Some interesting industry news for you here. Epic Games have announced a change to the revenue model of the Epic Games Store, as they try to pull in more developers and more gamers to actually purchase things.
30% has been industry standard across any digital storefront until Epic found out they couldn’t beat steam by just paying for exclusivity deals. Then they decided to go down this race to the bottom strategy.
Steam is good because of that 30%.
Firstly, data transfer and storage isn’t free and is an ongoing cost for Steam even after purchase. How many times can you think that you installed a game, then deleted it and ultimately downloaded it again—Steam doesn’t get any more money, but that costs them. They could have done all the limited number of downloads or transfer speed limiting shit that used to be more common.
The profit they make on top goes straight back into Valve. They are a private company without shareholders to please and pay dividends to. This has allowed them to keep reinvesting into Steam and making it the best experience for the consumer they can—they’ve been rewarded with a load of goodwill and market share following that. You can guarantee that we wouldn’t have proton or the steam deck without the money valve made from steam sales.
Epic doing this is just another attempt to try and tempt developers to choose their store and not list on Steam. They have no interest in actually improving their offering, their only strategy is to try and find ways to put Steam users at a disadvantage and hope that people go “well I guess I’ll go for it on epic if I have to”. They don’t have any problem getting companies to list their games on Epic, this is 100% about manipulating developers to not list on Steam.
GoG is the alternative to Steam, and offers something that benefits consumers to compete with Steam in DRM free games.
Friends don’t let friends reward Epic for anti-consumer business practices.
Hey don’t mistake that comment for a defense of Epic. I am a fan of Steam in general (in so far as I can be regarding “license selling” companies.) I think Gabe did many great things for game distribution. I’m working on an indie game myself and if it ever gets to the point that I can release it, it will be on Steam no doubt. I do dread the day Gabe has to pass on the torch though.
Simple just use short term oriented goals because that’s what the company is focusing on. Steam was always long term oriented from the beginning Gabe said CD less gaming.
Didn’t Steam essentially create the “standard” for 30% price point for digital distribution in the first place? While a 30% margin makes sense for physical retail, it’s never made sense for digital distribution.
If they created the problem in the first place, then isn’t that actually an issue?
I’d argue it makes more sense for digital distribution, once the sale has been made in a physical store, there’s no ongoing cost for them.
A digital storefront has the ongoing cost of downloads and updates, as well as the distributed storage costs (Steam has many copies of games all over the world to mean downloads are quick)
Data transfer costs back in the mid 00s mean that every install of a game like HL2 cost them a dollar or so (A quick Google suggests they might have paid a couple of cents a gigabyte, but they may have had a better deal given the volume of data). If a user ever uninstalled and reinstalled more than a couple of times (a lot more common back then with the limited storage everyone had), and couple that with ongoing update transfer costs then most of the profit from a full price sale could easily be gone, let alone if the game was bought with a discount as is very common. If they never made any profit from the sales, Steam never makes it past its awkward years.
Data transfer is definitely cheaper these days, but then games are bigger and they probably spend a lot more on datacenter space than back in the day
A physical storefront has to deal with asset depreciation however. A product can sit on the shelf and reduce in value as it ages, there is no such thing with digital distribution.
Based on estimates, and various reports, leaks etc. since they aren’t a public company… Steam makde an estimated $10.8 Billion in 2024. They made $780,000 per employee as of 2018 based on an internal report, more than nearly every other company on the planet. They’re not spending anywhere near that on operations.
Surely the sales are an equivalent there? Both ultimately mean the total price goes down and the store’s cut goes down accordingly.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re definitely profiting these days. $11bn is a massive amount of revenue* for a company with the number of staff they do. But Steam are going to have disproportionately high datacenter costs compared to most other companies. As a rough comparison: Watching an hour of netflix at HD quality is about 1GB of transfer or so, Call of Duty is something like a quarter of a terabyte. Someone who downloads call of duty once would have to watch 250h of netflix to cost them the same—and Netflix is funded by subscription.
