I was quoting the first part of the predatory pricing wiki in that reply to them. They haven't read it, and they have no idea what they're asking for.
Think I'll just ignore them now.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Tim Sweeney: Not sure why Steam is still taking 30%
- Thread starter Renekton
- Start date
I was quoting the first part of the predatory pricing wiki in that reply to them. They haven't read it, and they have no idea what they're asking for.
Think I'll just ignore them now.
Stone Ocean
Member
Holy shit you can't possibly be this daft
The border is whatever the market is doing. If everyone is doing 30% then going well below 30% is predatory pricing, it's not fucking rocket science.
Pureauthor
Member
If Steam's userbase was split up into five different companies the 'average indie dev' would still be in the exact same situation because either they rely on the people going to the big storefronts to get eyeballs on their games.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Don't forget MMOs, Minecraft, LoL, and all of the major IP in the Asian market that aren't on Steam
God that monopoly, eh?
ThatsMytrunks
Member
At Steam Dev Days Sweeney talked about the future of technology for a solid 30 minutes without saying anything concrete. I'm guessing after this and also that, he won't be back.
The cut is artificially set.
It could be at 20,30,40 or whatever amount and you would make the same post.
Your "argument" can be made against any price cut ever made in every market.
I don't think you guys understand the severity of the situation, Steam very much has a Monopoly.
LordRaptor
Member
Nope.
I mean, it'd be pretty dumb not to, because then anyone browsing steam looking to buy your game definitely won't be able to, but if they wanted they could sell steam keys only via epicgames.com
This is wrong.
No, I'm pretty sure you can't sell Steam keys without selling your game on Steam. And you're also not allowed to have your Steam version cost 1000$ and sell your game for 30$ or something on your own site. Developers have to give Steam users 'fair prices'.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Fwiw, I think being able to take 30% of basically every transaction on a platform is ridiculous, whether its Valve or Apple.
I'm a little less vexxed about the practice on game consoles, since that hardware is often sold for a very meagre profit (that doesn't cover overall R&D costs) with the expectation it will be made up via software cuts. Apple doesn't have this argument with the iPhone, and the only thing Valve actually creates is the Steam client, which is hardly the pinnacle of software engineering.
I wonder, however, if you could get away with consistently selling a game at a 30% higher base price on Steam.
I'm a little less vexxed about the practice on game consoles, since that hardware is often sold for a very meagre profit (that doesn't cover overall R&D costs) with the expectation it will be made up via software cuts. Apple doesn't have this argument with the iPhone, and the only thing Valve actually creates is the Steam client, which is hardly the pinnacle of software engineering.
I wonder, however, if you could get away with consistently selling a game at a 30% higher base price on Steam.
(GafMobile is so frustrating. Can't find ignore user button)
Context matters. If GOG, Origin, Humble all lowered their cuts, then the onus would be on Valve to lower their cut to stay competitive. But because Valve is the dominant market leader, if they lowered the price first it would be seen as a predatory pricing move to bull-out the competition.
Steam Link. Steam Controller. Steam Machines. Steam VR. SteamOS. Steam API for workshop, cards, market, VAC.
Let's acknowledge Valve do more than just chuck out a client and nothing more.
zombieshavebrains
I have not used cocaine
It's only shocking if it fits people's agenda about how evil valve really is.
Stone Ocean
Member
Valve does way more than just the Steam client lol
Shifty1897
Member
Comparing Steam to Visa or Mastercard is idiotic, but I do agree that a 30% cut on digital storefronts is killing developers and something needs to be done.
Side note, does GoG charge 30%? If I was GoG, I'd try and undercut Steam, maybe convince Ubisoft and EA their storefronts aren't worth it and killing potentials sales, and negotiate PC exclusivity. If that were to happen, it would create pressure on Steam to compete.
Side note, does GoG charge 30%? If I was GoG, I'd try and undercut Steam, maybe convince Ubisoft and EA their storefronts aren't worth it and killing potentials sales, and negotiate PC exclusivity. If that were to happen, it would create pressure on Steam to compete.
LordRaptor
Member
Yes you can and no you don't.
Although this is recently changed somewhat for certain developers, but its not exactly clear how.
e:
If you sell your game on your own website for the same price as Steam sells it, you make 30% extra per sale.
