stram store to put your game in front of a random person. Being able to reach new customers.

[na4ma4]

Covered by your reference to less friction, but there's also a trust level that goes with being on "Steam" vs random website.

Indie games would be far more of a gamble to buy if Steam wasn't around, and just finding them would be a huge hurdle.

[j_maffe]

> unless a country is affected by US sanctions

A list that's growing by the day lol

[Aromasin]

You're implying that Sales, Marketing, and Distribution is not a valuable service by saying 30% is not reasonable. I work in the electronics industry selling components. Suppliers regularly give us 30% margin, far more on some products, despite the upfront cost of making a new microcontroller or FPGA being far in excess of the most expensive video games ever made, with our value add being, to be frank, much less than Steam. 30% margin is about average for distribution, be it food, minerals, cars, or any other industry.

If I didn't have Steam (or equivalent service like GoG), I wouldn't buy new games. That's just reality. I would play the same games I have for decades. Instead, Steam has created a very effective recommendation engine that gives me a great selection. That's more than worth a 30% cut.

[jvanderbot]

I'm endorsing my side. Not Steam's side, or the creator's side.

Maybe their business model is awful, but I love what they do, and what they have done. They have made my linux machine a top tier gaming option, freeing me from the only use of windows left. They have brought me the steam deck, which has a thriving accessory market due to their creative commons licensing. Etc etc. They are pro consumer.

I want steam to continue largely as is. In an ideal world all artists would be better compensated for the joy they bring to the world, but I'm quite happy as a consumer of art. Not to be too harsh, but frankly, the existence of struggle for recognition does not entitle artists to a penny of my money or a second of my time beyond the transaction they propose, nor does it entitle them to anything that Valve does or makes. That we can all work together well is a function of a local solution to the tension of conflicting interests. Valve is seeking a balance. It could be much worse for both sides.

But if you want, think of it this way - all of Steam's profits, billions of dollars, are only 30% of the sales they have brought. They made 17 Billion in rev last year, so nearly 25 Billion went to game makers / publishers. This is 2-3x what spotify paid to artists in the same year.

[FloatArtifact]

Regarding the 30% cut. Developers can actually generate steam keys and publish them on third-party sites which can be redeemed by users on Steam. Developers then get 100% of the profit.

[j_maffe]

But they're only limited to 5000 keys. beyond that requires special approval, which is not given if the game is being sold more outside Steam than inside.

[lsaferite]

The complaint is that the platform they are using for advertising, distribution and/or community isn't giving them enough free keys? Just want to make sure I understand the relationship and expectations.

[wtetzner]

So publish the game on your own website? Why do you need to use Steam in this case?

[foresto]

Are the developers allowed to sell those keys for less than the Steam price?

[FloatArtifact]

> Are the developers allowed to sell those keys for less than the Steam price?

I believe so. However, even if it's not I don't see any other platform allowing you to use their service and sidestep platform fees. Someone mentioned above that there might be limitations for the number of keys, but I'm not aware.

[j_maffe]

> Valve is seeking a balance.

They're demonstrably not. I'd advise you to read up on the concept of a monopoly.

> They made 17 Billion in rev last year, so nearly 25 Billion went to game makers / publishers. This is 2-3x what spotify paid to artists in the same year.

And? I don't understand why you're just comparing two values in absolute values. You're talking as if Valve is giving away money.

[ericd]

Steam gets me and many others to spend a lot more than 50% more on games than we would otherwise. I’m pretty confident that they push a lot more money to creators than they’d getting otherwise, even leaving aside the old publishing revenue splits that gave devs a lot less than 70%. A lot of those games, I’ve never even installed. Blasted Steam sales…

[wtetzner]

If they're suffering greatly to make ends meet, then why use Steam at all? The only reason I can think of is that Steam provides a great customer experience, making that 30% worth it for the developers.

[retired]

> I have hundreds of games

You do not have hundreds of games. You have a non-transferable license to play those games while they are made available by Valve and while your account is not banned.

[terribleperson]

Aren't steam account suspensions pretty much limited to criminal activity? Any other kind of restriction doesn't prevent you from playing the games you have licenses for.

[account42]

For the most part, yes. There have been rare instances of Games being removed from Steam though (not just the store) and more common cases of games being significantly altered compared to the version you paid for (e.g. removed soundtracks due to licensing disputes).

[jdoe1337halo]

I agree that 30% is too large of a cut, but what would be appropriate? 15%? Steam does add a ton of value from an immediate audience, solid advertising opportunities, and amazing distribution for the developer.

