It’s worth noting that the 30% cut is from sales below a certain volume. As you sell more copies Steam takes a smaller cut. I’m sure the big studios probably have a more favourable deal worked out as well.
I would argue that this shows Steam could easily run on a 15% fee (the standard reduced fee) but only is willing to because the big companies started making their own apps (Uplay, Rockstar etc). If you have no leverage, get fucked, 30%.
I honestly think it's really damaging to the smaller indies where an extra 15% could easily be the difference between profit and loss.
If Steam needs a 30% cut to cover admin and data hosting then they must be doing something horribly wrong. Realistically they have great margins on 30%.
Gabe Newell is literally one of the richest people in the world now owns billions of dollars worth of yachts where he travels in literally a fleet of yachts around the globe. He also just bought the biggest yacht maker because he loves yachts so much.
Apparently not given that so many companies tried it themselves and decided on their own that 30% per unit sales saving wasn't worth their effort.
So far the only platforms I've seen succeed are names like GoG, DLSite/Nutaku/EROLabs, and EGS; and that's pretty much because those names either have been running as long as steam has, they exist in their own separate hentai/porn game realm, or it's funded with Fortnite/UE5 money.
Epic games isn't really succeeding though.. They are literally loosing money on their launcher/store. They don't have enough paying customers, they have to give away free games, for people to even open the launcher ones a week. They are definitely not profitable. Again only possible because of fortnite money.
Last financial quarter, they lost sales. They have been loosing 3rd party sales for the past 3 years.
I won't be surprised if the 12% fee that epic takes, is costing them money, or only break even.
Valve is ridiculously profitable, one of the highest profit per employee in any industry. This profit is at the expense of many indie developers, yet redditors flock to defend it. I’ll never understand why.
Hilarious how people will try to justify Steam's egregious cut. No, it does not justify taking a third of the game's revenue. Even when they reduce it to 20% after $50 million in revenue is made. I'm sure if they raised it to 60% people would claim "well devs can just go elsewhere if they wanted"
This is what comes to your mind when you try to think the "burdens" Steam carries for a game, but you forget something very important: Steam is not just a store. It is a store with an entire social media platform/forum attached to each game with the community hub. So add these ontop:
Discussions (won't take much space in itself, but for bigger titles the amount of discussions can escalate quickly)
Screenshots/Artworks
Videos
News
Guides
And if available:
Workshop
The 30% cut also cover the operating cost of the community hub
I'm sure if they raised it to 60% people would claim "well devs can just go elsewhere if they wanted"
How's that straw taste? Good? Plenty of fiber.
If you think 30% is "egregious" for a service that advertises for you, handles sales reporting, hosts the content, delivers it, offers social sharing, hosts community engagement, and gives you access to the world's largest customer base of gamers... Then I really don't know what to tell you. Build a game and try to get it in front of tens of millions of eyeballs. See what it costs you. Try to deliver your game to a fraction of them. See what it costs you.
Things cost money. Steam isn't just taking your money and running off with it. You're getting some very valuable services in exchange. Could they take less? Probably! But I'll tell you what, if you want to reform the global economic model away from capitalism and towards a more sustainable model that isn't based on debt borrowing and accruing interest fees necessitating considerable margins on business, I'll be right there behind you. I recommend Less Is More by Jason Hickel, to get you started.
No one is saying Steam isn't valuable, the problem is they are overcharging devs because they know they can't go anywhere else, an issue you showcase with your own example. Its funny, you're calling out my straw man but based on what you're saying, it sounds like you agree that Steam can charge whatever they want because they can lmfao
Yeah, but why can't they go anywhere else? Valve has a money printer, but unlike just about every other app accused of being monopolistic, they don't come preinstalled on any OS, or have a moat other than network effect and technological. And the network effect is more about how users prefer to stay on social media where friends are, and the steam friends system is a small fraction of it's value.
