Steam feeling the financial heat of their unfair revenue split

[AWPC]

https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks#announcements/detail/1697191267930157838

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/valves-n...-big-budget-games-and-indie-devs-arent-happy/

70/30% before now its going to be 75/25% only AFTER the first $10M though! No wonder all the big new games are using their own launchers & services. Valve were making a LOT of money for doing very little except distributing the content & managing patches.

I think as time goes on less & less of the bigger games will use Steam clearly its way too expensive & cheaper to just build your own platform!

 

[Gimpymoo]

How many people have installed Steam for the big "AAA" games then stayed for the Indie stuff and purchased an Indie title they would never have discovered bar for the "pop up" when launching Steam?

 

[mark43]

It does seem greedy. Its a bit of a shame because none of us wants loads of launchers, but you can't blame the devs for making their own.

Personally I've gone past my 'I want everything on steam' mentality. I remember when GTA V was launched it was a tenner extra on steam, so I thought screw that and bought the normal version, and recently I bought Thronebreaker through GoG because I wanted the dev to get more of my money. Its not like steam is actually that great these days anyway...

 

[StriderX]

"not doing very much" ? Are you serious? A storefront like Steam that works almost flawlessly for nearly a decade (in it's more recent form, obv older) isn't "doing much"...

 

[mark43]

Fair enough, but does that justify almost a third of every sale?

 

[TNA]

Fair enough, but does that justify almost a third of every sale?

But you get to have access to a huge market and you don’t need to worry about server bills ever in the future. Look at thronebreaker, they thought they could launch it on GoG and be ok, but it did not work out at all for them so they quickly released it on steam.

A smaller cut of a bigger pie is better than a big cut of a small pie. Apple take 30% also on their App Store and always have.

I do think 75-25 is more fair though.

I am happy that there are other alternatives to steam as a monopoly is never a good thing, but what I don’t like is when publishers only release games on their own platform or force you to install say uplay regardless. I still don’t have a uplay account. Not a fan of EA and Ubisoft anyway. I do have battlenet account though, as I have no issues with blizzard.

 

[mark43]

@TNA Well yes, and that Thronebreaker example highlights the issue, they pretty much do have a monopoly, and that is good for nobody. (though I don't think Thronebreaker came to steam because it was necessarily struggling, I imagine it was always the plan to bring it to steam later).

Apple are currently in court over their 30%

 

[AWPC]

"not doing very much" ? Are you serious? A storefront like Steam that works almost flawlessly for nearly a decade (in it's more recent form, obv older) isn't "doing much"...

Until recently Valve were making up to 30% of most PC games released every year which is a massive amount of money for just distributing the content. How many games have Valve made with this money or what brand new PC only game engine have they released or used themselves.

For approx 30% of $32.3 billion in 2017 alone minus the non Steam games is still a gigantic amount of money for doing very little. No wonder Steam is starting to be ignored by more & more publishers its simply not economically viable anymore. Valve have made a staggering amount of money from PC gaming & given very little back for many years now.
https://www.dsogaming.com/news/pc-games-sales-in-2017-are-almost-as-big-all-console-sales-combined/

 

[muon]

I doubt AAA publishers are paying 30%. They will have their own deals or rebate schemes.

 

[Gimpymoo]

I doubt AAA publishers are paying 30%. They will have their own deals or rebate schemes.

This.

And has been the case for some time to be honest so not sure why it is "news" now.

You are paying for "access to market" which in "business to business" transactions is far from uncommon.

People think "30%, what a rip off". In what other business do businesses pay a one off fee to a service provider and have access to that service indefinitely? it sounds mad but that is what Valve do with Steam.

Release your game, no extra charge for downloading, EVER.
You release an update for your game, no charge.
Give away Steam keys yourself, NO CHARGE for activation.

Who pays for payment processing, Valve.
Who pays staff to handle billing problems, Valve.
Who deals with chargebacks, Valve.

All these man hours could mean if a single transaction has a single problem, the 30% could be wiped out.

ALSO, if a 4 man dev team ever has to deal with such issues at some point, they would gladly give 30% to know it is all sorted as it would cost them as a business more than 30%.

With smaller titles, the risk is higher as man hours are a fixed rate, so a £4 game with a single transaction problem would yield NEGATIVE income.

Also, the 30% applies to Steam store purchases only.

While here, can we talk about the other "ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM".

CD key sites?

They give ZERO to Valve yet profit from their service, these scumbags do not even have to handle downloads and the costs of maintaining file servers in multiple countries or paying for bandwidth.

People would change their tune if the option was:
"15% commission across the board and redeemed keys are charged at 15% of current selling price".

Again, VALVE do not charge developers/publishers for Steam activations if they themselves distribute the keys.

It is all not as "black and white" as many believe it is.

