Read the post you're quoting next time.
Please, by all means, release a game on the PC without releasing it on Steam and without it being an MMO funded by some gigantic company like EA or Nexon and see what happens.
-
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
Read the post you're quoting next time.
Please, by all means, release a game on the PC without releasing it on Steam and without it being an MMO funded by some gigantic company like EA or Nexon and see what happens.
HandsomeCharles
Member
This is a good post. Im my personal opinion, I feel the "standard" 30% take is too much but I totally agree that the argument is not nearly as simple as "The raw cost to the distributor is far below 30% of RRP".
Digital distribution platforms provide services to developers that are worth far more than the raw physical costs of maintaining said platform. All that you listed above (If handled by a developer themselves) would require a lot of administration, and would probably require hiring additional staff. The fact that these services are provided inclusively without any additional charges is incredibly useful to developers (Especially small ones), and that is why these companies can justify a percentage cost that is higher than the actual monetary cost of distribution.
That said, I still think 30% is too high. 15-20% would sit better with me.
GOG also takes 30%, are they also a monopoly?
Not to mention it's the place where the Devs get the most support and features for those 30%.
If you couldn't release a PC game outside of Steam and be successful, Riot wouldnt be Riot and Mojang wouldn't be Mojang. Those companies started small and built audiences outside of Steam.
So its a monopoly,
except for X, Y and Z caveats.
which don't count, just because, so we can shoehorn in monopoly to apply.
Unlike Console Warrior forum bullshit that occurs on GAF and elsewhere.
Financial terms like monopoly are not so easily malleable to fanboy and platform warrior wishes.
So a small company that makes it big without steam doesn't count, and so does a big company that can make its own store also doesn't count. My, my so many have to not count for Steam to be a monopoly.
So what you meant to say was:
You cannot release a game on PC without steam and make money!*
*unless you do, but then it doesn't count.
Minecraft is the most successful videogame of all time and that did exactly that.
Unepic and Project Zomboid were also both pretty successful before they came to steam.
Being on steam will definitely help your case but you're not guaranteed to bomb if you aren't.
ISee
Member
Haha... It would actually make sense for valve to reduce their cut for AAA releases by 25% (maybe for preorders and during launch week) and to push the reduced price to their costumers. Pre Order CoD:Next for 70 on Uplay, Amazon, Origin, Gamestop or for 50 on steam... such a move would impact the industry in a big way and I'm pretty sure valve would be able to take the hit in income for years. Maybe even long enough to bleed out some of their competition.
Also steam is the only store that gives me the option to refund a game, with a no questions asked policy. That's such an amazing way to fight bad PC ports, it's hard to get mad at them for taking the same cut as everybody else because of it.
Also steam is the only store that gives me the option to refund a game, with a no questions asked policy. That's such an amazing way to fight bad PC ports, it's hard to get mad at them for taking the same cut as everybody else because of it.
Really? That's standard practice AFAIK. Apple does it and I imagine Sony, MS and Nintendo aren't far off.
The irony is that, them taking a smaller cut that they could afford too and other stores couldn't would get them closer to a monopoly that people so love to latch onto Steam.
Other digital stores couldn't hope to compete with the features, userbase of Steam if they also lowered their cut of sales.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Actually Tim's 30% comments remind me much of John Riccitello from the past when he said that "game prices were too high"
Of course he still charged $60 like everyone else, even when EA launched Origin and had the opportunity to undercut others.
Just like Epic, and everyone else charges 30% too, but somehow when Valve does it, it's wrong.
Just seems to me, to be popular to hate on Valve these days.
And as was said earlier in the thread, what do you think would happen if Steam took less than 30%?
More would flock to it, and it's position as a not-monopoly would be more entrenched.
Of course he still charged $60 like everyone else, even when EA launched Origin and had the opportunity to undercut others.
Just like Epic, and everyone else charges 30% too, but somehow when Valve does it, it's wrong.
Just seems to me, to be popular to hate on Valve these days.
And as was said earlier in the thread, what do you think would happen if Steam took less than 30%?
More would flock to it, and it's position as a not-monopoly would be more entrenched.
Something to remember (again!
) is that you can release a game on any storefront, and not give Steam your money - Steamworks.Now, does this mean your game will sell like hot cakes? It depends - sell on every store but Steam, and you may be able to make money. It's debatable.