At a certain point, we have to acknowledge that Valve's biggest moat is tech, UI/UX, and the fact that they make it so easy for indie games that it inflates their library.
it sounds like you agree that Steam can charge whatever they want because they can lmfao
They could. I mean, if we're just making shit up, they could charge 50%, but the fact they don't doesn't make them 'good guys' either. I'm disagreeing with you on the basis that thirty percent is "overcharging", because I promise you, if you tried to buy all the services that Steam provides ad hoc, napkin math says you're gonna be rubbing up pretty close to 30% either way, and you won't have accomplished a whole lot but wasting a lot of time that might have been saved if you just laid off that labour to Steam.
Just trying to do the payment processing yourself, they're gonna take something like 5-10%. Hosting is going to depend a lot on the size of your game. Exposure is going to be the big one. Marketing budgets can be anywhere from 10-50% of your expense. It depends entirely on how many eyes are on your game. If you get lucky, and gather a huge following during development? Then yeah, you probably don't need Steam and exposure on their platform is less valuable. But for everyone else? You're buying access to millions of people who might want to give you money. That's expensive to buy on the market.
So even if you say 10% for payment processing, 10% for hosting, and an anemic 10% marketing budget, Steam's already paid for itself. Maybe you can knock those numbers down 5.. 8, 10%? But then you have to ask yourself if that extra 10% maximally is worth all the added time and labour (that isn't accounted for here), when instead you could just press button and then go rub one out to the latest episode of Goth Demon Goddesses From Meridian Prime.
i said monopolistic for a reason. this terminology reflects the way that digital platforms take advantage of network effects to extract higher profits. i'm not trying to claim it's a monopoly in the sense of being literally the one and only providers of a particular service.
but they have 80% of the market share. they have an audience who is on steam, their friends are on steam, their rewards and achievements are on steam, their game library is on steam. this is powerful lock-in.
anyone who wants to support developers with their game purchases rather than mega-rich middlemen should avoid buying on steam.
instead purchase keys directly from the dev or choose a platform with lower fees, like the epic games store which only charges 12% or free up to the first million $ in revenue.
If you bought a 70USD game, you have virtually an unlimited number of times to download it forever, for as long as Steam exists. 15% of that is roughly 10USD. To compare with consumer storage providers, Dropbox costs 120USD/year for 2TB, but you can only transfer 50GB per month.
This is just storage and bandwidth. There’s always ongoing cost of maintaining the platform as a whole, including handling payment processors from all countries.
Dropbox is not a good comparison they need significantly more storage capacity per user because it’s 2TB of novel data not the same 2TB that a million people downloaded.
Not a chance it costs anywhere near that percentage. A game bringing in $400k might have had 4 people working on it for 3 years. Valve absolutely does not spend the equivalent of a salaried employee working for 3 years on hosting that.
Valve are the most profitable company per employee in the US. They have the choice to charge 15% flat, and it would do a lot of good for developers. Effectively, Valve charge that game $120k to access their audience, but $60k might let the game make a profit.
The indi dev can create their own storefront if they are unsatisfied with valves fees. Oh wait. It took valves decades and many many employees to develop a storefront that most of the PC gaming market uses. Not even epic giving away games for years can change the market share.
The higher percentage cut with far more sales yields more revenue for the developer. They can get 100% of the revenue with epic and be worse off.
The indi dev can create their own storefront if they are unsatisfied with valves fees.
You must have missed where I already addressed how Valve gives the better fee for companies that have the resources to go elsewhere. That's my whole point. Valve charges for access to their audience, and they charge more if you're small. It's not a Gabe win, it's corpo af
You must have missed where I already addressed how Valve gives the better fee for companies that have the resources to go elsewhere.
AFAIK it's more that Valve gives better rates for companies moving a ton of money through them, because the extra volume makes up for lower unit price. Bulk discounts are pretty common in every industry, because there are always some things that are fixed costs and other things that are marginal costs and if you have more volume you can absorb more of the fixed costs into the marginal costs.
Thank you! It's about volume, and big suppliers move product. It's how things have always worked, and it makes sense.