Then remember they’re likely paying their staff very well, I would not be surprised at all if well over half of their revenue just goes to operational costs before any reinvestment.
The sheer data transfer happening is insanely costly and is not something people think about. Valve could certainly tweak their cut for small developers in sone way, but they arent just pocketing 30%.
Valve actively increase their cut for small developers and their entire business model is to keep staff to a minimum and costs aggressively low.
They are absolutely just pocketing 30%.
What they are doing with the 30% is anybody’s guess, because they are a private company, so I don’t know how much of it becomes new boats and knifes for Gabe and how much goes to VR HMDs and handhelds, but they are a VERY lean company that sure seems to like being cash-rich.
They apparently transfer approximately 50 exabytes a year.
Some napkin maths has that as costing around $5bn to do from a provider like AWS. Which is half their annual turnover not profit.
Now sure, they will not be spending that much on just data transfer, everyone in the industry knows you get bespoke deals with the cloud providers before the bill gets close to that—but they’ll not get anything close to half price.
Then they need to pay for the actual storage costs
And the compute needed for running all of steam’s API and web servers
And staff, which if they only have 80 of them, will be paid some of the best salaries in the industry.
If you think they’re taking even half of that 30% as profit, I think you need to give this another look.
They don’t need to take that 30% as profit for it to be high. They cost less to run than any other first party. We know this from their recent lawsuits. And no, they do not pay 5 billion for their traffic, but whatever they pay isn’t higher than Sony or Nintendo, or at least not so much higher that it entirely drains their revenue.
And even if they paid your back of the napkin figure, best guess is they pulled ten billion in revenue last year. They don’t tell anybody that, though, so it’s all estimates, and considering the have the biggest distribution platform, the biggest game on that platform and a separate hardware business I’m going to say Valve is not about to buckle under the pressure of bandwidth costs anytime soon, even if they spread the cash around a bit.
Meanwhile, the developers using Valve’s platform do have to pay salaries with a fraction of that revenue, sometimes to staff larger than Valve’s. And for a number of them they also have to deal with server costs and general running costs on the back end.
I don’t know Valve’s operating costs. Nobody does. I know Gabe Newell is very rich. I know the few people working at Valve are very well paid. I know they run that ship as quiet and cheap as possible. And I know they take in just as much (or more) than other platforms with the same or higher costs and a similar or lower take.
they do not pay 5 billion for their traffic, but whatever they pay isn’t higher than Sony or Nintendo, or at least not so much higher that it entirely drains their revenue.
No I know, I addressed that they don’t actually pay that, but it will 100% be a figure in that magnitude. Remember Sony and Nintendo both charge subscription fees for their online services to offset these costs. Valve doesn’t—they have to pay for it all out of that cut.
I’m also at no point insinuating they’re struggling at all, I’m just trying to point out that their operational costs are definitely going to be a big chunk of that 30%, there’s absolutely no way they’re not.
Meanwhile, the developers using Valve’s platform do have to pay salaries with a fraction of that revenue, sometimes to staff larger than Valve’s. And for a number of them they also have to deal with server costs and general running costs on the back end.
I’m not saying the third party devs have it lucky or anything like that. Of course it would be great if they got a bigger cut, at the end of the day it’s the product, but to pretend steam is adding zero value for the 30% taken is absurd.
Also remember regarding third party server costs, Valve provides a lot of the backend services as part of Steamworks for many games on the platform—it’s another big draw for developers to the platform because they don’t need to come up with a friend system, achievements or matchmaking if they don’t want to.
I’m not pretending they’re adding zero value, but they are taking zero risk and tying down everybody else to their ecosystem. If they are adding 30% of value, and I’m not saying they aren’t, it is due to controlling 80% of the market. That’s anticompetitive any way you slice it.