But the fact that it's debatable means you're not just giving Steam money for nothing. You're giving Steam money for eyeballs (ew!). That 30% you give them opens-up a ton of possible consumers. Will your game still sell and make money? *shrugs* Who knows. Your reach is wider, but it's still not certain either way. But, again, it doesn't make it a monoply, it just makes it a dominant market force.
Edit: Not aimed specifically at you, just your comment spurred my thoughts.
To the point that they unironically want Valve do the one thing that can probably cause them to go down the path to the real monopoly that everyone wants to label them as.
completely undercut everyone with a lower % sale take and muscle other stores out of the market.
I know you're joking, but other people who suggest this seriously ought to look at Predatory pricing. A literally anti-competitive move that would only reinforce Steam's dominant position.
inpHilltr8r
Member
lol ts is jealous
still less than retail
still less than retail
AHA-Lambda
Member
Digitally? How so?
Either you buy them direct from XBL/PSN or buy Prepaid cards from select large scale retailers.
As for PC, you can buy direct from Steam, pre-paid cards from those same large scale retailers, or 3rd party reselling sites like GMG, or alternative distributors like Origin and GOG.
PC has alternative services to Steam and also more consumer friendly ways to engage with Steam.
So how is Steam a monopoly, but XBL/PSN is not?
There is no alternative online service to engage with as a consumer on those platforms, there are multiple on PC.
One of the basic lessons they teach you in game development, and really, in any discipline ever, is "never bank on being the exception."
Point the exceptions out to me all day, but, hey, they're exceptions. I'll take you to the Wal-Mart games aisle, or Gamestop, or Best Buy, and we can go looking for the PC Gaming section if you'd like.
Steam is an effective monopoly.
I'd be curious if any of you have actually gone and sat down, face to face, with a publisher, talked about your options, gone back and forth with your dev team about what to do, what the best release strategy is, budgeting your development costs and all that. Because I have.
There's a reason there's only one Minecraft. There's a reason League of Legend's only competition comes from two multi-billion dollar companies. There's a reason that 3,496 games were added to Steam so far this year.
Project Zomboid definitely wasn't pretty successful. It's why they had to show up on Steam. Slitherine, which adamantly refused for years to put their games on Steam, eventually had to give in. Almost everyone who has elected not to release games on Steam gives in eventually.
It's an effective monopoly.
The reason I've used this term since my initial post is because it does satisfy the silly need to be as pointlessly correct as some of you want to be. An "effective monopoly" is a term used to describe a situation where a business might not technically be a monopoly, but more or less is, due to circumstances beyond what one would consider to be a "real monopoly." While it's possible to slip past an effective monopoly, most of the time, you're left without any superior alternatives, and that's absolutely true of Steam. Sure, you CAN go release, say, Tropico 6 on the Humble Store as a DRM-free game, but if you do that, you'll achieve a non-viable sales figure. Most of the people I know who have released on multiple sites point to Humble as their second-biggest source of income, and it's less than 10% of all the money they make. It's not feasible to release outside of Steam.
Nothing is preventing you from releasing outside of Steam. It's not impossible, and that would make Steam a "real monopoly," but it's not logical to try unless you have massive infrastructure in place.
Shouting "Minecraft" at me is like saying "Doc, winning the lottery is an acceptable way to make a living!" Like, sure, if you win, but the chances are way too low to matter. You can't bet on it. You shouldn't bet on it.
Like, sorry, but ya'll are flat out wrong about this. Steam is, absolutely, by every definition, an effective monopoly. As such, there's no reason not to simply call it a monopoly, because it is. It's just not the specific kind of monopoly you're referring to. Doesn't make it not a monopoly, just means you need to learn more about how developers and publishers have to operate to sell video games.
EDIT: I realize I sound really snarky and judgemental here. Sorry. Pissy mood. IRL shit. Annoyed by people who wanna crow "but you're wrong" and don't know anything either though.
Dominance (economics)
And, again(!), an effective monopoly from our (or even a dev/pub) perspective is not an effective monopoly from a legal perspective. Words matter, especially since this thread is based off specious reasoning that Visa and MasterCard do the same work as Valve.