[kay_o]

As that has done both sides of games, I would like to propose some doubts for people to consider on that is dissimilar to the standard b2b saas; for to clarity I'm not saying 30% is good

- One chargeback for your 5$ game can consume you 55$ or more, handful and you permanently lose the ability to accept the payment anywhere including future businesses outside of games

- Amount of people that will take parents cards is eye watering

- The value of offline payment acceptance in the form of physical cards (kids do not possess standard payment rails but can acquire your game on steam in the cash)

- They don't take flat 30% for almost a decade now

- You don't often get to use Stripe or 2-3%. Your cost closer about 15% if you choose to process you own payments

[SXX]

> They don't take flat 30% for almost a decade now

Yes Valve is very generous.

They take MORE from developers who make LESS money. I sure bottom 98% of developers never sell above $10,000,000 to decrease cut from 30% to 25%.

Very few indie devs or small indie studios ever sell over 50,000-100,000 copies.

PS: In practice if your project funded by publisher it means that you as developer will make less money from a game than Valve.

[rowanG077]

> PS: In practice if your project funded by publisher it means that you as developer will make less money from a game than Valve.

So that essentially means a publisher takes even more than valve, while doing almost nothing.

[SXX]

Publisher gives you development budget because most games arent made by one person and you need money. At least $50,000 - $150,000 for a small PC games.

Then publisher takes 70-90% before recoup and 50% afte of what remain after VAT, refunds and Valve's 30%.

Problem is when you spent $100,000 and sold lets say for $400,000:

* Valve gets $133,000

* Publisher gets $100,000 + $90,000

And you get $90,000 and real number would be much worse because VAT, refunds, etc.

Oh, dont forget to pay your taxes on $90,000. Good luck!

[MetaWhirledPeas]

> One chargeback for your 5$ game can consume you 55$ or more, handful and you permanently lose the ability to accept the payment anywhere including future businesses outside of games

This sounds like personal experience. Can you elaborate?

Edit: OHH perhaps you are saying this is one of the benefits of Steam; that it shields you from all this.

[kay_o]

> Edit: OHH perhaps you are saying this is one of the benefits of Steam; that it shields you from all this.

Yes. In a sijmilar way: regular companies get Stripe at commodity pricing, games get xsolla, paysafe, tebex, and a massive compliance questionnaire, games are software (to you) but closer to porn or gambling on risk (to MoRs and processors).

People are less "likely" to charge back Steam because of their other games being frozen and Steam has volume to dilute chargebacks whereas you starting out may hit double digit dispute rates in one. Whether this is fair is an exercise best left to the reader ;.

[maccard]

Yeah - steam handle this for you.

[CodesInChaos]

Wait, does steam absorb chargeback fees and not pass them through to the developer?

[order-matters]

likely what they are implying is that chargebacks have indirect costs that you can ballpark around $50 per chargeback. So steam would likely take back the $5 revenue from the developer for the $5 chargeback, but the costs of processing the chargeback are absorbed by steam. i do not know if they have a separate chargeback fee they charge developers for it but it wouldnt make sense to as steam is the one validating and processing payments

[topham]

EA presented their numbers for their online store. They were making something like 12%, and losing money.

They ran it at a loss and try to use its existence to declare everyone else overcharging. Apple, Google, Steam. Meanwhile, they were unable to make money, just proving they don't know how business works.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

Does that count the ludicrous number of games they have given away? That has to be a boat anchor on their financials.

[l11r]

You mean Epic Games, don't you?

[Rucadi]

And doesn't forbid you from using their platform for free if you sell the keys by yourself and you can also decide to publish your game to other stores...

[Hikikomori]

How about charging for services rendered based on cost to produce them rather than some arbitrary number. Some effective competition would be good, but likely outcome is publishers taking more.

[bitmasher9]

I never understood people who argue steam doesn’t have real competition.

The number of fully funded attempts to compete with steam is impressive. Steam has more competition than any other of the major app stores. Steam also had to provide additional value over pre-existing methods of installing games on the PC in a way the Android Play Store or the PlayStation Store did not have to.

[0cf8612b2e1e]

It is incredible how much the other stores fumbled the implementation. As a rule, Epic, Origin, etc apps were terrible. Laggy, bad UI, sometimes difficult to even complete a purchase.

You would have thought that close relationship with the games industry- someone must know how to make a high performance native application. Yet it always felt like web developers pumping out another half assed Electron platform. The Steam store must generate billions in revenue -put some real manpower behind the engineering.

[ahartmetz]

What's more, Epic spends order of magnitude a billion dollars per year on free games on the Epic Store. People still don't want the Epic Store because it's crap. Like Jesus H. Fucking Christ, do these assclowns ever get a clue?

