-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Valve changes revenue sharing for Steam to allow successful developers to earn bigger percentage cut
- Thread starter Dusk Golem
- Start date
The one where nothing changes for indies. Yet the very same poster is about to tell you how ID@Xbox is the second coming and is the best thing mankind ever known thanks to the very same 30% cut being charged to indies.
It's only shitty in one side. :")
What opportunities are provided outside of on-line subscription does Valve not have?
I'm seriously trying to think on it. Valve sells accessories, they could easily make a game subscription service. I guess retail games but thats dying and is one of the reasons Steam is successful.
Please explain to me how charging less royalties than any other competitor in certain situations is very shitty?
Make shitty games, make shitty profits.
Vote socialists if you want something better.
EA surely won't come back after all these years.
It's shitty because he doesn't benefit from this change, That's how most indies seem to take this. (Who arguable can benefit most from Steam's existing user base).
Of course you can sell for nearly zero royalties on sites like Kartridge and Itch.io, but you don't get any user base benefit.
It's shitty because he doesn't benefit from this change, That's how most indies seem to take this. (Who arguable can benefit most from Steam's existing user base).
Of course you can sell for nearly zero royalties on sites like Kartridge and Itch.io, but you don't get any user base benefit.
Royalties from retail are a huge source of revenue for console manufacturers.
But I was talking about the advantages of a closed ecosystem: no one can make accessoires for Playstation or Xbox without paying royalties to Sony or Microsoft for example. And no one can sell games for consoles without paying royalties to the console manufacturer.
Meanwhile, I can buy a Steam game in the humble store and play it using my corsair mouse or Xbox controller. You see my point?
Got a survey prompt, I usually put privacy settings way up, and tell it to hide the ADs that it pop up after launching or after finishing a game session. This is the first time I'm seeing this, by default it was on "Yes." Wonder what more information they need out of users, could be about getting other devs to come back to steam.
"How loyal are you to steam? Will you play games if they are not on steam? Steam Steam Steam"
"How loyal are you to steam? Will you play games if they are not on steam? Steam Steam Steam"
It's so transparent, self-defeating and stupid.
But hey, gamers plus tribalism is one hell of a drug.
Got a survey prompt, I usually put privacy settings way up, and tell it to hide the ADs that it pop up after launching or after finishing a game session. This is the first time I'm seeing this, by default it was on "Yes." Wonder what more information they need out of users, could be about getting other devs to come back to steam.
"How loyal are you to steam? Will you play games if they are not on steam? Steam Steam Steam"
You just need to read it is HARDWARE Survey. They just get basic info about your system (CPU, GPU, monitor resolution, Windows version...).
The steam hardware surveys have been a thing for like over a decade now
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
Creating and selling hardware is Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft's way of making money. Are they given for free ? No. Neither to devs or consumers. You're mixing orange and apples here. And on top of that, that's what the royaltie fees is for. Which is different than the 30% cut Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are taking on digital downloads.
As for subsidizing hardware, it's bullshit. First of all: Nintendo often sell at profits. For the others; they found the right way: Take a 30-50 bucks loss on hardware... and make you pay 60 bucks on an arbitrary online paywall.
You're right, because they are SELLING these things. You're acting like they're handing hardware for free.
Ooh, I heard about those, but I thought they collect that hardware stuff automatically. First time seeing it. I'm surprised people participate in them.
I genuinely do see your point and that is real money.
That said I gotta imagine officially licensed products is peanuts in the scheme of things.
Retail distribution of games is still huge but it seems clear that it's a dying sector. Still lots to be made for now though.
Are you joking or trolling or sincerely asking this question?Got a survey prompt, I usually put privacy settings way up, and tell it to hide the ADs that it pop up after launching or after finishing a game session. This is the first time I'm seeing this, by default it was on "Yes." Wonder what more information they need out of users, could be about getting other devs to come back to steam.
"How loyal are you to steam? Will you play games if they are not on steam? Steam Steam Steam"
These threads always make it hard to tell.
If you are sincere: this is the same prompt for the same hardware survey which has existed for a decade or so.
Its results are available here and are useful for developers when trying to figure out what hardware Steam users are playing on (as long as it is contextualized well).
I do sometimes, I don't see why not. At least it's an optional survey. Consoles send everything you do to the manufacturer without an option to opt out afaik.
Got a survey prompt, I usually put privacy settings way up, and tell it to hide the ADs that it pop up after launching or after finishing a game session. This is the first time I'm seeing this, by default it was on "Yes." Wonder what more information they need out of users, could be about getting other devs to come back to steam.
"How loyal are you to steam? Will you play games if they are not on steam? Steam Steam Steam"
It's standard hardware survey that is run at beginning of each month (you'll get it like once per year max per device).
It asks your internet speed and if you have mic (iirc) nothing else, otherwise it's automatically collected.
User Warned: Drive-by trolling post
Valve is starting to see the writing on the wall. Pc gamers are ok with multiple launchers. They just want their game. It being released on stream is no longer a necessity. Maybe valve will now get back into making games....lol.
