The rent seeking on platforms like Steam, the Apple App Store, and Google Play is absolutely gross considering how little value they actually provide. I’ll be very glad to see them forced to reduce it to somewhere similar to a card transaction fee.
Eh, there’s more involved with a full storefront and content delivery compared to just a card transaction. But it’s definitely not 30% worth of additional value.
But it’s definitely not 30% worth of additional value.
They’re actually claiming to be adding almost 50% (43%, to be precise) in value, since that’s how much more you have to add to end up at 30% of the final value. (By analogy, imagine they took a 50% cut. That would be claiming to double the value. Something that used to be worth $10 is now going to cost $20 if the original wants to maintain the same cut.)
Here we go again. Armchair economists bleating “why everything cost money, corporate bad” with no actual expertise to back it up. Steam is not a parasitic middle man, it is a collection of services that would have to be provisioned and operated by the developer otherwise.
- A massive infrastructure to store and deliver the game and its updates, worldwide, and at an acceptable bandwidth that Valve operates
- A storefront that enables monetizing the game
- The audience and discoverability that would not exist otherwise
- The Steam API, achievements, cloud saves
- The client itself, content management, validation, and Linux compatibility tools
- Network and operational security
- (edit) Also keep in mind that Steam and its services are operated by experts. A game developer would have to hire the experts or get training.
That’s where the cut goes.
People should really read the Steamworks documentation to get an idea of the absurd amount of services Steam offers https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/home
Yeah, I think the big difference between Steam and Google Play and the App Store is that Steam does not own Windows and has actual competition.
I think asking for a cut just because you own the OS is despicable, but Steam is actually providing a service.
Steam does own SteamOS but they also bundle a third party software repo (flathub).
Valve has about 100 employees, Steam is operated by about 40, but I would love to have a source on the “generational wealth” part. Most of the income is likely spent on operational costs, like the aforementioned massive CDN infrastructure. If you’ve never worked in corporate-level networking, it might elude you how ridiculously fucking expensive stuff gets, especially at a worldwide scale.
The Community > Discussions page for a game is one of Steam’s most underrated features. The amount of times I’ve wanted to know something super specific about a game prior to buying and found exactly the info I was looking for in the Discussions page. Oftentimes with developer comments on said feature clearly labeled. So clutch.
You forget to mention the cut that goes into the ceo billion dollar worth fleet of mega yachts
https://luxurylaunches.com/transport/gabe-newell-luxury-yachts.php
Success is not illegal. In Valve and Gaben’s case, it’s deserved, and probably as clean as you’ll ever see.
I firmly believe that Steam has allowed fair competition to exist. Epic had the greatest chance to become viable competition, but they fumbled the store’s launch, poached Metro Exodus and fucked over the people who preordered, did not have the foresight to implement some kind of preloading for Borderlands 3, and pissed people off when they refused to allow non-exclusive indie games to exist on the store while they made an exception for Cyberpunk 2077. In that time, the only thing that Valve did that might have hurt EGS is refuse to host store pages and ads for games that weren’t going to launch on their platform. Shortly after that, Valve released the Steam Deck (the most pro-consumer handheld I’ve seen to date), SteamOS (free), Proton (free), DXVK (free), Gamescope (free), and have contributed (for free) to upstream projects like Wine. Of all the billionaires, Gaben is the only one I can think of that I’m okay with being a billionaire.
That’s all nice, but you’re dreaming if you think any of that adds up to 30% of the value of a video game.
I don’t think that’s exactly how it works… It isn’t just the value of the game, it’s the exposure and distribution that it gets just for being on Steam. I imagine that’s well worth the 30% to most, which is why most devs seem OK with it.
It does seem slightly high to this non-expert, but I don’t really know enough to say for sure that it’s anti-competitive or anything.
We can always go back to the old ways of having a download from the company website and downloading directly from them. What? Nobody wants to pay for bandwidth? Nobody wants to have to pay for secure management of credentials and billing? :O
Those days didn’t even exist (or if they did, they were very short). I feel like Steam came out just before the broadband boom (when they released HL2, it was still on five CDs). And by the time other devs started switching, most of them just went to Steam.
However, re: the broadband thing, they could distribute with bittorrent, kind of like how linux distros do it.
Uh, all games had patches and mappacks downloaded directly from the game’s distributor. It was extremely slow, hence the invention of CDNs like filehippo, hwfiles, 2cows etc and some gaming companies (at the time you could rent your own server and host the games. Incredible, huh? You could also have LAN parties and play with your clan against other clans all using LAN, no internet required) were also doing mirroring of those files (in Italy it was gamearena and ngi, for example). Steam wasn’t even a thing.
Nobody wants to pay for bandwidth? Nobody wants to have to pay for secure management of credentials and billing? :O
They absolutely would if it didn’t mean getting deprioritized on Steam. Those things aren’t that difficult or expensive these days. I could have secure management of credentials and billing up in a weekend if I needed it (correctly), and I’m a single developer.