This is also how websites like GMG and Humble can sell steamkeys cheaper than steam day one - they buy at a discount from the publisher, and then sell at a reduced price to undercut steam.
GoG is 30%. Everyone is 30%, except humble bundle which is 25%.
Boxed retail pays developers less.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
30% is somewhat reasonable to run the entire infrastructure and ensure users can download and redownloaded these titles.
However, it is a big chunk of money knowing how small the pie will become when you add in publisher cut, etc.
However, it is a big chunk of money knowing how small the pie will become when you add in publisher cut, etc.
People who don't use Steam features and hardware regularly have the tendancy to ignore the existence of these.
UnemployedVillain
Member
They don't, so your hypotheticals are dumb and nonsensical
PetriP-TNT
Member
The 👏 30% 👏 cut 👏 is 👏 used 👏 for 👏 many 👏 other 👏 things 👏 than 👏 just 👏 paying 👏 for 👏 the 👏 bandwidth
Mr. Phellps
Member
People are up in arms about this 30%, but get this: if you're a writer and want to self-publish an e-book on Amazon, unless you're planning to stay Amazon-exclusive, all you get is 35% percent of the sale.
In other news, you know hilariously nothing about what you're talking about.
Thats fine though, cause it isnt Valve taking the cut /s
B-but, Steam taking a 30% cut is killing developers.
Yeah and this isn't true.
It depends on the circumstances, a market leader lowering it's price to the lowest doesn't automatically mean it's predatory pricing.
There can be endless reasons why a company may lower the price of it's product.
And this was my last post to you, because i don't need an ignore button to ignore you.
TVexperto
Member
This is what angers me so much about the gaming community. Imagine EA would have created steam and be the main online store for games and they would take such a cut and have bad support like steam (unlike the real ea origins which as amazing support), they would get so much shit from neogaf and all the other gamers. but because its steam its always right what they do no matter how greedy and anti consumer and anti dev they are.
Like Help Desk, Customer Service, and Testers to verify builds.
Yup. This has to be quoted on every page, because people are dumb.
EA takes a 30% cut on Origin....
and they don't offer half the features steam does. To devs or consumers.
Their online client is also even older than steam is. It was just really, really shit for the longest of times.
Also, Valve got plenty of shit for steam. Then it got better.
Stone Ocean
Member
Yeah, because Steam wasn't fucking crucified at the start.
Sad Affleck
Member
Well said. Valve created the digital PC games market as it exists today. Many developers are thriving on PC today because Valve invested in the PC platform and stuck with it. Just a few years ago many developers seemed ready to call time of death on PC gaming qnd move on. This was Epic Games' position on PC gaming seven years ago:
http://kotaku.com/5541266/epic-blames-pirates-for-console-first-development
So, yeah. Valve deserves every penny it gets.
Strange how you only allow for nuance and complicating factors when it supports your fantasy narrative.
So is this just a general Valve shitposting thread where idiots posts without reading anything at all?
It's also hilarious people trying to compare EA support with Valve. Origin barely had any fucking features or even fucking games. They don't need to invest all that much into support because there is barely any reasons to use it.
Meanwhile, I'm pretty sure Valve gets around 100x the number of customers contacting CS that EA does per day.
Why are people still even talking to this guy? It was clear he lost the plot a number of posts ago.
LordRaptor
Member
Aren't they all?
I suppose we haven't had anyone talking about "master races" yet, which is something.
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/support
I really doubt EA gets close to a hundred thousand support requests per day (though I guess most of the support requests Steam gets are refund requests, at least based on the last 24 hours).
Which is an even worse argument than attempting to compare them. Steam is far more than a bandwidth provider and simple transaction processor.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Exactly. So if I charged Steam buyers 30% more, I'd be making the same amount regardless of where people shopped. I wonder if you could get away with that consistently (ie, not just during special sales), or if Valve would tell you to cut it out or stop generating keys.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
They can bring their app over to Google Play store. who also takes the same amount of cut.
Yah and they also profit off from selling consoles.
While Steam offers feature and doesn't charge money for online gaming. I don't understand your point.
you can't be serious.
