-
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
Giftofgab24
Member
Everyone that's excusing it because "it's the same as every other store" would be ok with Steam suddenly charging for MP because all the other services do too right?
BudokaiMR2
Member
Uh, this is pretty standard and a complete non-issue.
They invested in their staff and infrastructure and went with the standard rate that all the other platforms have as well.
They invested in their staff and infrastructure and went with the standard rate that all the other platforms have as well.
Abilidebob
Member
Which service on PC charges for online? Are you dreaming right now?
primasaurus
Member
If you build it they will come
Chairmanchuck
Member
Paid Online-MP isnt the industry standard on PC though unlike a 30% cut.
Now just imagine Valve says "15%". Then Valve gets an even bigger monopoly because everyone would want their games on there even more and competitors who still charge 30% will get mad.
Rickenslacker
Banned
What...? This is more about why bother singling out Steam for this, not a statement of whether or not 30% is bad or good.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
Humble takes 15% for themselves, and another 10% for charity for every Humble Store purchase. Developer cut is 75%. Humble claims that 15% is to cover hosting costs, and they have a fraction of the featureset that Valve has with the entire Steam ecosystem. Kinda helps put into perspective how much money is sunk into just providing the user with the products they purchase.
GhostTrick
Banned
Steam werent always a monopoly.
And back in 2007-2008, Apple already took 30%. At the time, Steam was nothing. Google took 30%. Sony and Microsoft took 30%.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
This article is 4 years old. See my post for more recent information:
Humble's just barely better, and they can't opt out of the charity costs.
Steam is different though. Apple, MS and Sony sell and market the devices you launch on - they arguably charge more to cover the investment and costs involved in that.
Steam exists on a platform that is already there - they don't sell PCs they don't sell the operating system installed on them. Their only investment is the storefront software
GhostTrick
Banned
Except the difference is, as a consumer, I dont care. I'm not the one paying the 30%.
josecitoxnyo
Member
They did. Why do you think the first reaction from a pc gamer when a game is announced is "Is it coming on Steam?!?!?!"
Chairmanchuck
Member
They sell Vives and controllers. They invest heavily in R&D.
Abilidebob
Member
Please, let my sarcasm detector be broken.
Steam didn't define the 30% cut being standard is what he/she means. Your second sentence has nothing to do with anything.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
Valve has had multiple hardware initiatives that would give them the same reasoning, then? Steam Boxes were done through partnerships, but they still had to R&D for the Steam Controller, SteamOS, and splitting whatever costs were required to develop the Vive with HTC. Valve and Steam are not just a storefront.
Ah, thanks for the updated info. It's unfortunate that HB has raised their cut because this was/is the main reason why I like to support them.
Robert at Zeboyd Games
Banned
Steam already basically has all the computer games it could want. The only major holdouts are stuff like Blizzard and Valve can't beat the 100% revenue those companies get by selling on their own storefront. No reason for Valve to deviate from the industry standard revenue split.
Totally agree that 30% is an outrageous cut for what the digital storefront actually offers, considering they don't actually build the devices that the store is on like Apple, Sony, Nintendo etc do - they don't create the market.
I'm surprised, though, that all of the publishers are setting up their own stores. They have to understand that that kind of fragmentation will ultimately keep people on Steam for usability reasons alone.
What they should have done is come together and create a non-profit company backed by all of the big boys (every major publisher of PC games) that would create a digital storefront to compete with steam and only take whatever cut it needs to provide a competitive service, 10 or 15% or whatever the numbers work out to be. If you had that kind of competition you'd see Steam shape up real quick.
Can you imagine the value of an extra 20% of all game sales on PC for these publishers? You're talking major money here. But each having their own store... I can't see it working out.
I'm surprised, though, that all of the publishers are setting up their own stores. They have to understand that that kind of fragmentation will ultimately keep people on Steam for usability reasons alone.
What they should have done is come together and create a non-profit company backed by all of the big boys (every major publisher of PC games) that would create a digital storefront to compete with steam and only take whatever cut it needs to provide a competitive service, 10 or 15% or whatever the numbers work out to be. If you had that kind of competition you'd see Steam shape up real quick.
Can you imagine the value of an extra 20% of all game sales on PC for these publishers? You're talking major money here. But each having their own store... I can't see it working out.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
Why would making the devices and only selling to them justify a 30% cut on its own?
