367
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Andromxda@lemmy.dbzer0.com 152 points 3 months ago

You know what also justifies Valve's 30% cut? Their outstanding efforts in getting games to run on Linux, and the overall impact that this had on the Linux community.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 21 points 3 months ago

I don't think I'd be running Linux as my only daily driver if not for this. I was slightly dreading switching because I feared spending hours trying to fix broken games, but it's been astonishingly straightforward (which facilitated me learning to live in Linux in a way I hadn't been able to when was dual booting with Windows)

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] consumptionone@lemmy.world 114 points 3 months ago

Since the headline blew it, the game mentioned is called Cosmoteer.

[-] RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world 84 points 3 months ago

Is this controversial? You're paying for the storefront.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Nioxic@lemmy.dbzer0.com 78 points 3 months ago

30% seems rather high

but... when they handle payments, refunds, advertising (within their application) and game download costs (server infrastructure?), etc etc etc. it doesnt seem that crazy.

at least, for a lot of indie developers, not having to worry about those things, might easily be worth those 30%

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 54 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Not to mention the reviews, community hubs, workshop, video streaming and recording, controller support, cloud saves, family sharing.

30% may be a lot, but it's not like they're just sitting on it.

EA and Ubisoft don't offer (most of) those features with their launchers where they do get the full proceeds.

[-] Zozano@lemy.lol 36 points 3 months ago

Not to mention Steam/Valve uses a significant portion of their resources to develop Proton.

Putting pressure on Microsoft is PRICELESS.

[-] lobut@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 months ago

I remember PirateSoftware talking about the remote play online co-op on steam, I think I found it here:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Iu4kpM692vI

Definitely doesn't seem to be sitting on it. Hell man, I have re-bought some games on other platforms just to re-play it on my Steam Deck.

I can't defend/accost the 30% simply due to my lack of knowledge in the industry.

[-] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 6 points 3 months ago

A couple of times, Steam Achievements have been a deciding factor in me not pirating a game. I know it's dumb but ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯

[-] JPAKx4 36 points 3 months ago

I'd say it's very reasonable. Steam is EXPENSIVE. If you know anything about bandwidth, it's the insane cost. They don't do many exclusivity deals, and they even let you sell steam keys elsewhere with 0 cut for steam without giving users a degraded experience.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 30 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

For it to "even out" they'd only have to increase your reach ~50%.

They do way more than that. And they give you an inherent legitimacy that putting it on your own site doesn't. It's not just handling refunds; it's the certainty as an end user that you'll get one hassle free.

Without Steam (or another retailer with similar traits), selling an indie game would be closer to a pipe dream than really hard. In almost all cases (and this seems to apply even to AAA publishers as most of them come back), the 30% they're taking is money you wouldn't have without them.

[-] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 3 months ago

I think there are a lot of people who weren't around for, or don't remember, how buying digital titles was before Steam got quite so popular.

It was pretty rare, and the overwhelming majority of indie games were released for free. There just wasn't many good ways to get the word out, and most ways of taking payment were costly enough to set up that it was rarely worth trying to get some meager amount of pay if you were just a one man show with no external financial backing.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] trk@aussie.zone 75 points 3 months ago

Anyone who is old enough to remember trying to buy digital copies of games pre-Steam knows how much value Stream brings to the table.

If it's not on Steam, I don't even consider it.

[-] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What about GOG and its DRM-free games? What about Itch.io and its exceptionally low cut and pretty much completely open-door policy? There are other services that are good. Origin, UPlay, Epic, and other stuff sucking does not mean they're all bad.

[-] secret300@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 3 months ago

GOG can suck my dick. They spammed my email with newsletters after I would repeatedly turn them off. We do need a DRM free alternative but for that I'll stick with piracy

[-] woelkchen@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

As soon as you add a free game, the newsletters are sent again. There is no "subscribe to get the game for free" which AFAIK is mandatory in the EU, they just resubscribe you silently.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] zewm@lemmy.world 9 points 3 months ago

That’s a sad take. You are just closing doors on yourself.

I use all the stores available.

As much as I like steam, I’m not putting all my digital eggs in one basket.

The day steam decides to shutdown or remove my account, I lose all those games. No thanks.