Agreed. It's very likely that subscription services will be the most important source of revenue for console manufacturers one day.
at this point EA doesn't care about getting real sales and just wants to show investors that they're totally 100% into Origin. If it was a matter of purely money they would have put back their games on Steam ages ago, because anything that isn't a Battlefield bombs.
This forum has such a big issue with people feeling the need to talk on topics they have no clue about at all.
yes fuck all of those if they don't make a physical product but if one has to order the list of fuck yous Valve is #2 on the list
The sarcasm is indistinguishable from so many other genuine nonsensical posts directed at Valve in this place, it's little wonder so many people were taken in.
Throne breaker should be telling that unless you have a banger people frankly dont care for your other launchers. Sold really well on gog they had to quickly release on steam a week later.
Activision picked right with call of duty Royale but that bubble isn't a long term thing to expect to stay from steam.
Activision picked right with call of duty Royale but that bubble isn't a long term thing to expect to stay from steam.
Impressive how a company making hardware excuse all the shitty stuff they do.
Why should the developer of Bloody Boobs get a bigger cut than the developer of Hollow Knight? Who's bringing more users in?
Yeah me too. It may give console manufacturers way too much power. If their subscription services become the most popular way of playing games, being on that service or not may become the major factor that decides if your game will be successful or not. This would bring us back to the pre-selfpublishing era.
Good thing they're charging everyone to play games online, plus selling advertising space on your screen, plus taking a 30% cut.
Given the way the announcement was worded, I'm not sure if the 30% should actually be excluded in calculations?
Out of interest, when you buy an item from a store what profit margin do you think they have?
Just to give you an idea, in my store I'd kick out any manufacturer offering only 25% margin as I'd go under.
Was just about to post this. Would love to see Valve just reduce their ludicrous cut, especially given that they could and likely do charge for feature spots on the storefront.
Markup that high makes sense in brick and mortar stores, but in a digital storefront it seems excessive.
I'm not seeing how this will incentivize big publishers that are already planning to move away from Valve to stay with valve. Companies like EA and Activions-Blizzard believe their product is good enough that people will buy them from wherever they choose to sell it. I doubt they will change their minds and come back despite these changes.
If you think 25% margin is ludicrous please don't ever apply for a job in any store where you might have access to the buy in prices.
That's an absolutely awful way of looking at things.
There's plenty of actually fantastic games also struggling to make back their dev costs, you know.
The mistake is thinking any capitalist enterprise will do things for the little man, when the entire system is set up to exploit them while those with the money get the real power for change. That's not exactly a Steam problem, though.
Then please bring this up in every eShop, PSN, and Xbox thread from now on. Not only in Valve ones.
These splits are standard. Literally the only store which doesn't do this is Itch.io, with their amazing variable cut with a 10% default.
It's reality.
For every one of those "fantastic" games there's a hundred asset flips that don't deserve a better deal than the developers that bring in users.
Here's how this works.
The people who make stuff aren't usually the best at selling stuff. They usually need those who specialise in selling to promote their stuff.
The guys who specialise in selling and promotion don't want to work for free as they have families and stuff, pesky I know but that's life.
Businesses need to make profit whatever they do so they can earn money to cover the times when they might not be making money and still need to pay things like staff and rent and electricity and stuff to function
Anyone need more explanation? Business isn't hard.
The people who make stuff aren't usually the best at selling stuff. They usually need those who specialise in selling to promote their stuff.
The guys who specialise in selling and promotion don't want to work for free as they have families and stuff, pesky I know but that's life.
Businesses need to make profit whatever they do so they can earn money to cover the times when they might not be making money and still need to pay things like staff and rent and electricity and stuff to function
Anyone need more explanation? Business isn't hard.
Valve doesn't charge for ad space - it never has, and as per all previous discussion at dev days, they never will.
Valve also doesn't have any royalty fees for retail / digital games and takes a 0% cut of retail and third party store games sales.
None of these are things the console vendors do
In consideration of all the things they do and provide developers consistently year over year, their 30% cut is justified.
As per Valve's post, there is now stronger recognition and lower cut for those big successful games, driving significant new user growth to Steam and user engagement, in turn driving discovery and sales of all manner of other games (including Indies)
This is a default lower cut than any of the console vendors by a significant margin.
This wasn't made to help indie developers, this was made to convince gigantic companies to keep releasing their games on steam, and also try to convince companies that never released their F2P games on steam due to the cut profit they would have.
Indie Devs still get the industry standard for every other platform. If the companies want pure profit, they can still release their games with their own website of publisher. It's not like Valve is stopping them from doing that. You go to Valve because they have a gigantic playerbase, and a server infrastructure that cuts down on the costs of development.
Indie Devs still get the industry standard for every other platform. If the companies want pure profit, they can still release their games with their own website of publisher. It's not like Valve is stopping them from doing that. You go to Valve because they have a gigantic playerbase, and a server infrastructure that cuts down on the costs of development.
Of course not.That ship has sailed long time ago.And others will follow.
*cheaper for devs that are making big budget games because it's easier for AAA games to get to the 10/50million point