GhostTrick
Banned
It's not only a storefront though. It's also an API with Steamworks.
I also fail to see the benefit of your initiative ? Having the worst publishers force even more stuff on us ? Not sure it's a clever idea.
nephilimdj
Member
As I have stated many times on here, Valves advantage was:
1. They signed a deal with Activision for MW2 and WB for FEAR2, 2 first major games to be PC exclusive*. You would be kidding yourself if they think they paid 30%, this caused a ton of retail issues as these and others messed up return policies and most likely cause the publishers a headache. Australia for example had stickers on every retail PC game warning of Steam DRM.
2. Vocal fans forced ISP to mirror early steam releases, remember when you could pick ISP from download mirror list? now you can only choose your state/country.
*steampowered, my mistake
1. They signed a deal with Activision for MW2 and WB for FEAR2, 2 first major games to be PC exclusive*. You would be kidding yourself if they think they paid 30%, this caused a ton of retail issues as these and others messed up return policies and most likely cause the publishers a headache. Australia for example had stickers on every retail PC game warning of Steam DRM.
2. Vocal fans forced ISP to mirror early steam releases, remember when you could pick ISP from download mirror list? now you can only choose your state/country.
*steampowered, my mistake
Theognosis
Member
What games are available on Mastercard and Visa?
TheRedSnifit
Member
Uhhh, Modern Warfare 2 and FEAR 2 were never PC exclusive.
nephilimdj
Member
Huge Succeeded
Banned
No, they don't
Pheace
Member
Let's not forget that the 30% digital cut was already quite an improvement over the cuts they lost going physical retail, and on top of that they get the money earned way quicker than retail as well.
Kind of surprised the 30% cut is coming as a surprise to so many here, this has been standard for well over a decade.
Kind of surprised the 30% cut is coming as a surprise to so many here, this has been standard for well over a decade.
Then this tweet is hurting him more than it serves.
StrategyFan
Member
the credit card fees have to come out of the 30% cut. it's listed as an operating cost
it's not meant to be a comparative industry
it's not meant to be a comparative industry
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
What does that % represents?
They take 30% of every sale in their stores?
Sony takes 30% of every game bought on PSN? Like, a 60 dollars game purchase on PSN means they are getting 18 dollars just because they are distributing it in their store???
If that is it... holy shit. That is insane.
They take 30% of every sale in their stores?
Sony takes 30% of every game bought on PSN? Like, a 60 dollars game purchase on PSN means they are getting 18 dollars just because they are distributing it in their store???
If that is it... holy shit. That is insane.
Chairmanchuck
Member
It was mostly always like that for digital, because it was based on a retail system that has around 20-30%.
Yup, just because you like the product, doesn't mean it's not a monopoly. It checks every box.
AcademicSaucer
Member
And now they want to limit the amount of keys publishers can generate.
Chairmanchuck
Member
It was clarified that it was almost like that. They always had a "limit" and checked that.
Its just that lately there are bundle-sites that give away keys for 5 cent, so devs of shovelware generated thousands of keys in a short span of time.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Oh my god lets stop this fallacy right now
Valve says it's cracking down on big key requests to combat Steam skulduggery
Except the "mono" part. And almost all the other parts.
There is absolutely zero evidence suggesting Valve financially incentivised the uptake of Steamworks, and there are still a lot of third-party content servers (not all of them are hosted by ISPs). I generally connect to the one my ISP has been hosting for over a decade now.
Chairmanchuck
Member
I remember EA adding real life ads in some games (Burnout, Battlefield 2142) and saying "Well. Like that games can get cheaper!"
I imagine store distribution are by far the biggest revenue generators for both the PlayStation division and the Xbox division for Sony/Microsoft, right?
Yeah, this too. AAA game prices haven't decreased in the 12 years since Steam was introduced, even though digital sales are (probably) at this point the majority of game sales. The industry has shifted from majority sales where the (physical) storefront takes 70% to majority sales where the storefront takes 30%, yet that increase in revenue has been eaten by the publishers either as costs rise, or as genuine profit.
Decreasing Valve's take only strengthens their position as the place to sell, and increases the revenue margins for publishers. It would not lower prices.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
What does building own hardwares has to do with anything?
Amazon and Google most probably takes 30% too. Even Tim Sweeney's own UE4 market has a 30% cut.