When you consider each "sale" means possible "lifetime support" in terms of keeping download available, dev pushing out update to your (Valves) clients, 30% is not a great deal.

The 25-30% has been "the" figure since the digital delivery games market began and lets be honest, I do not want to go back to MANUAL PATCH DOWNLOADS.. and "Mismatch version" errors when joining servers just to save a few quid. **** that.

Valve have remained an independent company AND laid the groundwork for a solid system over many many years and did that with one eye on the "prize" and they deserve that. HOWEVER, they also had one eye on how devs were treated being devs themselves, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE HELL THEY WENT THROUGH WITH SIERRA/VIVENDI Universal who oddly were acquired by ACTIVISION who would relish having a monopoly.

They were investing in digital delivery when the "shareholders and suits" were laughing at them.

People say Valve are a monopoly. Who have they purchased to become a monopoly?

If Valve/Steam is a monopoly, who let it happen?

Consumers and Developers chose them and the popularity of PC gaming over the last 15 years is in part contributed to Valve as they are the ones who made it "simple" when everyone else was sat around scratching their ***.

Some people need to be careful what they wish for as the PC would be a dark place devoid of life if we had to rely on "Windows 10 Store" for our gaming fix.

Also, Valve do not care about "Exclusivity" which is a disease on the industry and if they were a "true" monopoly, they would insist on.
Also, I doubt Valve are "Feeling the heat" as per the op, am sure they are doing fine

Fake news is fake news though I guess.
Wow, that was a long rant. Am sure there is some truths in there somewhere

 

[MrMarvelous]

I'll only use Steam and Origin at a push. If a game comes out with a separate launcher that isn't one of the above then I simply won't play it.

 

[TNA]

@TNA Well yes, and that Thronebreaker example highlights the issue, they pretty much do have a monopoly, and that is good for nobody. (though I don't think Thronebreaker came to steam because it was necessarily struggling, I imagine it was always the plan to bring it to steam later).

Apple are currently in court over their 30%

Pretty sure I read that the CEO said they came to steam due to much lower than expected sales.

There are plenty of options apart from steam, no monopoly imo.

 

[mark43]

Pretty sure I read that the CEO said they came to steam due to much lower than expected sales.

There are plenty of options apart from steam, no monopoly imo.

Ah fair enough, I hadn't read that.

Okay not technically a monopoly as there are other options, but you're pretty much forced to use them as per the example you've given, so not much different really.

 

[Gimpymoo]

Okay not technically a monopoly as there are other options, but you're pretty much forced to use them as per the example you've given, so not much different really.

That does not make them a monopoly just because developers choose to use them.

It is considered by many to the "Better" alternative on the PC which is why people use them.

Better does not make it a monopoly if market forces determine it is "the best" and alternatives still exist in the market.

Try publishing on Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft and you will see how "good" Valve/Steam are to developers.

 

[Distracted]

This.

And has been the case for some time to be honest so not sure why it is "news" now.

You are paying for "access to market" which in "business to business" transactions is far from uncommon.

People think "30%, what a rip off". In what other business do businesses pay a one off fee to a service provider and have access to that service indefinitely? it sounds mad but that is what Valve do with Steam.

Release your game, no extra charge for downloading, EVER.
You release an update for your game, no charge.
Give away Steam keys yourself, NO CHARGE for activation.

Who pays for payment processing, Valve.
Who pays staff to handle billing problems, Valve.
Who deals with chargebacks, Valve.

All these man hours could mean if a single transaction has a single problem, the 30% could be wiped out.

ALSO, if a 4 man dev team ever has to deal with such issues at some point, they would gladly give 30% to know it is all sorted as it would cost them as a business more than 30%.

With smaller titles, the risk is higher as man hours are a fixed rate, so a £4 game with a single transaction problem would yield NEGATIVE income.

Also, the 30% applies to Steam store purchases only.

While here, can we talk about the other "ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM".

CD key sites?

They give ZERO to Valve yet profit from their service, these scumbags do not even have to handle downloads and the costs of maintaining file servers in multiple countries or paying for bandwidth.

People would change their tune if the option was:
"15% commission across the board and redeemed keys are charged at 15% of current selling price".

Again, VALVE do not charge developers/publishers for Steam activations if they themselves distribute the keys.

It is all not as "black and white" as many believe it is.

When you consider each "sale" means possible "lifetime support" in terms of keeping download available, dev pushing out update to your (Valves) clients, 30% is not a great deal.

The 25-30% has been "the" figure since the digital delivery games market began and lets be honest, I do not want to go back to MANUAL PATCH DOWNLOADS.. and "Mismatch version" errors when joining servers just to save a few quid. **** that.