Steamworks is actually a great example of that MO. Is it good value to have it available as a dev? Sure! It is a console-style series of back-end services, which goes far more in-depth than any competitor and makes PC development more standardized and accessible, with a lower barrier to entry to platform-level functionality.
Is it also a way to make it more costly to be elsewhere? Yup. And with no hardware tie-in reason for that, it is crunching down the PC ecosystem to Steam plus friends, as opposed to a competitive, open landscape.
That, on my book, is not good on the aggregate. It would be just as bad if Xbox’s much inferior attempt at the same thing Windows-wide was in that same position of power (like the Apple ecosystem is on Macs), but at least there you could argue that it’s at the OS level and not tied in to your payment services and distribution platform.
Eh, I would argue that the expansion of broadband internet and the increased expectation of instant gratification by consumers made it a perfect time for Steam’s expansion. The death of physical media is a side effect of the ability to near instantly download anything you want.
Physical media died when games expanded beyond their capacity. Optical discs are physically fragile, they have a limited shelf life, they have to be reproduced by specialized equipment (not considering piracy here), they have to be physically transported to the customer, some regions are financially unviable (imagine the Helldivers 2 situation but with every game), and production has to end at some point. Having to set up a physical supplier also severely limits the ability of indie or solo developers to have any kind of success or even presence.
Those are issues we’ve had to look past because we didn’t have anything better at the time.
The gaming industry is not immune to the Dreadnought effect. Magnetic tape has made punch cards obsolete. The optical disc and flash storage have made the magnetic tape obsolete. Now, digital distribution has made physical media obsolete, and people clamoring for its return are nostalgic for a world that doesn’t exist anymore.
I liked physical discs when they were relevant, but I don’t relish the idea of having to pray that Clair Obscur DVD #8 is not damaged when I have to transition to a new area.
By offering a far better experience for the vast majority of people. Like how DVDs killed VHS, where some people who couldn’t afford to upgrade were left behind.
I don’t think this is true. 20% was the standard, as I recall, not 30%. I think it has moved that way over time, though. And even that only made some sense while retailers were too powerful to compete with them on price. Storage and bandwidth are much cheaper than bricks and real estate and salaries.
This is a good thing, Steam’s cut is too big, especially for a company with next to no staff that runs on a heavily Uber-ified model and produces very little and I an very tired of the fanboyism.
I agree that people should default to GoG when possible, though.
What valve produces is a user friendly platform. That’s their value proposition and its worth many times its weight in gold
Thats worth 30% of the sale to me as a user. And is something epic and other publishers are completely unable to replicate. (I.e. no one in their right mind would ever trust epic to maintain such a position)
Valve sure does show how to run PR from the design level out and does this by putting the squeeze on developers rather than users whenever it can.
I am not ok with that. I would much prefer a user friendly platform that is investing on more than its position as a dominant market force and putting more of the revenue back into the space where games are made.
Oh, and on being DRM-free, too.
So I don’t need to trust Epic for anything, but I also don’t need to trust Valve with a monopoly. Which is, of course, why I default to GoG, as I said.
Plenty of other platforms spend more money on the platform than Steam. Definitely. Easy.
I mean, for one thing the console manufacturers are shipping a TON more hardware, often with very low margins. And they are all bigger than Steam and have as much of a software upkeep. They are spending more money on game development than Steam, too.
Steam Deck, Steam OS, the Index and Proton are at most on par with what Sony does just for the PS5 platform.
Oh, and to your first question, Steam does very much tell developers what they want them to do. They are a first party, and have their own preferences an policies. They are currently in court for banning developers from offering games cheaper on any other competing service, for instance.
you’re so uninformed its hilarious. PS5 is a single hardware platform that almost certainly (if they continue as they historically have) on top of free bsd. their software stack is almost certainly an open source base with some small additions for developer friendliness on top. its small time compared to what steam does: multiple OS support with massive and varied hardware support.