Let's go further:
It's not a De facto Monopoly. Even with dominance, Steam does not fit this working, either:
To the bolded, yes they do. I wonder why there's been no anti-trust filings against Valve regarding their "monopoly"?
You could argue that Steam is a Natural Monoply. Certainly this fit
at first. But at this stage, Steam's dominance is both valued by pubs/devs (30% cut, high list of features, large number of users), and has not been truly competed against
(You can all tell I'm bored, right? )
And, again(!), an effective monopoly from our (or even a dev/pub) perspective is not an effective monopoly from a legal perspective. Words matter, especially since this thread is based off specious reasoning that Visa and MasterCard do the same work as Valve.
Let's go further:
It's not a De facto Monopoly. Even with dominance, Steam does not fit this working, either:
To the bolded, yes they do. I wonder why there's been no anti-trust filings against Valve regarding their "monopoly"?
You could argue that Steam is a Natural Monoply. Certainly this fit
at first. But at this stage, Steam's dominance is both valued by pubs/devs (30% cut, high list of features, large number of users), and has not been truly competed against
(You can all tell I'm bored, right?
)EdwardTeach
Member
Most you are completely misinterpreting Sweeney. He was NOT comparing Steam with Mastercard. He was highlighting the two principle costs to valve: credit card fees and bandwidth. He is making the point that their profit margins are massive.
AHA-Lambda
Member
Here's a question for some:
Do Apple hold a monopoly in the smartphone market?
Now they control much of its profits, which is widely documented, but by definition it is not a monopoly, when there is so much competition elsewhere in that industry.
Yet no one seems to flip their lid over it though.
Only in the gaming industry could people flip out over a similar but much smaller case for just one sector of the overall market, and then on top:
misbrand it as a monopoly when it's not one
attack it for practices that are industry standard, and lastly argue that it should charge even less, which would only entrench their position (that they hate) even more.
Do Apple hold a monopoly in the smartphone market?
Now they control much of its profits, which is widely documented, but by definition it is not a monopoly, when there is so much competition elsewhere in that industry.
Yet no one seems to flip their lid over it though.
Only in the gaming industry could people flip out over a similar but much smaller case for just one sector of the overall market, and then on top:
misbrand it as a monopoly when it's not one
attack it for practices that are industry standard, and lastly argue that it should charge even less, which would only entrench their position (that they hate) even more.
Just want to clear a small misconception: the Humble Store never offered 95% of the cut. What people are remembering is the Humble Widget ( https://www.humblebundle.com/developer/widget ) which is a service they still do offer with a 95% cut.
EGOMON
Member
I have yet to read a convincing argument against why Sony & MS can get away with 30% fee since they support their own platform and giving publishers a platform to sell their games on.
Steam seems to have the advantage of free platform and OS to run on. I will keep reading this thread until someone actually address it
Edit: now reading the new pages
Steam seems to have the advantage of free platform and OS to run on. I will keep reading this thread until someone actually address it
Edit: now reading the new pages
But you're wrong, and seemingly don't know anything. Repeating a false claim does not make it any less false.
A business that sells things does not in any sense become a monopoly, effectively or otherwise, when it reaches the point that all producers desire to have that business sell its products. Everyone wants to be in Walmart. Walmart does not have a monopoly.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Valve's cut isn't so bad. It's VATS that will really hit you. I'm losing $50-$100 a month consistently to VATS taxes.
But hey. That's fucking business. That's how it is done.
NoPiece
Member
It has been printed out a few times already, but the Visa/Mastercard reference was because credit card transaction fees are probably Steam's biggest expense, not that they do the same work.
And the other companies are free to not sell their games on Steam.
It's ironic to see a wealthy man complain about other wealthy men taking a cut of his money.
Steam being the best market to sell on doesn't make them a monopoly. They have plenty of competition but Steam dominates due to being best in class service.
Thinking of them as a monopoly because they help you sell your game better than other services is...very weird to say the least.
The comparison interpretation may be wrong but ends up being far more charitable to Sweeney. The idea that those are the extent of Valve's overhead and cost of services provided is utterly ridiculous.
AHA-Lambda
Member
But again, why is Valve criticised for this?
Their cut is no different from any other store.
Only Valve gets this criticism.
I would take the argument seriously if it was
"30% is too damn high!"