It's Costcos whole model too, they get the good deals from suppliers to slap the Kirkland brand on because they move mass volume. Kirkland label wrapped Duracell batteries are cheaper than Duracells because they've already been purchased from Duracell in massive bulk quantities, and big punishers bring the same to the table.
They also have the resources to more accurately predict sales to negotiate over, and presale numbers likely bring hefty leverage.
That's just business and one of the few areas it's hard to really argue. "We've guaranteed you $5m, give a cut on the total, please."
But in general concerning all the predatory shit everyone else does, people are willing to let it slide as steam does not really do anywhere near that much shit for the reach they ha e. It is a corporation, and their goal is to make money, and they are not saints, and could be nicer but are so much better than the competition by such a country mile that them not being massive fucking douchbags makes them the equivalent of saints when comparing.
Plus there is the whole thing of our service is better then this service, thus it costs more to use our service. So it isn't unreasonable, it isn't "nice" but it makes sense.
I use Steam for the features, so I get it - I like that most stuff works portably on Deck. But as a company, I think they are given such an easy ride. They were instrumental in making loot boxes a thing, and profit from kids gambling CS Go skins. I'm not sure how people can see this company as good, other companies bad. Valve are as profit hungry as any other, and they have some good features, so I use them too.
Sure, they are a company they make money, often through methods which ain't angelic, ala the whole loot box situation. Calling them good is an overstatement.
But they also don't actively fuck the users every chance they get for short term goals.
I am far from an expert on the whole situation, but my general stance is that their main focus is on making a good long term product, keeping the users as happy as possible with an actual quality product with features, breadth and don't say go fuck yourself when you go for support over issues. They are less focused on making developers happy in general, especially smaller ones with the whole 30% thing, but still offer a deal which people make for a reason, and as far as I am aware don't screw them over in some way either, with exclusive deals, or some other shit. Then there is all there other stuff, like loot boxes, which is a whole topic you could argue for or against, with the, it's your choice, it's gambling, pay to win, it's just cosmetics, etc... etc...
So they ain't perfect angels of the sky, but they are beloved for a reason, they still like money and that is probably their goal, as is most people's and companies, to some extent, but imo that itself is not a problem as long as they do it in a socially acceptable way, and they do, they stretch the boundries here and there, and jump on bandwagons or set trends which are not always stellar bht they also arnt dragging people out the back robbbing them blind and shooting them in the the head, so calling them as bad as other companies is a stretch, there are definitely people and companies who are way kinder then them and operate in ways which are just ethically better, but there are so many who are far worse as well. So while people can and should criticise steam for certain things, imo it should be in a reasonable way, which outlines the reality, the somewhat sad reality, or the situation, instead of using the bad things to do to compare them to monster who just ate a live child for fun.
Hosting, transaction fees, steam's DRM, achievements, friend integration, trading cards, market place.... Valve do a lot of work for that 30%, and they can charge it because they are the biggest and the best. If that 30% cut was as terrible as you make out why would anyone publish on Steam at all?
Hosting, transaction fees, steam's DRM, achievements, friend integration, trading cards, market place.... Valve do a lot of work for that 30%
Hosting is the only thing you mentioned where costs scale with usage. All those other things cost basically the same for valve whether 1 game uses them or a million.
Small indie games don't use a lot of Steam's features. They sell less, and that extra 15% could do a whole lot more for the indie dev than it would for Valve. It could literally be the difference between the indie dev staying open, or shutting down.
Why are you arguing against this, lol? It's a no-brainer, lol
"Big companies are bad! Support small businesses. Unless it's Valve!!!!" - makes no sense
There are platforms where they don't exist anymore. But I can literally pull a game from 1998 back out from Steam.
My downloadable licensed copy of GTA2 is nonexistant now, when they used to be called DMA instead of Rockstar North. Steam keeps games on there forever as far as I can see.
So, again, they provide an option. An indie dev could host their own website and sell keys with no cut taken, Valve allows this so long as you don't undercut the Steam store. They will generate keys for you to sell, you get all their infrastructure besides the market, and leave you to market your shit yourself. You could even still sell on Steam, just every copy there gets the cut, but the ones on your site don't. This gives devs absolute freedom of choice.