Nor does sony contribute much back to the open source ecosystems they leech off of. meanwhile steam has been funding linux gaming improvements for over a decade now and are a huge reason that its as amazing as it is today.
the idea that sony spending a higher $ value vs steam is probably the most retarded thing i’ve heard all day. the $ value isnt what matters. its the impact/$. and steam leaves sony in the dust on this. again linux gaming wouldn’t be anywhere near where it is without steam. meanwhile sony barely contributes anything.
Valve literally has funded the compatibility layer to bring DX games to linux. point to a single thing sony has done that’s comparable.
Never mind all the benefits valve has ensure for gamers. a strong return policy. ongoing predictable sales. easy of use and cross platform support.
Never mind all the tooling they provide to developers of games.
Valve has very much earned the loyalty from gamers it has and i have no problem with them profitting off that fact. long as they keep up the good work we’ll keep using and supporting their platform.
and your point? its still a better policy than both GOG and EA origins provided. and the regulators where in a country steam likely gave 0 thoughts about. and then applied the change everywhere for everyone.
this is literally a non-issue now. so anything more recent than 2013 that any reasonable person would give a shit about?
context for everyone else:
origins as the underdog identifies a weak point in steam’s userbase loyalty and tries to leverage it.
an australian government agency notifies steam they’re in violation and legal action would follow if steam doesn’t comply with australian return regulations.
steam says ‘my b.’ and updates their policy everywhere instead of implementing a region based policy.
the update undercuts EA and improves the situation for all their users.
or anything relevant to any of the points I made or you just going to keep tossing out decade old information as if its relevant.
Valve hasnt increased their %age since steams inception. you can argue its too high. but its certainly not a squeeze which requires an unnecessary and increasing rate that is detrimental to the developers.
its hilarious how well the publishers propaganda arm has influenced you to your own detriment. do you know much EA and other publishers demand as their cut? 50%. valve as a publisher is actually a fucking discount.
Steam makes a shit load of money. The server fees are basically a joke and they have 80 employees in the steam division.
The only things that is being invested in is Gabens fleet of mega yatchs, worth an estimated 1 billion, and costing between 75 and 100 million annually to maintain.
Valve has been fined in the EU for anti-consumer practices and received an F from the better business bureau. They are currently in the middle of another lawsuit.
30% is way too high and it’s a joke to see actual consumers defend it.
oh no, a person at the head of a company that has created a great environment has profited from it! the horror.
Gabe’s wealth isnt a problem. if you dislike his yach the problem is in the taxation system of the country not the individuals wealth.
BBB hasnt been relavant for decades its a dead ratings system that was bought out years ago by corpo interests. citing them is like citing donald trump on medical treatments for covid.
oh no! 80 employees? the horror. thats literally what software is about. its economics of scale are insane. you dont need more than a couple dozen people if they’re competent.
finally: geoblocking is a feature developers enable. they don’t have to. steam doesnt force them to. if you dont like it don’t by those games. I promise you there are plenty of games you can buy that dont have it.
really if this is all you have as complaints thats pretty small time. compared to google/apple/microsoft/EA/nabisco mistreatment of their employees, funding of fascist politicians, etc. quite frankly I have bigger concerns than gabe being wealthy.
All billionaire wealth is stolen wealth. All billionaires are bad. If you stopped bootlicking for a second, you would realize defending Gaben is defending the system. The fact that he can legally exploit it to steal from consumers and developers doesn’t absolve him from doing it.
30% has been industry standard across any digital storefront until Epic found out they couldn’t beat steam by just paying for exclusivity deals. Then they decided to go down this race to the bottom strategy.
Steam is good because of that 30%.
Firstly, data transfer and storage isn’t free and is an ongoing cost for Steam even after purchase. How many times can you think that you installed a game, then deleted it and ultimately downloaded it again—Steam doesn’t get any more money, but that costs them. They could have done all the limited number of downloads or transfer speed limiting shit that used to be more common.