But that's not the argument, it's actually
"Valve taking 30% is too damn high"
No one complains about Sony, MS, Amazon, GOG, UPlay, Origin, Bethesda, Epic(!), Apple, or Google doing it.
Just Valve.
Then the "monopoly" argument comes up again and I feel like bashing my head against a wall.
I'll reiterate my earlier example of Apple not being a monopoly.
Just seems to me it's popular to complain about Valve these days.
Which may be a flaw in his understanding? Given the number of refunds Valve do, I wonder how much higher the card charges are. (Genuinely don't know myself, but Tim's assumption that they're "probably Steam's biggest expense" and still only 2-5% seems off to me. *shrugs*)
Are there any solid figures on this? How much do the other fields cost in Valve's infrastructure? Network security and maintenance work? API development and developer support?
Not to mention that Sony and MS take a cut from EVERY copy ever sold be it physical or digital. Valve only takes a cut from games sold directly on their store.
Turin Turambar
Member
Because they can, and because they like money.
There is a real point in that, maybe if there wasn't a monopoly in the market, digital stores would have to compete harder between them, and then lower a bit their margins because of that.
And btw, other stores like iTunes or Google store are also monopolies in their respective markets (iOS market app, Android market app) so saying 'others also use the same % cut' isn't a good argument.
There is a real point in that, maybe if there wasn't a monopoly in the market, digital stores would have to compete harder between them, and then lower a bit their margins because of that.
And btw, other stores like iTunes or Google store are also monopolies in their respective markets (iOS market app, Android market app) so saying 'others also use the same % cut' isn't a good argument.
And what about Epic, then?
There's a difference between "wanting to be in Walmart and being okay if not in Walmart" and "it is utterly moronic to release a product in a world where you will fail if Walmart doesn't carry your product."
It's always good to be carried in as many stores as possible.
Steam is an "effective monopoly" because there are no viable alternatives unless you can afford to create one (like EA) or if you win the lottery (like Minecraft).
GhostTrick
Banned
So your point is because there's a "monopoly", digital stores wont compet harder. There's a reason why everyone use a 30% cut.
Opportune anecdote time.
I've been searching hard for someplace that sells the Horizon:Zero Dawn Expansion.
My best bet is to use a 5% discount code to buy a PSN card from CDKeys to then activate that on PSN to buy it on the only store that sells it. Saves me, like, £1. Woo.
*grumble*
I've been searching hard for someplace that sells the Horizon:Zero Dawn Expansion.
My best bet is to use a 5% discount code to buy a PSN card from CDKeys to then activate that on PSN to buy it on the only store that sells it. Saves me, like, £1. Woo.
*grumble*
Chairmanchuck
Member
Itchio seems to work quite well for some indies.
And the reason that Valve is a "monopoly" (or the to-go-place) for most games is because of the convenience, that other competitors dont offer. Why should I buy from a competitor with e.g. no refund-system, no regional pricing, no cloud-saves, no fast download servers (looking at Origin e.g.), no "community guides", no BPM support, no workshop, no direct streaming etc.
I personally wouldnt say they are a monopoly, similar to Amazon. Most people buy on Amazon because of the convenience, return stuff, great service etc. Still enough alternatives out there. But if I release a book, I would also put it on Amazon, because thats where I would get the most exposure and coverage.
*nods* I've heard good things about itch.io (mostly on Rob Fearon's twitter). They're definitely the most likely "true" Steam competitor in the near future.
KojiKnight
Member
The last thing we want as consumers is for steam to charge less than every other one just because they are the biggest. Steam is already the largest market on pc, this would give them a price advantage over GOG or Humble on top of everything else.
You can't have a successful pen company if you don't sell pens in Walmart. Show me a successful pen company that doesn't sell in Walmart.
If there's an "except" or an "unless", the word monopoly doesn't apply. Not literally or legally or effectively. It isn't just one.
Valve isn't stifling competition. They don't prevent other stores from making money. Hell, they give out keys for free to let anyone else make as much money as they want. They would be terrible at being a monopoly, if they were one.
Amusing diversion: List all the things that Steam could do if they wanted to become a monopoly or de facto monopoly.
Drop their cut.
Demand exclusivity periods.
Anything else?
Stop giving out keys for free.