I'll never understand the absolute cock worship of steam. They're just a huge, near monopolistic gaming store that apparently requires daily fellatio on this platform. Apparently, I'm supposed to agree or get smashed with the typical vitriol one gets with disagreeing with the hive. You Assholes
Lmfao "for free". Did you read the article? Did you not see the part where Valve takes 30% of every single game in existience's revenue? The part where Valve makes more money per game then the studios actually developing them?
Yes, steam was great and rose to its monopoly through its greatness, but they have been flat out abusing that monopoly by not lowering prices when they can. The occasional free return is a trinket they throw back at you after overcharging you by at least 15% on every single other game you've ever purchased.
30% is average for distribution fees across all media industries.
In the games industry:
Microsoft (Xbox): 30%
Sony (PlayStation): 30%
GOG: 30% (used to be 40%)
Steam: 30%
Epic: 12% (the outlier)
Google (Android): 25-40%
Apple (iPhone): 30%
Music and film industry distribution deals range from 10% to as much as 60% depending on your contract. Yes it could be as low as 10% for people who just aren't that popular. But it's also not at the upper end of the spectrum for media distribution.
On PC, Microsoft takes a 0% cut of apps distributed through it's store and 12% of games, so EGS isn't really the outlier there, but regardless 30% being average in an existing anti-competitive industry doesn't really prove anything about whether or not it's a fair cost. That can easily be oligopoly collusion / price signalling which happens all the time.
Console makers like Microsoft and Sony are also funding building the hardware and maintaining the platforms since they lose money on up front hardware sales. I'm not saying I agree that this should be a legal business model, but they have more of an argument for charging 30%.
And regardless of all of that, when I'm talking about a fair price, I'm talking about a fair price in an economic sense, as in, does Valve provide more back to the economy then money they take out of it, or are they rent seeking? Given that Valve made more revenue per employee than literally any other tech company (pushing $1million/employee/year), all during a period where their employees literally were allowed to work on whatever personal projects they wanted (virtually none of which went anywhere or made Valve any money). In that context, I can't see their fees as anything other than rent seeking. Yes make a profit, yes pay your employees well, keep a nice cushion, and invest in R&D, but Valve has been able to afford to do all of that and just burn / hoard cash at a ridiculous rate, all money that would be going to the actual game designers and developers if we had competitive markets.
Well here's another fun fact about steam for you then, you can sell your game on steam and retain the full profit of the sale by selling steam keys on other platforms like itch.io or humble bundle. The only stipulation to this method of sale is that you have to sell it at the same price the game is listed on steam at. Steam does not take a cut of steam key sales and encourages developers to distribute steam keys. They are free to request from steam and you can request however many you would like. No other platform does this.
30% is and isn't a lot when you consider everything it entitles you to do as a developer, including high-speed download servers, community tools, advertising, SteamWorks platform etc.
The work valve is doing in development of Proton isn't an occasional trinket, it's an ongoing and important project which is helping to defeat the real monopoly, Microsoft.
Also, I'm a patient gamer, Steam sales are frequent enough that I have always paid the best price.
Excellently, Unreal Engine makes a huge amount of money for them.
Have they stopped running at a loss yet?
You're probably thinking of the Epic Games Store, not Unreal Engine, and it would be grossly profitable at 12% commission if it had the established infrastructure and sales numbers that Steam does, it's only not profitable because they are still developing and building infrastructure and they basically just sell Fortnite and Rocket League.
But on that matter, Valve charges much less for their engine, and is often free for indie devs.
If you're talking about the Source Engine, they're really, really not comparable. The Source Engine hasn't even been updated since 2013.
EGS would be grossly profitable if they had a good service, but they don’t because their platform is shit.
What are they supposed to do?
How would you convince gamers to use your store instead of Steam? There are reasons that anti-monopoly laws don't care how you got your monopoly, once you have one it's problematic because it makes nearly impossible for competition to form against you.
Your reading comprehension skills are garbage if this is your take. Also steam has DEEP discounts on their store 4x a year for 2 weeks at a time lol. Literally two months out of the year.
I'll never understand why some people look at the fact that steam is popular because of their policies, and can't help but make a comment like this equating that popularity to cock worship.
Like, we get it bro. You're thinking about cocks and you're mad about a half decent game store. What compelled you to combine those thoughts on a public forum?
The weird thing is that this isn't even the first comment I've seen like this. Dudes that are mad about steam want everyone else to know about steam's massive, throbbing cock for some reason. This guy alone has posted 3 of these.