The profit they make on top goes straight back into Valve. They are a private company without shareholders to please and pay dividends to. This has allowed them to keep reinvesting into Steam and making it the best experience for the consumer they can—they’ve been rewarded with a load of goodwill and market share following that. You can guarantee that we wouldn’t have proton or the steam deck without the money valve made from steam sales.
Epic doing this is just another attempt to try and tempt developers to choose their store and not list on Steam. They have no interest in actually improving their offering, their only strategy is to try and find ways to put Steam users at a disadvantage and hope that people go “well I guess I’ll go for it on epic if I have to”. They don’t have any problem getting companies to list their games on Epic, this is 100% about manipulating developers to not list on Steam.
GoG is the alternative to Steam, and offers something that benefits consumers to compete with Steam in DRM free games.
Friends don’t let friends reward Epic for anti-consumer business practices.
Hey don’t mistake that comment for a defense of Epic. I am a fan of Steam in general (in so far as I can be regarding “license selling” companies.) I think Gabe did many great things for game distribution. I’m working on an indie game myself and if it ever gets to the point that I can release it, it will be on Steam no doubt. I do dread the day Gabe has to pass on the torch though.
Simple just use short term oriented goals because that’s what the company is focusing on. Steam was always long term oriented from the beginning Gabe said CD less gaming.
Didn’t Steam essentially create the “standard” for 30% price point for digital distribution in the first place? While a 30% margin makes sense for physical retail, it’s never made sense for digital distribution.
If they created the problem in the first place, then isn’t that actually an issue?
I’d argue it makes more sense for digital distribution, once the sale has been made in a physical store, there’s no ongoing cost for them.
A digital storefront has the ongoing cost of downloads and updates, as well as the distributed storage costs (Steam has many copies of games all over the world to mean downloads are quick)
Data transfer costs back in the mid 00s mean that every install of a game like HL2 cost them a dollar or so (A quick Google suggests they might have paid a couple of cents a gigabyte, but they may have had a better deal given the volume of data). If a user ever uninstalled and reinstalled more than a couple of times (a lot more common back then with the limited storage everyone had), and couple that with ongoing update transfer costs then most of the profit from a full price sale could easily be gone, let alone if the game was bought with a discount as is very common. If they never made any profit from the sales, Steam never makes it past its awkward years.
Data transfer is definitely cheaper these days, but then games are bigger and they probably spend a lot more on datacenter space than back in the day
A physical storefront has to deal with asset depreciation however. A product can sit on the shelf and reduce in value as it ages, there is no such thing with digital distribution.
Based on estimates, and various reports, leaks etc. since they aren’t a public company… Steam makde an estimated $10.8 Billion in 2024. They made $780,000 per employee as of 2018 based on an internal report, more than nearly every other company on the planet. They’re not spending anywhere near that on operations.
Surely the sales are an equivalent there? Both ultimately mean the total price goes down and the store’s cut goes down accordingly.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re definitely profiting these days. $11bn is a massive amount of revenue* for a company with the number of staff they do. But Steam are going to have disproportionately high datacenter costs compared to most other companies. As a rough comparison: Watching an hour of netflix at HD quality is about 1GB of transfer or so, Call of Duty is something like a quarter of a terabyte. Someone who downloads call of duty once would have to watch 250h of netflix to cost them the same—and Netflix is funded by subscription.
Then remember they’re likely paying their staff very well, I would not be surprised at all if well over half of their revenue just goes to operational costs before any reinvestment.
*Checked the figure was revenue and not profit.
The sheer data transfer happening is insanely costly and is not something people think about. Valve could certainly tweak their cut for small developers in sone way, but they arent just pocketing 30%.
Valve actively increase their cut for small developers and their entire business model is to keep staff to a minimum and costs aggressively low.
They are absolutely just pocketing 30%.