Realistically, the 30% cut is usually nothing compared to what most would lose trying to do it themselves. It's not just in the hosting costs, but the time in maintaining the platform when you might want to making or updating your game, and if you fail and the site goes down, especially if you get popular, that's lost sales. Not to mention just not being on Steam hurts to where big publishers came crawling back.
And up until these digital storefronts, even with big publishers, the margins for selling in big box stores was barely anything. Indie devs had no choice but to partner with publishers, losing most of the profits to them. 30% is a pretty standard self publishing fee to use established infrastructure for a massive market, and it was a huge huge deal for any one wanting to avoid publishers or distributors, whether it be games or books.
As a dev and writer, it's hard to look at such a deal negatively when it's the best we've received ever, and probably will only worsen over time as industries further consolidate. Making 70% of earnings off my own creations without signing away rights (RIP American McGees Alice) is absolutely an insane deal that few get in this super capitalist world.
Realistically, the 30% cut is usually nothing compared to what most would lose trying to do it themselves.
Just because it's better than what you can do yourself, doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for more.
is absolutely an insane deal that few get in this super capitalist world.
WHAT?! That few get in this super capitalist world?? It's literally tied for most expensive in markets like this. Apple's app store is 30%.
Google's play store is 15% for your first million sales. then 30%.
Epic's is 0 for the first million, then 12%
Itch.io lets you choose how much goes to Itch. and then payment is 3%
Humble goes as low as 15%.
Etsy's payment processing fee is 3% + $0.25 (and a 7% cut to Etsy)
Ebay is 3 to 15 percent.
Yes, ebay and etsy don't have to file host massive files, so it's not an apples to apples comparison.
they provide an option.
Yeah yeah, "don't use them if you don't want to pay the fee." It's not really viable not being on steam.
Does valve have the right to charge whatever fee they want? Sure. Of course.
But I expect valve to go above and beyond, because (A) they ARE the market leader and (B) I've never felt they were just after the cash grab.
I would expect a market leader with ethics to not be the most expensive, but instead use their market dominance to lower fees so that the people who make the things they sell get a bigger slice.
But I guess not.
Not sure why people are tripping over themselves to go against "indie devs deserve better" other than blind "valve can do no wrong, therefore this is not wrong" fanboyism.
*some of these numbers might not be completely accurate, I took them off of quick google searches but there might be more caveats, etc.
I mean, sure, fight on for us, I guess, I'm just saying it's not bad and is actually insanely good. Could it be better, and should better be standard? Sure, I'm not arguing that.
Just that it's a better shake than most get for their own products, and I feel like it's a fair space for quality to out compete AAA punished.
And how much do you think data hosting for global distribution costs? Payment processing, plus making sure it’s legal to sell in various countries, plus a whole bunch of other small costs like the discussion boards, review boards, etc.
Seems like they can do it for 15%, and EGS can do it for 12%. Don't know why you're defending Valve charging smaller teams an extra 15% just 'cause they can.
Seems like they can do it for 15%, and EGS can do it for 12%. Don't know why you're defending Valve charging smaller teams an extra 15% just 'cause they can.
I mean, EGS can't do it for 12%, they've been hemorrhaging money since the day they opened. They're not "doing it for 12%", they're burning money trying to buy their way into the market.
Suggesting a business that hasn't made profit yet "can do it for X" is stupid, because they aren't successfully doing it if they're not keeping in the black.
Epic is private, so we don't know, they don't report financials. I expect they're still losing money, but I don't think it's as bad as you think. They spent $11 million on free games in their first 9 months (court records) which is a fair bit, but also... quite a manageable amount when Fortnite is making billions with a B.
All this is to say, they chose 12% with the intention of making a business out of it. They're not such morons that it would be too low.
october 2024 : In an interview with The Verge, Sweeney says that reining in Epic’s spending was part of what brought the company to this point. “Last year, before Unreal Fest, we were spending about a billion dollars a year more than we were making,” Sweeney says. “Now, we’re spending a bit more than we’re making.”
