I don't know where people get idea Ubisoft has been planning to leave Steam. Quite contrary though, Ubi has been adding more Steam features to their games recently. And I have no doubt Ubi already had special agreement with Valve.
this, seriouslyor the iOS store
or the Google Play store
or Uber
or Lyft
or PSN Store
or Microsoft Store
or Nintendo eShop
or music from Record Companies
or Spotify
or Netflix
or Hulu
or ISPs
or YouTube
...
the list goes on and on
but fuck valve, greedy bastards, everyone else is cool tho (except for google play store, good that fortnite released outside so they don't give evil google any money!")
if I own a platform that relies on good games bringing in new people to spend on other shit in my storeShouldn't it be the other way round? Profit margins are so thin for smaller outfits and this is the equivalent of giving tax breaks to millionaires.
Countdown until we see the equivalent of "job-creators" warped terminology?
Exactly.or the iOS store
or the Google Play store
or Uber
or Lyft
or PSN Store
or Microsoft Store
or Nintendo eShop
or music from Record Companies
or Spotify
or Netflix
or Hulu
or ISPs
or YouTube
...
the list goes on and on
but fuck valve, greedy bastards, everyone else is cool tho (except for google play store, good that fortnite released outside so they don't give evil google any money!")
Wonder if Bethesda will come back. Activision seems to be doing fine on Battle.net
They were reported as being unhappy with destiny sales. They had to give away their game.Wonder if Bethesda will come back. Activision seems to be doing fine on Battle.net
Fallout 76 seems to be on their launcher only. Doom Eternal has no page yet either. Although GMG said it would be.They never left. Shelter, Legends and ESO all launched exclusively on the Bethesda Launcher.
Shouldn't it be the other way round? Profit margins are so thin for smaller outfits and this is the equivalent of giving tax breaks to millionaires.
Countdown until we see the equivalent of "job-creators" warped terminology?
Feel free to complain all you want, but complaining about a company seeking to make more money in a way that hurts literally no one is strange as fuck to me.
Greedy valve.
They only do this because they expect it'll make'em more money in the long run.
Fallout 76 seems to be on their launcher only. Doom Eternal has no page yet either. Although GMG said it would be.
They were reported as being unhappy with destiny sales. They had to give away their game.
Can't really speak to CoD, but that was doing poorly regardless, because people on PC abandoned that franchise long ago.
The people making platform decisions on AAA games like to see clearly-phrased policiesThis has always been the case, 30% is not an actual official standard. Notice how none of their developer portal documents mention a 30% cut.
Now THAT I find more intriguing.steamspy would still be useful for getting sales estimates for those who don't share their sales figures, but at the same time this could allow developers to directly publish their sales figures to steam spy, which was a TOS violation prior.
F2P card games and MMOs are expected to have their own launcher, AAA shooters not.Well F76 launched only few weeks ago? even ESO was exclusivity for few months. So that says nothing really.
Imagine the refunds if it WAS on Steam, one reason it didn't release there.Fallout 76 seems to be on their launcher only. Doom Eternal has no page yet either. Although GMG said it would be.
Large devs have far more leverage.So why didn't they change it to a global 20% rate ? Taking more from the poorer devs is an asshole move.
I wonder how this will affect key sites who regularly gives 20-25% discount (but never above 30%) on preorders or newly released games...
And publishers large enough to be able to afford AAA games would usually be able to get them. Or will know from prior experience.The people making platform decisions on AAA games like to see clearly-phrased policies
That can be viewed a bit this way, but at the end of the day I do think it makes business sense to support games performing well on the platform. This could be a move to also attract larger developers to the storefront and the like. I imagine there will be a lot of different takes on this though.
era: "lol fuck valve 30% cut greedy bastards, taking an industry standard cut and they DARE to make profits"
valve: "so we are reducing the 30% cut for games which are successful as a reward for business they bring to steam"
era: "wow fuck you valve, fucking indie haters smh, only good games get less cut???"
The first tier doesn't need to be clearing ten million dollars to do this. This will basically exclusively benefit AAA publishers, despite the fact the %30 cut hurts indies in particular.
There are indies who would have gained from this (huge breakouts like Stardew Valley, etc) / will gain from this in the future.
The first tier doesn't need to be clearing ten million dollars to do this. This will basically exclusively benefit AAA publishers, despite the fact the %30 cut hurts indies in particular.
Probably?How about they just move to an 80/20 model in general?
Still quite profitable?
There isn't literally a single negative thing about this news for anyone involved, and yet somehow is generating complaints. Bizarre.
I mean, Valve clearly wants to keep big (or successful) developers on Steam and stop them from creating their own stores, it makes a lot of sense for them to offer an incentive
The value of a large network like Steam has many benefits that are contributed to and shared by all the participants. Finding the right balance to reflect those contributions is a tricky but important factor in a well-functioning network. It's always been apparent that successful games and their large audiences have a material impact on those network effects so making sure Steam recognizes and continues to be an attractive platform for those games is an important goal for all participants in the network.
.....
Our hope is this change will reward the positive network effects generated by developers of big games, further aligning their interests with Steam and the community.
That's exactly what this is.This seems like more of a move to keep big publishers on Steam and less about screwing indies.
How about they just move to an 80/20 model in general?
Still quite profitable?
I'm going with a stab in the dark and guess that they would prefer to keep selling on their store the games that sell a lot and not the failures?