Steam is better than Microsoft, Apple, Google and Tencent. Using monopoly power to maintain the 30% standard is still a problem.
For bandwidth, it’d absolutely make sense if a game that’s 10GiB+ because uncompressed audio and pre-rendered cutscenes (and likely huge day-1 updates) had to pay more of a cut to its platform than a 200MiB (or less) game. Particularly if the smaller game doesn’t even have multi-player.
I am one to always call out rent seeking where I see it… But I don’t really see how Steam fits in there. Some of us are old enough to remember when HL2 came out, and things began transitioning from physical media to Steam. No dev was forced to do anything, and for years most people still bought physical games for everything other than Valve games.
The reason other devs started switching over, and it became dominant, is because it’s just a damn good service (and also because broadband just started getting more affordable).
Watch out for valve pr team shilling online
The only actually decent big company I can think of with a decent product and a track record of investing in open source and consumer benefiting solutions is being defended online. Shock.
The only actually decent big company I can think of with a decent product
A company that promotes gambling to underage kids with a proprietary third party launcher.
What are you doing on dbzer0 btw?
What are you doing on dbzer0 btw?
Are you gatekeeping piracy to a dude simply because they don’t think Valve is the devil? Bruh, you need to go outside.
A company that increases mental health of all users through entertainment, pushes the boundary of corporate responsibility and basically solves depression through their carefully crafted launcher.
See, I can also make up bullshit by extrapolating to the extreme.
Private companies, for better or worse, are beholden only to the boss. No shareholder value to worry about.
That’s the only reason steam hasn’t been turning the thumbscrews on developers for stage 3 enshittification profit seeking.
And why I’m clenching it for the day Gaben leaves. It will probably be disastrous.
30% is the industry standard across the board, with the exception of Epic which takes 12%. However, Epic has already shown that it’s ready to dump loads of money into store exclusivity deals and tons of free games, so I will argue it’s for the sake of growing the number of users and developers using their platform.
But do they, or any other competitor or similar store, offer the same functionality as Steam? rtxn already mentioned some. And there’s more. And then there’s the fact that Valve is using all that money not only to stuff the pockets of alread rich people (not that Gabe isn’t a multi-millionaire if not billionaire, idk), but actually puts it back into the industry: Their own store, Linux/Proton (you may not care, but Microsoft becoming a monopoly in PC gaming is no good), and hardware (with their Steam Deck handheld, and VR stuffs).
Steam might be the biggest player when it comes to storefronts, but it’s because they’ve actually earned it. And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene (other than existing). In fact, they keep trying, and keep failing, and then going back to Steam.
I’m not opposed to more money going to developers, but let’s not single out Steam, who (perhaps besides GOG? I am not familiar enough with it) is doing the most for users and develpers.
And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene
Doesn’t Steam also mandate that a game on Steam that’s also on other platforms MUST have the lowest price on Steam? So if a game goes on sale on another store, the Steam version must also match that sale within a given time period.
That’s a pretty big road block, especially if a developer might be willing to sell for a lower price on another storefront that takes another cut.
THAT is actively blocking competition.
That requirement only exists when you also offer a Steam key for the game that’s being sold. So Valve is actually the good guy here: You can sell on another store, where Steam doesn’t get any money, and give the user a Steam key, provided by Steam for free, and the only thing they ask is to match the price on Steam.
Don’t offer a Steam key, and you can pick any price.
That is my understanding of the issue.
There is a claim by some developers that Valve was pressuring them behind the scenes (“don’t offer your game for cheaper elsewhere or else we’ll take it down from our store”) a while ago, but I’ve never seen appropriate proof of it, and that was part of (an earlier?) lawsuit.
We should regularly be seeing lower All-Time-Lows for most multi-platform games on non-Steam platforms then, right?
I don’t think we do. Why not?
They absolutely pressure developers to not sell cheaper elsewhere, even without a Steam key.
http://blog.wolfire.com/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-class-action
Steam might be the best of the gatekeepers, but they’re still anticompetitive.
The other comment points out that it’s only a case of selling steam keys where steam must have the lowest price.
I released a game a while back and while reading the terms it sounded like I couldn’t link my Steam store page to another storefront where the game was available cheaper. Which, honestly, also kind of fair.
But again, I think that’s really only if you’re selling steam keys. If you sold the game DRM-free on your own website, I can’t imagine they’d take down your company website.
If you link to an Itch page or something similar that might be a thornier issue because they’re primarily a storefront.
I’m of the opinion that my game costs X unless it’s discounted to Y. I don’t see the appeal to the end user of having a dozen different prices on a dozen different storefronts.
I could see a situation where a developer wants to always earn, say, $10 from their game. So on Steam it might sell for $13, on another platform it might be $11 to show the difference in platform fees. But I wouldn’t do that because it’s putting me before my players, and that’s not why I make games.
