-
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
Steam charges the same rate as Sony's, Microsoft's, Apple's, Google's, Amazon's, and even Epic's (read: Tim Sweeney's ) digital app/games stores. Also:
For the new page
For the new page
Consumers clueless about Steam's offerings to devs, quelle surprise.
you're completely and utterly wrong. They do more than Sony Nintendo or Microsoft. "how little valve does for gaming in general " fucking LMAO what a huge showing of complete ignorance.
Saucycarpdog
Member
The image is worldwide but League, World of Tanks, Overwatch, and World of Warcraft are all huge in the west. Battle.net will probably give Steam a run for it's money if they keep adding Activision's biggest games on to it.
Taliban Stan
Member
That's a lot as a number completely in a vacuum but it's not out of line vs most other stuff that gets distributed and what distributors take. Offline or online.
Phatosaurus
Member
Valve pretty much saved PC gaming, and spear headed digital downloads, while still cooperating with other third party stores such as humble bundle.
They can take 40% and whack the extra 10% on to the end consumer, IDGAF, they deserve it for how much they have contributed to improving PC gaming infrastructure.
They can take 40% and whack the extra 10% on to the end consumer, IDGAF, they deserve it for how much they have contributed to improving PC gaming infrastructure.
Haven't seen anyone mention it or maybe I missed it but Sweeney's Keynote at Devcom at Gamescom focused on this topic.
gamesindustry.biz paraphrases parts of his speech.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...a-huge-amount-of-profit-at-developers-expense
He clearly seems to think that all online merchants (not just Steam) are taking advantage of developers. He also seems to think that these storefronts are doing less than they used to but still charging the same cuts.
gamesindustry.biz paraphrases parts of his speech.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...a-huge-amount-of-profit-at-developers-expense
He clearly seems to think that all online merchants (not just Steam) are taking advantage of developers. He also seems to think that these storefronts are doing less than they used to but still charging the same cuts.
Going to quote myself from the top of this page:
Steam charges the same rate as Sony's, Microsoft's, Apple's, Google's, Amazon's, and even Epic's (read: Tim Sweeney's ) digital app/games stores.
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
.
30% is the standard for almost every thing. How about asking the question of when most companies will veer away from this when at a particular volume.
Not to mention a royalty fee on top of that, which makes many of the comments here hilarious, and then of course it's the 0% Valve get for any external sales / keys with third parties, which actually opens the door for variation below 30% at other places / digging into that standard margin to undercut competing third party stores
Not to mention a royalty fee on top of that, which makes many of the comments here hilarious, and then of course it's the 0% Valve get for any external sales / keys with third parties, which actually opens the door for variation below 30% at other places / digging into that standard margin to undercut competing third party stores
Seth Enosh
Member
Good post. The people posting in this thread saying "but Apple/MS/Sony" are missing this context.
This is ultimately something developers, publishers, and storefronts have to fight out in between themselves as part of their business. It's interesting to watch and wonder why 30% has been becoming standard. I suspect the issue is that the publishers with the biggest leverage simply create their own storefront rather than deal with someone else getting a 30% cut, such as Origin or the Windows Store. The ability to easily set up a competing store where you get 100% and have total control prevents the market from forcing steam to lower their 30% cut.
Audioboxer
Member
That I can get behind if I take one thing away from this topic. Paying for online multiplayer is garbage and always will be. We just don't have a choice on console and the strangle-grip MS/Sony have over gamers is never letting go. Sony just put PS+ prices UP... lol.
As for a brief comment on Valves cut, seems to be an industry standard amount. Can't say I don't wish the devs pocketed more, I do, but the world of business is often a harsh cunt. Publishers probably do more damage than the digital distribution platform. They're routinely life sucking or microtransaction/DLC pushing maniacs.
Gaming is a messy beast and the best thing to do is just hate every company, publisher and dev and moan all the time. Loyalty is selling your soul. No one is your friend, the only thing they all want is your wallet (ง ͠° ͟ل͜ ͡°)ง
Digital purchases on my PC should be less than a console which subsidizes hardware cost and marketing from publishing fees.