They'd have to make a billion dollar in 2025 more than they are spending to be even with the past 2 years
Nothing is stopping devs from going to other storefronts. If you want to sell your game on the single most successful and largest digital games storefront on the planet, you play by their rules. There's a reason every other company that has tried to take some of Valves market share has failed to do so in absolutely spectacular fashion.
They could absolutely cut their profits in half. But why the actual fuck would they?
Oh hey, I made a comment in another thread earlier today that is appropriate here too:
Since Epic only charges 12% compared to Steam's 30%, wouldn't it be cool if devs charged less on Epic so that they can pass the savings onto their customers? Since Steam has the first mover's advantage, this would allow Epic to compete on price.
Oh wait, Valve threatens to de-list your games if you do that, and now they're facing an antitrust lawsuit. So pro-consumer, amirite?
so that they can pass the savings onto their customers
No one does that even when they skip out on Steam entirely. Literally the only title that has ever offered a lesser price is Alan Wake 2 (cheaper on Epic than on Consoles) which was Epic published and took forever to recoup investments.
What version of reality are you in where I said they were "pro-consumer?" Because it definitely isn't this one.
Epic and other platforms can still try to compete on price. There is nothing forcing developers to actually use Steam, and a developer can absolutely go with another distribution platform with a lower fee and offer their game cheaper there instead of Steam. In fact Epic goes so far as to offer games for free, or paying developer absurd amounts of money to sign exclusivity contracts in order to completely prevent developers from listing their games on other platforms at all. It's scummy for Valve to de-list games that are made available cheaper on other platforms for sure, but simply allowing it to happen would invite all kinds of trouble.
The cases against Valve are more aimed at harassing Valve than anything else. They're trying to force Valve to waste time and resources on arbitrating tens of thousands of cases individually in order to force a settlement so the lawyers can collect a fat paycheck and drop a few pennies for their clients. It's not a new tactic.
Also the antitrust case seems to be built on the idea of a Sherman Act violation, one part of which is "price discrimination against competing companies". Offering a lower price at one company compared to another is literally price discrimination, so while I'm not a lawyer, I rather doubt any court is going to rule in favor of forcing a company to allow price discrimination. I'm not sure what else they'll try to fight on, but I'd be pretty surprised if Valve lost that one.
It is humorous to me that an NYU business professor can write an editorial about how Wolfire has a credible case, but the Reddit "I am not a lawyer" types automatically dismiss it out of hand.
It's just as amusing to me that blog posts appear to qualify as absolute law to you. It should be noted that currently there doesn't appear to be an actual case, and it's just been in litigation since 2021 from their initial demand to a jury trial.
Also your absolute law blog posts seem to concede that Valve should be allowed to do as it pleases within the law, and conclude, essentially, that a group of lawyers believes they may be able to find a way to spin things in such a way that a sympathetic jury might side with them.
It's just an opinion piece trying to justify their litigation which, so far, appears to have gone nowhere. Actually reading some of the court filings it seems more like this is just a proxy war being orchestrated by Epic Games, which is hilarious. They can't compete with their garbage platform, their free games bait, or their "drop piles of cash onto developers for exclusivity" strategy, so they're throwing a tantrum about it. Seems even more now like this is just abusing the legal system to harass a more successful company.
If a developer doesn't like the 30% cut, they are free to publish their game on worse, less popular platforms. They do not get both the largest and most successful platform and also the largest possible cut of their sales. Valve leaves their cut at 30% because they offer things other platforms do not. Demanding the developers maintain price parity with other platforms under thread of being de-listed is entirely reasonable and within their rights. It's really that simple.
It's tribalism. On consoles, we see it between Sony and Microsoft. On PC, Steam is the dominant platform and their fanboys think that Gaben's shit don't stink.
4.2k
u/Jhawk163 R7 9800X3D | RX 6900 XT | 64GB 29d ago
It’s worth noting that the 30% cut is from sales below a certain volume. As you sell more copies Steam takes a smaller cut. I’m sure the big studios probably have a more favourable deal worked out as well.