Valve should stop taking 30% from indie devs

[Pierce Dalton]

Taking 30% from big shots is perfectly fine, after all they're $wimming in money.

It's not reasonable to do the same with indie (sometimes solo) devs, though. Usually, these people weren't even paid to make a game, sometimes it's the opposite: they spent money to make their own games. In such cases, their balance is negative already.

Why is Valve so greedy? Don't they have enough money?

FYI, according to Bloomberg, Gabe Newell is one of the 500 richest people in the world, currently at position 262:
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/gabe-newell/

On the other hand, various indie devs don't even have stable income. Couldn't uncle Gabe be more kind to them? It's not like he wouldn't be able to pay the rent if that cut is lowered, right?

(Yes, I know the 30% cut drops if a game sells a certain number of units. Most indie games won't reach that number of sales, though.)

Edit: Dear anon,

Thank you for the points.

[Aachen]

Valve has so much money they could simply start hoovering up independent studios, then give all those new employees raises! Stable incomes achieved!

[Washell]

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

FYI, according to Bloomberg, Gabe Newell is one of the 500 richest people in the world, currently at position 262:
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/gabe-newell/

FYI: He doesn't stick his card in an ATM machine and see 7.49B on his account. The majority of that wealth is in his Valve ownership share, which is more a function of revenue and Steam's marketleader status than actual profits. The profits they do have are funnelled into software and hardware projects like the steam controller/link, VR headset, steamdeck, and associated games and drivers for it.

Reducing their cut probably means losing funding for such projects, which would lead to some very creative and intelligent people leaving the company. So no, they don't have enough money.

Second, while Steam/Valve may take a premium cut, developers sell significantly more games on Steam to make up for it. If they didn't, they'd stay on the alternative options that take a smaller or no cut at all. Paying a premium to access 100+ million customers isn't a bad deal.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by Washell:

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

FYI, according to Bloomberg, Gabe Newell is one of the 500 richest people in the world, currently at position 262:
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/profiles/gabe-newell/

FYI: He doesn't stick his card in an ATM machine and see 7.49B on his account. The majority of that wealth is in his Valve ownership share, which is more a function of revenue and Steam's marketleader status than actual profits. The profits they do have are funnelled into software and hardware projects like the steam controller/link, VR headset, steamdeck, and associated games and drivers for it.

Reducing their cut probably means losing funding for such projects, which would lead to some very creative and intelligent people leaving the company. So no, they don't have enough money.

Second, while Steam/Valve may take a premium cut, developers sell significantly more games on Steam to make up for it. If they didn't, they'd stay on the alternative options that take a smaller or no cut at all. Paying a premium to access 100+ million customers isn't a bad deal.

Dear Washell,

I'm perfectly aware of that, his net worth is around 7 bi. The link I provided makes that very clear.

[[N]ebsun]

All of a sudden, every studio identifies as "indie" by whatever means eg: setting up subsidiary companies to create and sell the games. It doesn't make sense to give benefits to game creators solely based on their income - if they make a good game, they will make more money and if not, that's not really a reason to give them more money.

[nullable]

No one is forcing indie devs to sell games on Steam. Let them get a 100% of the revenue on their own platform.

Steam has a huge userbase, and gaining access to that is going to cost a developer.

70% of something is a lot more than 100% of nothing.

And let's not forget that indie dev, not a technical term. So what's the actual criteria Steam should go by to define an indie dev?

Being small or sucking doesn't really mean you're owed charity.

[Boblin the Goblin]

1: Net worth is not actual money or wealth, it's the value of assets a person owns. Gabe does not have that money just stashed in a bank.

2: They are free to release on another store or use their own website to distribute Steam Keys(which avoids Steam taking 30%).

3: Steam offers more than just a store page. They offer VAC, native multiplayer support, native mod support, forums, easy updating, free DRM, etc.

4: This has already been discussed and locked before.

[cinedine]

Considering some OGs of the indie scene has spoken in favour of it, I doubt it's needed. Of course it can be lower, like everything. But considering all the hassle Steam saves you from, it's worth it, especially for newcomers.

You really do not want to deal with payment, shipment, fraud, license verification and all the stuff a store does for you yourself.
There is a GDC Talk by Jeff Vogel, "Failing to fail" or something. He gives some insight was it meant to be an actual full time indie developer. While a lot has changed since the olden days, a lot was also done by Steam and similar platforms.
There is also a talk by the guy who made Antichamber, giving some perspective to what it means to be a successful indie developer and how the money Steam takes is the least of your problems.

There is always itch.io for indie devs who don't like Steam's cut.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by Snakub Plissken:

No one is forcing indie devs to sell games on Steam. Let them get a 100% of the revenue on their own platform.

Steam has a huge userbase, and gaining access to that is going to cost a developer.