Valve have remained an independent company AND laid the groundwork for a solid system over many many years and did that with one eye on the "prize" and they deserve that. HOWEVER, they also had one eye on how devs were treated being devs themselves, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE HELL THEY WENT THROUGH WITH SIERRA/VIVENDI Universal who oddly were acquired by ACTIVISION who would relish having a monopoly.

They were investing in digital delivery when the "shareholders and suits" were laughing at them.

People say Valve are a monopoly. Who have they purchased to become a monopoly?

If Valve/Steam is a monopoly, who let it happen?

Consumers and Developers chose them and the popularity of PC gaming over the last 15 years is in part contributed to Valve as they are the ones who made it "simple" when everyone else was sat around scratching their ***.

Some people need to be careful what they wish for as the PC would be a dark place devoid of life if we had to rely on "Windows 10 Store" for our gaming fix.

Also, Valve do not care about "Exclusivity" which is a disease on the industry and if they were a "true" monopoly, they would insist on.
Also, I doubt Valve are "Feeling the heat" as per the op, am sure they are doing fine

Fake news is fake news though I guess.
Wow, that was a long rant. Am sure there is some truths in there somewhere

Long post but i agree.

 

[mark43]

That does not make them a monopoly just because developers choose to use them.

It is considered by many to the "Better" alternative on the PC which is why people use them.

Better does not make it a monopoly if market forces determine it is "the best" and alternatives still exist in the market.

Try publishing on Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft and you will see how "good" Valve/Steam are to developers.

Yes, I realise its not technically a Monopoly, I understand what the term means. I'm saying its not much different because most developers are pretty much forced to use Steam, yes you are right that they 'choose' to use them, but they really don't have much choice if they want their game to sell. You mention above that what they are paying for is access to the market, its a bit worrying that one company has that much control over the market.

Obviously its not as bad as the console situation, and I'm glad its somebody like Valve rather than Microsoft that's in this position, but I still think its far from ideal.

 

[Distracted]

Yes, I realise its not technically a Monopoly, I understand what the term means. I'm saying its not much different because most developers are pretty much forced to use Steam, yes you are right that they 'choose' to use them, but they really don't have much choice if they want their game to sell. You mention above that what they are paying for is access to the market, its a bit worrying that one company has that much control over the market.

Obviously its not as bad as the console situation, and I'm glad its somebody like Valve rather than Microsoft that's in this position, but I still think its far from ideal.

I see it as they have the option of using steam. No one is forcing anyone to use steam. They can release and distribute themselves, or they can pay someone else to do it. If Steam wasn't competitive for what they offer, you can bet there would be alternatives with larger market shares.
There's no way an opportunist would pass on the chance of becoming the next steam if they thought it could make them money. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.

Devs that don't want to use steam do have alternatives.

 

[wesimmo]

Given the problems I've had with Uplay and, to a lesser extent, Origin in the past I think saying Steam does very little is a bit unfair.

I've bought games on Uplay and sometimes given up playing them as it's just hassle and a bit hit and miss as to whether you'll actually get to play.

 

[mark43]

I see it as they have the option of using steam. No one is forcing anyone to use steam. They can release and distribute themselves, or they can pay someone else to do it. If Steam wasn't competitive for what they offer, you can bet there would be alternatives with larger market shares.
There's no way an opportunist would pass on the chance of becoming the next steam if they thought it could make them money. The fact that they haven't speaks volumes.

Devs that don't want to use steam do have alternatives.

They do have alternatives, but how often have you seen somebody say they're not buying a game because it's not available on Steam? As for somebody releasing an alternative platform to compete, I think it would be hard with them being in such a dominant position.

Arguing in steams favour though, I think they've probably made it really easy for a lot of small devs and publishers to get their games out to a large market, and for them I'm sure the 30% is probably worth it, so it's only really the big publishers who may be upset, and they can afford to make their own platforms if they really like.

So based on that I think I've changed my own mind. Though I do wish people wouldn't rule out games when they are on other platforms.

 

[Raumarik]

https://steamcommunity.com/groups/steamworks#announcements/detail/1697191267930157838

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/valves-n...-big-budget-games-and-indie-devs-arent-happy/

70/30% before now its going to be 75/25% only AFTER the first $10M though! No wonder all the big new games are using their own launchers & services. Valve were making a LOT of money for doing very little except distributing the content & managing patches.

I think as time goes on less & less of the bigger games will use Steam clearly its way too expensive & cheaper to just build your own platform!

I wouldn't bet on it. The Steam refund means a hell of a lot to me - look at Fallout 76, I played the beta (bought a key for $1) for less than 45mins before I knew I'd just never get into it. That would have been a $60 saving on Steam, as opposed to those who have bought it and now can't get refunds even though the game is clearly a mess.

Being able to refund is hugely important a lot of consumers..