I'm very fine with them not getting a clue though, Valve spends money and effort on promoting Linux and Epic (Tim Sweeney) kinda does the opposite. With all the shit Microsoft is pulling, he still prefers Windows while complaining about it.

[jamesnorden]

I remember the early days of the Epic Store, there was no "shopping cart" feature, you could only buy one game at a time.

[bitmasher9]

I think GoG is a great store and Battle.Net is fine for what it is.

[account42]

"attempts" is the key word here. Hard to compete with a monopoly backed up with network effects.

[snowram]

It is a red water business, and no one will ever want to switch off from multiple years of game investment.

[Forgeties79]

I feel like that just becomes another situation where bigger organizations get more bargaining power and get better deals, so you’re just kind of shifting problems. I’m not saying a flat percentage like they have is necessarily the best solution, but I’m not sure trading problems is a good idea either. Just seems like a different way for smaller developers to get screwed.

[j_maffe]

> bigger organizations get more bargaining power and get better deals

This is exactly how it's setup right now.

[Forgeties79]

I thought the 30% was universal. Well that’s a bummer to learn

[j_maffe]

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/valves-new-steam-revenue-shari...

[Forgeties79]

Linux releases they only take 10% FWIW

Edit: whoops that’s completely false. I do not know where I got that idea

[LollipopYakuza]

That sounds great but I can't find any information about it. Do you have a link, please?

[ekianjo]

Nope

[Forgeties79]

ok

[cortesoft]

Developers choose to give Steam 30% of their revenue because they know the steam channel increases their revenue by more than 30%. Doesn't that make it a good deal for developers?

[AmbroseBierce]

Attention span is finite and Steam took a big chunk of it from gamers, in other words there is a chance that in a world where everyone hated closed platforms like steam (for not allowing reselling or any other reason) direct ads would be more favorable for developers than steam, or word of mouth, or any of it's alternatives.

[BobaFloutist]

Ok, so now you're criticizing them for being too successful.

They don't own the OS, they don't (until very recently) own the hardware, they haven't really made any major uncompetitive or anti-consumer moves I'm aware of, and they provide a service that the majority of devs consider worth it.

I guess you could argue they're taking advantage of a bit of a "natural monopoly", but there's still plenty of room for other people to eat their lunch, and things like itch seem to have carved out a niche for devs that would rather keep their money than get the additional services Steam offers.

I don't think Steam is flawless, but for how powerful they are, they sure seem a lot less evil than almost every other large corporation.

[cortesoft]

Sure, if we were in an alternative reality, things would be different.

Valve built a platform that gamers like, and gamers like it for all the choices Valve made.

I also find it interesting you chose "not allowing reselling" as a thing that would have made users not like steam... but not allowing reselling is probably the feature that game developers like the most! I wouldn't be surprised if developers would choose to keep the 30% fee over dropping the fee but changing to allow reselling.

[account42]

Vendors give the Mafia 30% of their revenue because they know the protection racket increases their revenue by more than 30%. Doesn't that make it a good deal for vendors?

[nightpool]

Plenty of devs choose to sell on other platforms or directly and do fine. Steam doesn't have a monopoly on games the way Apple and Google do

[BobaFloutist]

When I'm interested in an indie game, I always go first to the developer's website to see if I can just buy a copy directly from them. The vast, vast majority of the time I have to buy it through Steam, maybe Epic, and itch/gog if I'm lucky. It's vanishingly uncommon for them to host the game themselves.

[cma]

For indies Steam's network lock-in effects are so strong that if you sell without their cut off Steam, instead of same price eating their cut on Steam, you likely do worse. Because selling off-Steam takes one sale out of their algorithm.

Same reason to embed your trailer on your site with YouTube, even if you could afford the bandwidth and keep users from having to watch ad-rolls--self-hosted and the YouTube algorithm will punish you.

A huge part of the high profits portions of the economy is based on this kind of winner take all capture.

[beart]

My understanding is the tools that Steam provides as part of it's developer platform are top notch. And there are a lot of integration points such as cloud saves, social, match making, achievements, store, and so on. There is also a robust CD pipeline.

I can easily see this providing value above and beyond most other retailers that would sell video games. For example, Best Buy takes a 30% cut for physical merchandise, without providing any of the above mentioned features.

[para_parolu]

All distribution channels that existed before steam are still available. Multiple competitors to steam are available.

[ux266478]

Nah, I'm happy to pay the guild, they put that 30% to good use. I just wish their partner portal wasn't a gigantic pile of crap in return.

[ekianjo]

Again that old, tired argument. nobody has a gun to the devs head to force them to sell on steam

[selfmodruntime]

You can choose to not host your game on steam. Plenty of developers do.