What they are doing with the 30% is anybody’s guess, because they are a private company, so I don’t know how much of it becomes new boats and knifes for Gabe and how much goes to VR HMDs and handhelds, but they are a VERY lean company that sure seems to like being cash-rich.
It would be impossible for them to pocket 30%
They apparently transfer approximately 50 exabytes a year.
Some napkin maths has that as costing around $5bn to do from a provider like AWS. Which is half their annual turnover not profit.
Now sure, they will not be spending that much on just data transfer, everyone in the industry knows you get bespoke deals with the cloud providers before the bill gets close to that—but they’ll not get anything close to half price.
Then they need to pay for the actual storage costs
And the compute needed for running all of steam’s API and web servers
And staff, which if they only have 80 of them, will be paid some of the best salaries in the industry.
If you think they’re taking even half of that 30% as profit, I think you need to give this another look.
They don’t need to take that 30% as profit for it to be high. They cost less to run than any other first party. We know this from their recent lawsuits. And no, they do not pay 5 billion for their traffic, but whatever they pay isn’t higher than Sony or Nintendo, or at least not so much higher that it entirely drains their revenue.
And even if they paid your back of the napkin figure, best guess is they pulled ten billion in revenue last year. They don’t tell anybody that, though, so it’s all estimates, and considering the have the biggest distribution platform, the biggest game on that platform and a separate hardware business I’m going to say Valve is not about to buckle under the pressure of bandwidth costs anytime soon, even if they spread the cash around a bit.
Meanwhile, the developers using Valve’s platform do have to pay salaries with a fraction of that revenue, sometimes to staff larger than Valve’s. And for a number of them they also have to deal with server costs and general running costs on the back end.
I don’t know Valve’s operating costs. Nobody does. I know Gabe Newell is very rich. I know the few people working at Valve are very well paid. I know they run that ship as quiet and cheap as possible. And I know they take in just as much (or more) than other platforms with the same or higher costs and a similar or lower take.
So none of that flies.
No I know, I addressed that they don’t actually pay that, but it will 100% be a figure in that magnitude. Remember Sony and Nintendo both charge subscription fees for their online services to offset these costs. Valve doesn’t—they have to pay for it all out of that cut.
I’m also at no point insinuating they’re struggling at all, I’m just trying to point out that their operational costs are definitely going to be a big chunk of that 30%, there’s absolutely no way they’re not.
I’m not saying the third party devs have it lucky or anything like that. Of course it would be great if they got a bigger cut, at the end of the day it’s the product, but to pretend steam is adding zero value for the 30% taken is absurd.
Also remember regarding third party server costs, Valve provides a lot of the backend services as part of Steamworks for many games on the platform—it’s another big draw for developers to the platform because they don’t need to come up with a friend system, achievements or matchmaking if they don’t want to.
I’m not pretending they’re adding zero value, but they are taking zero risk and tying down everybody else to their ecosystem. If they are adding 30% of value, and I’m not saying they aren’t, it is due to controlling 80% of the market. That’s anticompetitive any way you slice it.
Steamworks is actually a great example of that MO. Is it good value to have it available as a dev? Sure! It is a console-style series of back-end services, which goes far more in-depth than any competitor and makes PC development more standardized and accessible, with a lower barrier to entry to platform-level functionality.
Is it also a way to make it more costly to be elsewhere? Yup. And with no hardware tie-in reason for that, it is crunching down the PC ecosystem to Steam plus friends, as opposed to a competitive, open landscape.
That, on my book, is not good on the aggregate. It would be just as bad if Xbox’s much inferior attempt at the same thing Windows-wide was in that same position of power (like the Apple ecosystem is on Macs), but at least there you could argue that it’s at the OS level and not tied in to your payment services and distribution platform.
Also killed physical media for PC games, carving out a near monopoly for themselves.
Eh, I would argue that the expansion of broadband internet and the increased expectation of instant gratification by consumers made it a perfect time for Steam’s expansion. The death of physical media is a side effect of the ability to near instantly download anything you want.
