[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.

[mschuster91]

> The market rate for this is low single digit percents.

We're talking about virtually every country on Earth. Good luck trying to replicate that, the taxes/legal entity part alone will cost you an arm and a leg in setup time, not to mention ongoing costs in accounting, filing reports and dealing with other bureaucracy BS.

> Bandwidth is not worth a percentage of game revenue.

I'm not talking about bandwidth or a CDN here. I'm talking about a reliable and easy mechanism to get updates distributed to end-users - consisting of a management backend, the CDN and finally a client side software that's actually doing the upgrades. And the latter is something many have tried and failed to do or ended up getting 0wned in the process (e.g. just recently notepad++ [1]).

> Steam's DRM is terrible.

Is it? Sure, for some AAA titles you'll see Denuvo slopped on top, but for the wide masses, Steam's DRM is more than enough.

> [user management] is not worth a percentage of revenue.

Managing user data is an utter PITA in the era of GDPR et al, and on top of that it creates a need for customer support resources - people forget their password, get hacked, god knows what else. As a game dev under any of the major storefronts, you don't have to deal with that at all.

[1] https://notepad-plus-plus.org/news/hijacked-incident-info-up...

[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

[mschuster91]

That's tariffs and you gotta admit, Steam abstracted that away, too! Everyone else had to deal with Trump's latest BS on their own.

[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).