70% of something is a lot more than 100% of nothing.

And let's not forget that indie dev, not a technical term. So what's the actual criteria Steam should go by to define an indie dev?

Being small or sucking doesn't really mean you're owed charity.

Dear Snakub Plissken,

To create their own platform costs money, something that most indie devs don't have to begin with.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by Nebsun:

All of a sudden, every studio identifies as "indie" by whatever means eg: setting up subsidiary companies to create and sell the games. It doesn't make sense to give benefits to game creators solely based on their income - if they make a good game, they will make more money and if not, that's not really a reason to give them more money.

Dear [N]ebsun,

Well, if Rockstar or Ubisoft want to fool anyone into believing they are indie, I guess that will not work...

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by KittenGrindr:

1: Net worth is not actual money or wealth, it's the value of assets a person owns. Gabe does not have that money just stashed in a bank.

2: They are free to release on another store or use their own website to distribute Steam Keys(which avoids Steam taking 30%).

3: Steam offers more than just a store page. They offer VAC, native multiplayer support, native mod support, forums, easy updating, free DRM, etc.

4: This has already been discussed and locked before.

Dear KittenGrindr,

Please read post 3.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by cinedine:

Considering some OGs of the indie scene has spoken in favour of it, I doubt it's needed. Of course it can be lower, like everything. But considering all the hassle Steam saves you from, it's worth it, especially for newcomers.

You really do not want to deal with payment, shipment, fraud, license verification and all the stuff a store does for you yourself.
There is a GDC Talk by Jeff Vogel, "Failing to fail" or something. He gives some insight was it meant to be an actual full time indie developer. While a lot has changed since the olden days, a lot was also done by Steam and similar platforms.
There is also a talk by the guy who made Antichamber, giving some perspective to what it means to be a successful indie developer and how the money Steam takes is the least of your problems.

There is always itch.io for indie devs who don't like Steam's cut.

Dear cinedine,

Some developers disagree:
https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/24/18196154/steam-developers-revenue-epic-games-store

[Boblin the Goblin]

Good job ignoring everything else.

As I stated, this has been mentioned multiple times over the years.

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/1850323802574782737/

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/1651043320648241267/

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/3062996006145276006/?ctp=4

Steam has made it's stance clear on this "issue". I'll also repeat myself for brevity's sake;

Originally posted by KittenGrindr:

1: Net worth is not actual money or wealth, it's the value of assets a person owns. Gabe does not have that money just stashed in a bank.

2: They are free to release on another store or use their own website to distribute Steam Keys(which avoids Steam taking 30%).

3: Steam offers more than just a store page. They offer VAC, native multiplayer support, native mod support, forums, easy updating, free DRM, etc.

4: This has already been discussed and locked before.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by KittenGrindr:

Good job ignoring everything else.

As I stated, this has been mentioned multiple times over the years.

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/1850323802574782737/

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/1651043320648241267/

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/3062996006145276006/?ctp=4

Steam has made it's stance clear on this "issue". I'll also repeat myself for brevity's sake;

Originally posted by KittenGrindr:

1: Net worth is not actual money or wealth, it's the value of assets a person owns. Gabe does not have that money just stashed in a bank.

2: They are free to release on another store or use their own website to distribute Steam Keys(which avoids Steam taking 30%).

3: Steam offers more than just a store page. They offer VAC, native multiplayer support, native mod support, forums, easy updating, free DRM, etc.

4: This has already been discussed and locked before.

Dear KittenGrindr,

Thank you for the quick reply.

I'm not ignoring anything, but some people here are:

Most PC gamers do not want to buy games on other platform besides Steam, which makes the "release your game elsewhere" argument pretty weak.

Also, please keep in mind that single player games do not use vac or various other features.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

Originally posted by KittenGrindr:

Good job ignoring everything else.

As I stated, this has been mentioned multiple times over the years.

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/1850323802574782737/

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/1651043320648241267/

https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/0/3062996006145276006/?ctp=4

Steam has made it's stance clear on this "issue". I'll also repeat myself for brevity's sake;

Dear KittenGrindr,

Thank you for the quick reply.

I'm not ignoring anything, but some people here are:

Most PC gamers do not want to buy games on other platform besides Steam, which makes the "release your game elsewhere" argument pretty weak.

Also, please keep in mind that single player games do not use vac or various other features.

Doesn't diminish anything I said. Them choosing to use it or not is irrelevant. You also ignored the fact that the dev can sell Steam keys on their own site and take 100% of the cut if they wanted. Literally, Steam allows this.

[kitt]

Valve is not a charity.

Sure, I guess 20-25% would also suffice but overall I think 30% is absolutely fine.


And as others have said, Devs are free to create keys and keep the money to 110%.