I could see a situation where a developer wants to always earn, say, $10 from their game. So on Steam it might sell for $13, on another platform it might be $11 to show the difference in platform fees.
Yeah, this is the kind of thing I was picturing.
I’ve looked into it and this actually does happen in some other regions’ pricing! But not many people seem to be talking about it happening in USD/CAD, at least at a glance.
I’m still curious as to why that difference would be.
Thank you for sharing your experience!
Epic is in stage 1 of enshittification. They will offer a great deal (at their economic expense) to capture users and providers.
It isn’t enshittification because they never had a high-quality product to offer.
I wonder who are the people buying games from the epic game store over Steam or gog.
I’ve gotten a ton of free games on epic but I’m pretty sure I’ve yet to buy a game on there.
The EU has a term for what steam is: a gatekeeper. Sure our current overlord is mostly benign, but at the end of the day that doesn’t mean they should be allowed free reign.
“On 6 September 2023 the European Commission designated for the first time six gatekeepers - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft. In total, 22 core platform services provided by those gatekeepers have been designated.”
That’s a direct quote from their website. Perhaps you can elaborate on what specifically makes Valve a gatekeeper in this space, and why they have not been labeled one under EU law by the Digital Markets Act and those who enforce it?
I’m especially curious about how you came to this conclusion. I’m also curious about the do’s and don’t section of this article and what you might feel Valve has fallen afoul of as their obligations to the public and their competitors under this law.
Gatekeepers are large digital platforms providing any of a pre-defined set of digital services (‘core platform services’), such as online search engines, app stores, and messenger services. These companies have:
- a strong economic position, significant impact on the internal market and are active in multiple EU countries;
- a strong intermediation position, meaning that they link a large user base to a large number of businesses;
- an entrenched and durable position in the market, meaning that their position has been stable over time.
The only reason steam evaded the label is that they’re too small and the EU has bigger fish to fry atm.
My extremely Baby’s First Monopoly take is that whatever your feelings about specific aspects of Steam’s service, or Valve in general, no individual company should exert this much power over the fortunes and overall culture of an artform. As such, I welcome efforts such as Wolfire’s to challenge Valve and Steam, even if I may not agree with the detail of the suit in question.
What a stupid take. Valve isn’t doing anything anti competitive, they just provide an objectively better service which is why everyone uses it. Anyone can put their game up on Steam, Gog, Epic, Uplay, and Origin at the same time. Valve doesn’t own the space, and tbh we’re probably getting the best deal we can get with them being the top dog, cuz you know Microsoft and the like would never treat us that well.
The closest thing I can think of wrt competitive rules is their price parity rule, where if you sell your steam keys (note that. not epic or uplay, just steam.) yourself, the price can’t be noticeably lower (or a sale can’t happen) without a comparable discount/sale on Steam within a reasonable timeframe.
The closest thing I can think of wrt competitive rules is their price parity rule, where if you sell your steam keys (note that. not epic or uplay, just steam.) yourself, the price can’t be noticeably lower (or a sale can’t happen) without a comparable discount/sale on Steam within a reasonable timeframe.
That’s pretty anti-competitive, unless I’m misunderstanding it.
If Epic takes a smaller cut, a developer might be willing to sell it at a lower price than on Steam. But if Steam says that the sale on Steam needs to be the same, then that means the developer can’t put out the same sale on Steam (since Steam takes a bigger cut).
So instead, they’d have to make the sale price equal to the price they’d be willing to accept after taking Steam’s cut into consideration…which would be higher than the price they’d be willing to sell for on Epic.
That’s bad for developers AND consumers.
We should be seeing lower All-Time-Lows off of Steam than on Steam then, right?
Do we regularly see that?
They say that for legal reasons, but their actions are different. If you look at the actual Wolfire complaint, they say they were pressured regardless of steam keys.
I would absolutely agree if it were limited to steam keys, but it’s not. Steam can deprioritize your game in more ways than one. Even just not putting your AAA quality $60 game in the featured games list is a big deal.
If you all just give them a pass, they’ll keep doing this. If they get criticism for it, they’ll likely sweep it under the rug and pretend it was just the Steam key thing the whole time. In the second case, you should expect to see games beginning to sell on Epic (or on their own site) at a lower price than on Steam. There’s a reason you don’t see this now, and it’s not because of steam keys.
It’s specifically Steam keys, even says so in the quote. If they sell it on Epic for a lower price and it doesn’t come with a Steam key then there are no restrictions on the price.
So we should be seeing lower All-Time-Lows on Epic than on Steam, right?
Do we?
Comment sections under these articles are always filled with two kinds of people:
-
Ones who won’t miss the water until the well runs dry.
-
Ones who understand what it means to have a well.
I am now confused, not sure if because I can’t recognize the well or I am too thirsty.
