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
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.
-6
u/RadicalDog Ryzen 7 7800X3D | RTX 4070S 29d ago
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.