What logic is that? Valve has to rely on 30% cut for income, while console makers make money through 30% cut, "meager" hardware sales (and online subscription fee). There are more ways for console makers to earn money but their 30% cut is justified because one of their money making channels produces meagre profit?
Diablohead
Member
Tim Sweeney alt account?
Abilidebob
Member
It's honestly impressive how the thread managed to get worse as time went on.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
After the earlier discussion in the thread, I thought an interesting thought experiment would be to find out what Valve's effective cut would be for a variety of AAA games. By "effective cut", what I mean is assuming they take 30% for on-Steam sales and 0% for off-Steam sales. This, note, does not include the fact that they lose money on off-Steam sales because of e.g. costs of running Steam and people being able to download the game, just the assumption that they get 0% on the copies sold elsewhere.
Here's how I proxy this; Steam reviews indicate if a game was sold on Steam or not sold on Steam. Although it may be the case that off-Steam purchasers are more or less likely to leave a review than on-Steam purchasers, for the purposes of this thought experiment, let's assume they are equally likely. As a result, I can extract the percentage of sales that are on-Steam versus off-Steam and use that to calculate Valve's effective take. There are a few methodological reasons why this isn't quite accurate, but the errors seem like they are conservative in some cases and permissive in others so I'd say this is ballpark true.
All games aren non-F2P, released for at least 1 year, by different publishers, at different pricepoints, different genres, and sold on at least one external store:
Final Fantasy VII: 25.7%
Lego Star Wars The Complete Saga: 25.6%
Grand Theft Auto V: 25.5%
Five Nights at Freddy's: 24.9%
Dead Space 2: 24.1%
Max Payne 3: 23.9%
The Witness: 23.3%
RimWorld: 22.1%
The Walking Dead Season 1: 22.0%
Enslaved: 22.0%
Fallout: New Vegas: 21.3%
Football Manager 2017: 21.3%
Resident Evil 5: 20.9%
Cook, Serve, Delicious: 19.5%
Hitman: Absolution: 19.3%
Just Cause 3: 18.9%
Dead Rising 3: 18.9%
Dark Souls II: 18.5%
Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor: 18.4%
Burnout Paradise: 18.2%
The Evil Within: 17.1%
Napoleon: Total War: 14.8%
The median of that list is around 21%. So perhaps the people arguing "Why doesn't Valve take 20%" might observe that Valve does, in fact, take 20% under real world conditions.
Here's how I proxy this; Steam reviews indicate if a game was sold on Steam or not sold on Steam. Although it may be the case that off-Steam purchasers are more or less likely to leave a review than on-Steam purchasers, for the purposes of this thought experiment, let's assume they are equally likely. As a result, I can extract the percentage of sales that are on-Steam versus off-Steam and use that to calculate Valve's effective take. There are a few methodological reasons why this isn't quite accurate, but the errors seem like they are conservative in some cases and permissive in others so I'd say this is ballpark true.
All games aren non-F2P, released for at least 1 year, by different publishers, at different pricepoints, different genres, and sold on at least one external store:
Final Fantasy VII: 25.7%
Lego Star Wars The Complete Saga: 25.6%
Grand Theft Auto V: 25.5%
Five Nights at Freddy's: 24.9%
Dead Space 2: 24.1%
Max Payne 3: 23.9%
The Witness: 23.3%
RimWorld: 22.1%
The Walking Dead Season 1: 22.0%
Enslaved: 22.0%
Fallout: New Vegas: 21.3%
Football Manager 2017: 21.3%
Resident Evil 5: 20.9%
Cook, Serve, Delicious: 19.5%
Hitman: Absolution: 19.3%
Just Cause 3: 18.9%
Dead Rising 3: 18.9%
Dark Souls II: 18.5%
Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor: 18.4%
Burnout Paradise: 18.2%
The Evil Within: 17.1%
Napoleon: Total War: 14.8%
The median of that list is around 21%. So perhaps the people arguing "Why doesn't Valve take 20%" might observe that Valve does, in fact, take 20% under real world conditions.
It's an issue with Valve/Steam threads. People push a narrative, ignore what's been happening recently, work off old info, use incorrect terms, ignore posts or entire pages...
This actually went better than some past Steam threads. :/