Blind faith ain’t for me.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 67 points 3 months ago

A few indie devs who hated the idea of storefronts because of the bad taste of Apple self published only on their website. When they finally (after years) switched to steam, every single one of them shared how they got like a multiplier of sales.

One indie dev shared how he made more in revenue in a month on Steam than he did in a decade of self publishing.

That's life-changing.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago

Apple is the same deal, though. There's a reason there's a lot more solo devs/small teams making money on iOS than Android. Their ecosystem doesn't do all the work for you, but it absolutely provides a lot of help. You might not like, for example, the Human Interface guidelines, but the enforced consistency in behavior makes a lot more people a lot more willing to buy things.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Xanis@lemmy.world 62 points 3 months ago

In this thread:

Steam is bad because they are a company that makes money. They would be better if they made no money and all games were advertised at their expense. Oh and I must post my game on Steam because it's their fault no one else has bothered to even try and make a truly viable alternative.

[-] daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 months ago

I have not much against steam.

But gog is a more than viable alternative to steam.

Let's not act as if there's no alternative when itch.io or gog exists.

Has steam more features? Yes. Is better for some things? Yes. Is the only viable alternative as a game store? No.

[-] WolfLink@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago

I like GoG. I like that they push companies to remove DRM. I like that I can make offline backups of my games.

I prefer GoG over Steam when possible, but Steam is still infinitely more user friendly, and if the game in question is heavily multiplayer-focused, I’ll probably pick Steam over GoG just to use Steam’s multiplayer infrastructure.

[-] BigPotato@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

GOG has had games that fail to maintain parity with Steam releases.

GOG requires workarounds on Linux moreso than Steam.

The first is not totally GOG's fault but they should take action. If GOG is truly about preservation, they should make Linux a priority.

My second biggest gaming library is GOG. I love them in theory but Steam wipes the floor with them in terms of who gets my business in part because of those.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago

They suck.

Having a game on GOG is the same as not having it to me. I will pay for it on steam before playing it for free on GOG. Their launcher sucks (and unless it's very recent doesn't even support Linux despite their whole premise being supporting open shit), and manually updating games sucks. Plus they don't get up to date versions even if you do use their awful launcher.

It's not a book or movie where the source doesn't matter. Convenient updates are obligatory for modern gaming to function correctly.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I have mixed feelings on it.

When I was putting out games, publishing on Steam would mean a guaranteed 1 million impressions on the "New releases" list. That's incredible exposure for an indie title, which often succeed or fail on exposure alone.

But 30% can be a lot for those same indie teams, especially combined with taxes. You can put years of work into a title and lose half the money it earns to groups that didn't directly contribute at all. It can easily be enough money that long-term support or follow up games just aren't viable. It can be your entire outsourcing budget or a whole employee for a year.

And after that initial exposure, you're not getting much for your perputual 30%. The value of Steamworks can vary greatly game by game so you could end up paying $30k for $100 of bandwidth and minor marketing through things like sales and rich presence.

I would much prefer to see something like "30% after the first $X in sales". Their cut would kick in only after they've demonstrated their value as a platform and small teams wouldn't have to watch a company with billions of dollars take a very large bite out of their very small pie.

[-] UxyIVrljPeRl@lemmy.world 25 points 3 months ago

Then generate the steamkey(for free) and sell them elsewhere! Steam is toatally Ok with that, as long as the price is the same.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Vilian@lemmy.ca 20 points 3 months ago

the only ones that conplain the 30% cut are bilionaries companies

[-] DoctorButts@kbin.melroy.org 19 points 3 months ago

Ah, Cosmoteer. Extremely fun for like 10 hours, then you realize there is nothing left to do. I guess that dev has made a fortune off of it though, so hats off to that guy.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 69 points 3 months ago

Honestly that sounds fine. It's okay if a small game is only entertaining for 10 hours provided the price is reasonable. We shouldn't expect every game to be an infinitely replayability mill

[-] ByteOnBikes@slrpnk.net 38 points 3 months ago

It confuses the hell out of me that we don't say that about any other media.

"This movie that I spent $18 per person on only lasts 97 minutes what a rip off."