I feel like 15-20% should be the ballpark, especially as the compute, networking, and storage costs has dropped significantly since Steam started.
The reason Steam hasn't is because it doesn't have significant, direct competition. There's no reason to pass on the operational savings to the consumer.
I'm not saying Steam shouldn't make a profit. They should make a lot of money, instead of obscene amounts of money.
They are less, devs and publishes don't pay royalty fees to Steam like with console manufacturers.
Just like the consoles you have to pay for online because you can't compete against them with multiplayer access because they control it all.
But apparently that is fine because hardware. Which is the new 'console manufactures can do anti-consumer shit' excuse.
But apparently it's STEAM that is being greedy, when they provide online services equal or better then the console manufacturers but for free
But Alas HARDWARE is a cureAll
There are royalty fees in addition to the 30% cut on consoles for digital content? That's straight up highway robbery.
What do you think? Just because it's digital that publishers and devs don't pay for the licensing they pay on physical copies?
You think any of the console manufacturers would let that slide?
Well thanks for the explanation - I'm late to the thread and obviously didn't read it entirely. Seems they are giving a fair deal. Perhaps that's partly why there isn't competition because the market is already fairly efficient.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Dude when you start to call MasterCard and Visa parasitic rent seekers, you already lost.
Yeah that is a big difference between Steam and other store fronts which sell steam keys. They take 0 in for keys sold outside of Steam. How many other digital store fronts do the same thing and take a zero cut outside of their platform? I don't think there are any others.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
"HOW COME NO ONE TOLD ME" the thread.
It's doubly silly compared to this recently unearthed nugget. But why fight the fight you didn't start, right? So much responsibility, so much risk.
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
It's doubly silly compared to this recently unearthed nugget. But why fight the fight you didn't start, right? So much responsibility, so much risk.
I'll parrot for the millionth time, the 30% is the same across all platforms. The App store, Amazon store, Google Play, PSN, XBL, and every other store take the same cut.
Steam is not a monopoly. I'll prove it. Let's play a game. Which of these games were sold on Steam?
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
Team Filler
Member
Let's be completely clear: those savings will never be passed onto the consumer, regardless of where said savings are made. Tim Sweeney isn't complaining about a 30% cut because he wants to reduce the price of purchase for Epic's content, he's complaining because a 30% cut eats into his bottom line. Just like with Blizzard, EA, and Ubisoft, any savings made from selling games directly to the consumer without that 30% cut are not being passed onto the consumer.
Panaphonics
Banned
Well MS tried to Break this quasi Monopol. But thanks to your shittalking its Not happening
Yeah, MS tried to introduce paid MP to PC gaming. Then they left their store for dead when it was struggling. Thats' the company that looks out for devs and consumers.
And the Win10 store is not taking off because it's bad, not because people are mean to it on the internet.
MasterOfPastures
Banned
Sit down, Tim. Valve has earned it's slice of pie.
Stone Ocean
Member
You show up in a a thread with over 10 pages with the same tired excuse for an argument that has been debunked over and over, double down on it and expect a red carpet?
Valve offers an alternative Source Engine licensing option that increases its cut in lieu of an upfront fee. That's how Garry's Mod went from, well, Garry's mod to Garry's commercial success.
I imagine Source 2 licensing will be handled the same way, minus the upfront fee option, but on that note I don't think we're going to see an SDK until L4D3 or whatever Valve's first fully-fledged Source 2 release ends up being.
Great list to show to an indie dev after you told him he doesn't absolutely need to be on Steam, because lol.I'll parrot for the millionth time, the 30% is the same across all platforms. The App store, Amazon store, Google Play, PSN, XBL, and every other store take the same cut.
Steam is not a monopoly. I'll prove it. Let's play a game. Which of these games were sold on Steam?
soldierblue
Member
I'm having one of those days and think Tim Sweeney's comment is stupid, and that he should feel stupid for making it.