Physical media died when games expanded beyond their capacity. Optical discs are physically fragile, they have a limited shelf life, they have to be reproduced by specialized equipment (not considering piracy here), they have to be physically transported to the customer, some regions are financially unviable (imagine the Helldivers 2 situation but with every game), and production has to end at some point. Having to set up a physical supplier also severely limits the ability of indie or solo developers to have any kind of success or even presence.
Those are issues we’ve had to look past because we didn’t have anything better at the time.
The gaming industry is not immune to the Dreadnought effect. Magnetic tape has made punch cards obsolete. The optical disc and flash storage have made the magnetic tape obsolete. Now, digital distribution has made physical media obsolete, and people clamoring for its return are nostalgic for a world that doesn’t exist anymore.
I liked physical discs when they were relevant, but I don’t relish the idea of having to pray that Clair Obscur DVD #8 is not damaged when I have to transition to a new area.
By offering a far better experience for the vast majority of people. Like how DVDs killed VHS, where some people who couldn’t afford to upgrade were left behind.
I don’t think this is true. 20% was the standard, as I recall, not 30%. I think it has moved that way over time, though. And even that only made some sense while retailers were too powerful to compete with them on price. Storage and bandwidth are much cheaper than bricks and real estate and salaries.
This is a good thing, Steam’s cut is too big, especially for a company with next to no staff that runs on a heavily Uber-ified model and produces very little and I an very tired of the fanboyism.
I agree that people should default to GoG when possible, though.
What valve produces is a user friendly platform. That’s their value proposition and its worth many times its weight in gold
Thats worth 30% of the sale to me as a user. And is something epic and other publishers are completely unable to replicate. (I.e. no one in their right mind would ever trust epic to maintain such a position)
Valve sure does show how to run PR from the design level out and does this by putting the squeeze on developers rather than users whenever it can.
I am not ok with that. I would much prefer a user friendly platform that is investing on more than its position as a dominant market force and putting more of the revenue back into the space where games are made.
Oh, and on being DRM-free, too.
So I don’t need to trust Epic for anything, but I also don’t need to trust Valve with a monopoly. Which is, of course, why I default to GoG, as I said.
Lol in what way are they “putting the squeeze” on developers aside from the 30% cut?
Also your prior comment that valve does nothing else is hilarious, the steam deck, steamOS, Proton, the valve index.
They do SO MUCH more.
Automatic save cloud syncing, steam remote play, steam link, the community forums, steam workshop.
Get your head out of your ass, no other platform comes close to feature parity and putting back into improving pc gaming.
Also steam DRM is laughably easy to circumvent and they haven’t shown any interest in over a decade of doing anything about it.
Plenty of other platforms spend more money on the platform than Steam. Definitely. Easy.
I mean, for one thing the console manufacturers are shipping a TON more hardware, often with very low margins. And they are all bigger than Steam and have as much of a software upkeep. They are spending more money on game development than Steam, too.
Steam Deck, Steam OS, the Index and Proton are at most on par with what Sony does just for the PS5 platform.
Oh, and to your first question, Steam does very much tell developers what they want them to do. They are a first party, and have their own preferences an policies. They are currently in court for banning developers from offering games cheaper on any other competing service, for instance.
you’re so uninformed its hilarious. PS5 is a single hardware platform that almost certainly (if they continue as they historically have) on top of free bsd. their software stack is almost certainly an open source base with some small additions for developer friendliness on top. its small time compared to what steam does: multiple OS support with massive and varied hardware support.
Nor does sony contribute much back to the open source ecosystems they leech off of. meanwhile steam has been funding linux gaming improvements for over a decade now and are a huge reason that its as amazing as it is today.
the idea that sony spending a higher $ value vs steam is probably the most retarded thing i’ve heard all day. the $ value isnt what matters. its the impact/$. and steam leaves sony in the dust on this. again linux gaming wouldn’t be anywhere near where it is without steam. meanwhile sony barely contributes anything.