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

I mean, most of us who recognize that that's shitty value just don't go to theatres.

It's why they're dying.

[-] DoctorButts@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree. But people should be aware that even though "1.0" released in 2022, Cosmoteer has been around since 2011. It's far from being the worst example of a game in eternal early access, though I would say it isn't one of the better ones.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 7 points 3 months ago

wasn't portal just a mod? very short game, but has some of the most memorable moments in all of gaming

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 11 points 3 months ago

portal was its own game, but it had a very unenthusiastic release. stanley parable and gmod were mods

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Azzu@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago

Of course it's worth it, there's no question about it. Depending on the case it might probably be worth it if Steam took 95%.

For me, the question remains if 20% were "enough" for Steam and still make a shitload of money, or even 10%. Of course we can't know but it seems likely.

[-] s3rvant@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 months ago

95% is closer to what board game publishers take - best I've seen is 10% for the designer

Granted they have a lot more to lose

From that perspective seems Steam is perfectly fine

[-] PlzGivHugs@sh.itjust.works 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Just a few days ago, I wrote a comment about how you would theoretically try and become a significant competitor to Steam, and one of the points I raised was that Steam's storefront and recommendations are very generous (compared to others). It makes a huge difference that even indie games can appear on the front page regularly, both improving user and dev experiences. Players find games that they enjoy, while devs pay a very small amount to get effective, targetted advertisements.

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

I found weird ass games like Age of Decadence because of steam. I dount I wouldve found that lovingly crafted load of slavic jank without steam, or atleast it wouldve been until Warlocracy made a video on it.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] shani66@ani.social 9 points 3 months ago

It's also just the standard for selling your game on a big storefront.

[-] Moah 8 points 3 months ago

It's worth it if you're in the 1% of titles that succeed because of Steam. The next question is should any company have that kind of power. Steam's monopoly is a real problem. Microsoft had less of a monopoly on computers when they got investigated.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's not true at all. Steam does a lot more than just list a title...and there is a ton of shit games that are put out there, they don't make it because they're shit, not because they're not part of some magical 1%. Tons and tons of indie games have made it because of steam. They akso don't have a monopoly, its just what most people use. There is still the epic market, itch.io, gog, humble, etc all of which you can choose to sell on or not.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 months ago

"Steam will probably still outsell everything else combined by 100x"

Yeah, it's a monopoly.

That's not a complaint. It's not a value judgement. People think the word is automatically negative or criminal, because of how often that market power gets abused - but it is just the label for having that market power. Valve is not a trust. Valve does not do any anti-competitive practices. (Their 30% cut is obscene, but it's the same obscenity demanded by other monopoly storefronts.) Nonetheless, company after company keeps saying:

This store is the only store that really matters.

If you're not on this store, you're probably fucked.

We have a word for that.

[-] killabeezio@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago

Totally agree. They definitely have a monopoly in PC game distribution, but this feels different than most other situations. They are not forcing anything on anyone. This is really the consumer's choice. The thing is, they offer a great service and consumers don't really have much to complain about. The only time you would need to complain about something is if you lost your entire steam library. Which is a reminder that you don't really own these games, you are renting them.

Think about other monopolies. Microsoft has a dominant force in the PC OS. You have other options like MacOS and Linux, but if you wanted to switch from windows to MacOS, you really can't. Microsoft can force products onto people like edge browser or ads.

Comcast and Cox are monopolies as they normally service specific regional areas and stay out of each other's way. Because of this, there is no competition when looking for an ISP and both companies generally act on bad practices and milk the consumers for everything they can.

The more you dig deeper into it, you'll find that all these companies try and fuck over the consumer. The difference with Valve, is that they can fuck over the producer moreso than the consumer. The only other company I can think of that is similar is eBay. eBay is really a monopoly for an auction like or used goods marketplace. The consumer is more protected than the producer.

Tbh, I don't know the ins and outs of the game development process, but at least for smaller teams and games, 30% seems very reasonable to get your game out there. I am in the process of making a game now and I am fine with that fee and not having to deal with all the headaches. I just want to make a game, publish it, and make some money.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
367 points (100.0% liked)

Games

16785 readers
713 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS