.

[Xertz]

(to fill the blank)

[Yujah]

No; I believe you misread. I and (in 2021) 94% of game-developers do NOT think that Steam's 30% cut is justified. It's just that only here on the Steam forums it's vice versa due to the Steam forums being the Steam forums; hence why asking/debating this here is just not useful.

[Xertz]

Originally posted by Yujah:

No; I believe you misread. I and (in 2021) 94% of game-developers do NOT think that Steam's 30% cut is justified. It's just that only here on the Steam forums it's vice versa due to the Steam forums being the Steam forums; hence why asking/debating this here is just not useful.

Ah yes i misread sorry

[ナルゴ]

Originally posted by Yujah:

Also just note that it's really quite useless to ask people here. In 2021 6% of 3000 surveyed developers thought that Steam's 30% cut was justified:

https://www.pcgamer.com/most-game-devs-dont-think-steam-earns-its-30-revenue-cut/

They're free to publish their games on their own or elsewhere if they're unsatisfied with Steam.
If they still published to steam, then that is essentially an admission that it's worth it and that the 30$ is justified.

[Zefar]

Originally posted by Yujah:

Also just note that it's really quite useless to ask people here. In 2021 6% of 3000 surveyed developers thought that Steam's 30% cut was justified:

https://www.pcgamer.com/most-game-devs-dont-think-steam-earns-its-30-revenue-cut/

They will naturally reply with it being bad because if it gets Valve to change it they will make more money.

If the amount was a deal breaker developers would go to Epic instead.

[Yujah]

Originally posted by Nargo:

If they still published to steam, then that is essentially an admission that it's worth it and that the 30$ is justified.

"Oddly enough", reasoning very reminiscent of the Steam Suggestions / Ideas forum where it's, literally, argued a few times a day that the fact that a suggested feature doesn't yet exist clearly means it's not a good one.

I'll go do something else again for the rest of the day :)

[Xertz]

Originally posted by Zefar:

Originally posted by Yujah:

Also just note that it's really quite useless to ask people here. In 2021 6% of 3000 surveyed developers thought that Steam's 30% cut was justified:

https://www.pcgamer.com/most-game-devs-dont-think-steam-earns-its-30-revenue-cut/

They will naturally reply with it being bad because if it gets Valve to change it they will make more money.

If the amount was a deal breaker developers would go to Epic instead.

Yeah but epic is not that great

[Zefar]

Originally posted by Lucas Puiroud:

Originally posted by Zefar:

They will naturally reply with it being bad because if it gets Valve to change it they will make more money.

If the amount was a deal breaker developers would go to Epic instead.

Yeah but epic is not that great

That is why it charges less.

[Anonymous Helper]

Originally posted by Yujah:

Also just note that it's really quite useless to ask people here. In 2021 6% of 3000 surveyed developers thought that Steam's 30% cut was justified:

If you ask developers or publishers if they want more or less money for they products, what percentage do you think will answer "more"? Obviously a business wants bigger cut of the profit. It's pretty much a given. Nothing to do with fairness of price or cut. Goal of businesses is to make as much money as they can. It's their raison d'être, reason for their existence.

It's no different from asking customers if they want to pay more or less for products. Obviously answer is less regardless of whether they think price is fair or not or whether they'd be willing to pay current price or more or not. There have been plenty of products that I've though would be worth more but I stay try to pay as little as possible for them. That's only natural.

Better statistic about whether or not the Steam's cut is fair or not is how large percentage of developers want to be on Steam regardless of the cut and the answer is 100%. Heck, well over 50% of developers on Steam don't even sell their games outside of Steam. Lot of them not even of Steam key reselling sites.

[Crazy Tiger]

Of course developers are going to say a cut isn't justified. Even if it's 1% they'll say that. Everybody wants to pay less, d'oh.

Not that a random survey actually has any meaning in that other than the "we need to put something up" value. Which is the standard value of news on such sites regarding Steam, EGS and all those other gaming related companies/platforms.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by Yujah:

No; I believe you misread. I and (in 2021) 94% of game-developers do NOT think that Steam's 30% cut is justified. It's just that only here on the Steam forums it's vice versa due to the Steam forums being the Steam forums; hence why asking/debating this here is just not useful.

The majority of publishers, you mean. And most publishers are just greedy leeches. They could not care less what is fair or not. They just want more-More-MORE for themselves, pure and simple. This is why those same publishers will force devs to work through a crunch, then lay those devs off 5 seconds after a game launches.

It is not about fairness; it is just pure greed, period.

[Xertz]

Originally posted by Zefar:

Originally posted by Lucas Puiroud:

Yeah but epic is not that great

That is why it charges less.

Yep

[Yujah]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

The majority of publishers, you mean.

No, I don't. Why even respond if you seemingly haven't even glanced at the linked article? "The question, which appeared in the 2021 GDC State of the Game Industry survey (...)"

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Zefar:

Originally posted by Lucas Puiroud:

Yeah but epic is not that great

That is why it charges less.

There's also the irony that EPic has yet tos how a store can be sustainable on 12%. I mean its known that its fortnite money that keeps the lights on.

The biggest difference between steam and egs is that:

EGS pulls money from other departments to stay operational.
Valve uses the revenue from the store to operate other projects.

[Xertz]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by Zefar:

That is why it charges less.

There's also the irony that EPic has yet tos how a store can be sustainable on 12%. I mean its known that its fortnite money that keeps the lights on.

The biggest difference between steam and egs is that:

EGS pulls money from other departments to stay operational.
Valve uses the revenue from the store to operate other projects.

EGS can't be sustainable with only their 12 % cut ,this is too low to stay alive i think .

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Lucas Puiroud:

Originally posted by Start_Running:

There's also the irony that EPic has yet tos how a store can be sustainable on 12%. I mean its known that its fortnite money that keeps the lights on.

The biggest difference between steam and egs is that:

EGS pulls money from other departments to stay operational.
Valve uses the revenue from the store to operate other projects.

EGS can't be sustainable with only their 12 % cut ,this is too low to stay alive i think .

Not sure about that. but it certainly shows that at the very least Tim Sweeney can't run a self sustaining stiore on 12%.