Valve literally has funded the compatibility layer to bring DX games to linux. point to a single thing sony has done that’s comparable.
Never mind all the benefits valve has ensure for gamers. a strong return policy. ongoing predictable sales. easy of use and cross platform support.
Never mind all the tooling they provide to developers of games.
Valve has very much earned the loyalty from gamers it has and i have no problem with them profitting off that fact. long as they keep up the good work we’ll keep using and supporting their platform.
People get mad at me for caling Dunning-Kruger in these things, and it inevitably gets to that point, but…
…come on, what am I supposed to do with this?
For the record, Valve specifically avoided having a return policy until regulators threatened to impose one.
The first platform that implemented no-questions-asked return policy?
EA’s Origin, believe it or not.
and your point? its still a better policy than both GOG and EA origins provided. and the regulators where in a country steam likely gave 0 thoughts about. and then applied the change everywhere for everyone.
this is literally a non-issue now. so anything more recent than 2013 that any reasonable person would give a shit about?
context for everyone else:
or anything relevant to any of the points I made or you just going to keep tossing out decade old information as if its relevant.
Valve hasnt increased their %age since steams inception. you can argue its too high. but its certainly not a squeeze which requires an unnecessary and increasing rate that is detrimental to the developers.
its hilarious how well the publishers propaganda arm has influenced you to your own detriment. do you know much EA and other publishers demand as their cut? 50%. valve as a publisher is actually a fucking discount.
I do wonder just how much a policy like this would effect Valves bottom line though.
This would be pretty amazing for small studios.
Steam makes a shit load of money. The server fees are basically a joke and they have 80 employees in the steam division.
The only things that is being invested in is Gabens fleet of mega yatchs, worth an estimated 1 billion, and costing between 75 and 100 million annually to maintain.
Valve has been fined in the EU for anti-consumer practices and received an F from the better business bureau. They are currently in the middle of another lawsuit.
30% is way too high and it’s a joke to see actual consumers defend it.
This is likely 100% misinformation. Only EU lawsuit i found was about geo blocking games. Which is a game developer/publisher decision not valves.
From there we can extrapolate the rest of their comment is nonsense.
Geo blocking is anti-consumer.
BBB giving them an F (granted, this one is old) : https://kotaku.com/valve-is-not-psyched-they-got-an-f-in-customer-service-1691308332
Billion dollar yatch fleet and maintenance : https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/gabe-newell-luxury-yachts.php
80 employees (only came out because of an other lawsuit against them) : https://www.lavegagames.com/steam-is-run-by-fewer-than-80-staff-lawsuit-docs-reveal/
Gaben isn’t your friend and probably mocks you during his high seas coke parties.
oh no, a person at the head of a company that has created a great environment has profited from it! the horror.
Gabe’s wealth isnt a problem. if you dislike his yach the problem is in the taxation system of the country not the individuals wealth.
BBB hasnt been relavant for decades its a dead ratings system that was bought out years ago by corpo interests. citing them is like citing donald trump on medical treatments for covid.
oh no! 80 employees? the horror. thats literally what software is about. its economics of scale are insane. you dont need more than a couple dozen people if they’re competent.
finally: geoblocking is a feature developers enable. they don’t have to. steam doesnt force them to. if you dont like it don’t by those games. I promise you there are plenty of games you can buy that dont have it.
really if this is all you have as complaints thats pretty small time. compared to google/apple/microsoft/EA/nabisco mistreatment of their employees, funding of fascist politicians, etc. quite frankly I have bigger concerns than gabe being wealthy.
Now do Musk and Bezos!!
All billionaire wealth is stolen wealth. All billionaires are bad. If you stopped bootlicking for a second, you would realize defending Gaben is defending the system. The fact that he can legally exploit it to steal from consumers and developers doesn’t absolve him from doing it.