I'm surprised he's not going on another Windows rant.
While I'm not the biggest fan of Valve, it's still where I buy most of my games. Considering they provide all of the bandwidth costs for hosting your game and letting people download it, and 30% is similar to every other online store front I think it's ok.
I can't even imagine the bandwidth costs Valve has. I'm sure they're still making money hand over fist but it isn't like they're taking 30% and you get nothing out of it.
Sweeney has lost his mind hasn't he?
Huh? What stops some other venue from defying the standard and offering the savings either to the developers/publishers or the customers? Isn't that the most sensible basis for competition, assuming that Steam is overcharging?
No company can outlast valve in a race to the bottom... So why would anyone even try to start a price war.
Also steam isn't 'over charging'. They are charging a rate that the market continues to accept.
Spent a few minutes eating dinner and searching GAF and the interwebs for anything to back up my point, and after only a cursory glance around, it seems I may have either misspoke or simply haven't found examples.
I'm fairly certain I have seen this sentiment before, however, though rather in the "Should be an open marketplace" part than "IS an open marketplace" part.
I apologize.
This is effectively the crux of all business. They aren't evil, they just do what they can get away with. It's a constant tug of war, but when consumers capitulate easily and regulations aren't in place, consumers tend to lose.
I think 30% is fair considering the market you're given access to. Why should that be free?
What's NOT fair is the developer licence you're required to pay Apple if you intend on publishing to their App Store (a $119 AUD fee last time l checked). Do Steam charge anything similar?
How are consumers losing in this instance? The savings would not be passed on to consumers but rather go direct into the publishers/developers pockets.
Steam has taken 30% for like ever.
Goddamn, I knew they took a cut, but not 30%. That's absolutely insane.
Publishers and developers receiving more funds is technically more advantageous to consumers than the middle man receiving them. But I was referring to business more generally. Tax breaks, monopolistic status/costs etc.
Seriously, the credit card thing is maybe the dumbest comparison I've ever seen.
I agree with the latter portion of your statement but it is my understanding that most PC gamers adore steam. So clearly there is value there. All things being equal Steam being rewarded for their service makes sense because the same game launched exclusively on a Windows store or another inferior store will not even come close to selling as much.
I guess we all have our bad days. For someone so smart to say something so stupid is strange. He should know better about the comparison he made.Seriously, the credit card thing is maybe the dumbest comparison I've ever seen.
Seriously, the credit card thing is maybe the dumbest comparison I've ever seen.
Tim Sweeney‏ @TimSweeneyEpic Aug 17
I think 10% is probably not a deal-breaker if it weren't for the other negative of Steam: separating publishers from their users.
Yup. And it's things like this that just continue the ignorance/arrogance that fester in the industry (on both sides! Many sides! ).
Seriously, how can someone not realise the idiocy of comparing a payment processing fee to a storefront fee? Would he not complain more about Game or Toys R Us taking 70% (or thereabouts) instead of the 2-5% of percent that Visa charge?
All this does is continue the confirmation bias of "Valve don't do shit/are a monopoly/don't produce games and still rake in the cash". A truly irresponsible comment.
Also
The implication of this is that he believes the ideal solution would be every publisher should have their own client, since consumer retention/loyalty is better than a unified storefront selling games.
Again, I'd like to see how this analogy would work in a world where physical products are sold, and the stores that sell them are essentially your gateway to users. You can argue that this shouldn't be the case in digital, but as consumers we (naturally) prefer to get our products from stores that have the widest range, even if their business practices aren't fantastic (hello Amazon!)/
Which is why I think it's silly when people get mad at EA selling their games themselves instead of putting it on steam.
I wanna tell you how much movie theaters take when you buy a ticket, but I'm not sure you can handle the shock.Goddamn, I knew they took a cut, but not 30%. That's absolutely insane.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/898316545499201536
Some image cherry-picking by yours truly. Click on the link for the full conversation.
Basically my thought is that Steam owns PC gaming and the value they add is good for consumers but too overwhelming for them as a sales portal. They are way understaffed and have not evolved the storefront to accommodate the 4 dozen or so games that release daily. Then again, the entire industry does not know what to do with this torrential flood of games.
Goddamn, I knew they took a cut, but not 30%. That's absolutely insane.
Hah, it's funny that he argues with CDN cost.
It takes a lot of money to design, build, operate and further develop an infrastructure at such a large scale.
I found the conversation as a whole interesting, but it's intriguing to see people bring up UE4 marketplace since their take is also 30% but their infrastructure and customer service is lower than Valve's apparently. Tim replies to a few of them.
Might've skimmed over it, but something else about cuts.
Humble used to take about 5% (not sure if they still do, as that was a couple of years ago). Assuminng they still do (or at least, charge less than Valve): What developers could easily do, is sell more Steam keys through Humble. They pay less of a cut, but the consumer still ends up with a Steam key.
Remember when Steam aimed to be a Valve's own game patcher? Wasn't shocked they take 30%, as it seems the norm these days for digital distribution.
Do GoG get a cut at the same percentage too?
That might work for 1st World countries, but a lot of gamers are from countries that "have to" pay less for games to be affordable.
This is effectively the crux of all business. They aren't evil, they just do what they can get away with. It's a constant tug of war, but when consumers capitulate easily and regulations aren't in place, consumers tend to lose.
Yeah. I really like Oculus curation. Because we all need that masterpiece:
That might work for 1st World countries, but a lot of gamers are from countries that "have to" pay less for games to be affordable.
Yes. That's why a lot of CDPR fans buy Witcher games from GoG, cause the standard 30% also goes to CDPR.Do GoG get a cut at the same percentage too?