Like the least you could do is have the wherewithal to not be a hypocrite because your own storefront takes the same cut.
Seriously.
Like the least you could do is have the wherewithal to not be a hypocrite because your own storefront takes the same cut.
Seriously.
Tim Sweeney's parent company is Tencent. Which incidentally, is on top of that list (nevermind the origins of league of legends).
Indie devs have never had more stores and platforms to release their games onto, phones, consoles, stores from itch.io to steam and everything in between and self publishing on their own website. Steam being so popular with indies has a lot more reasons than just it's size, because there's way bigger fish to be on than steam.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
His tweet framed the context that only Steam is the issue there. Its certainly not people missing the context.
Zeyphersan
Banned
And how many games did you buy on the Games for Windows Live Store?
Panaphonics
Banned
0. Lol
Zeyphersan
Banned
Fascinating.
Valve's cut is standard, but why isn't more of that cut used to improved the Steam app? I swear that I had fewer issues with it 4-5 years ago than I do now (between random start up problems, stalled downloads, and general sluggishness).
I prefer Steam, because I have hundreds of titles on it by this point, and I like some of their policies, but every other gaming app runs better on my machine.
I prefer Steam, because I have hundreds of titles on it by this point, and I like some of their policies, but every other gaming app runs better on my machine.
I'm confused how something that was literally embedded into the operating system of the overwhelming majority of PCs sold was supposed to be "competition". I mean, what if it became so dominant that it became the very thing people think Steam is? And do people not remember the anti-trust filings against MS for doing this exact thing in the browser market?
Anyways, it was shit for consumers, and with its relative failure, MS are now moving towards cross-play WinStore/Steam, so they actually compete on feature-set and price, rather than weird console-like exclusivity of games in a walled garden.
Well, that makes me feel better. I mean, it's not like I paid money for Viva Pinata and cannot play it anymore. At all.
Oh, wait...
ethomaz
Banned
Weltall Zero
Member
Your point is well reasoned and clearly explained. You will be ignored.
That's not the worst part, he had the gall to back it up with hard numbers and even disclosed the statistically sound method by which he arrived to them. I'd be surprised if he's not put permanently on ignore by everone else.
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
.
The quoted is NOT collusion. My company walks away from opportunities all the time so as to not crush the market and weaken our long term profitability for a short term gain. As long as you are not making agreements with competitors, its all good.
Weltall Zero
Member
This thread is embarrassing on both sides.
1) Yes, Steam is a de facto monopoly. Let's not mince words. If you're not Blizzard or a F2P game maker, you will starve if you try to sell your game elsewhere.
2) Unlike consoles, they became a monopoly fair and square, by simply being more attractive than the competition. Stop accusing them of being a monopoly as if it was some nefarious thing they did, especially if you're going to conveniently ignore pretty much every other platform's store is also a monopoly and one enforced by its manufacturer.
3) As pointed out by Stumkapow, Steam's effective cut, factoring in keys sold elsewhere, is closer to 20%. In that regard they're providing more (cloud saves, etc.) for less (no subscription fee, lower effective cut) than pretty much any other store.
4) Sweeny's "UE4 store is smaller so that makes it OK for us to take the same cut" excuse may be the most embarrassing thing in the entire thread.
1) Yes, Steam is a de facto monopoly. Let's not mince words. If you're not Blizzard or a F2P game maker, you will starve if you try to sell your game elsewhere.
2) Unlike consoles, they became a monopoly fair and square, by simply being more attractive than the competition. Stop accusing them of being a monopoly as if it was some nefarious thing they did, especially if you're going to conveniently ignore pretty much every other platform's store is also a monopoly and one enforced by its manufacturer.
3) As pointed out by Stumkapow, Steam's effective cut, factoring in keys sold elsewhere, is closer to 20%. In that regard they're providing more (cloud saves, etc.) for less (no subscription fee, lower effective cut) than pretty much any other store.
4) Sweeny's "UE4 store is smaller so that makes it OK for us to take the same cut" excuse may be the most embarrassing thing in the entire thread.