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.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by Ice Mountain:

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

People paying for something ≠ People saying the product/servive justifies the price

This is very much correct. The price I pay for internet is not justified, but I have to pay it because the other options I have are not viable options. So I reluctantly pay the price I am paying for my internet due to the lack of other viable options.

Because Steam is very close to being a monopoly, to the point that any other store doesn't have any where near a market share that is viable enough to skip out on Steam, developers really are only given one viable option to pick from, even if they means giving 30% to Valve despite feeling it isn't justified. Yes there are exceptions, but like anything in this world there are always exceptions, they are the outliers, and very little can be the outliers.

Anyways, Steam is full of people that clearly feel that the store is far more important that games themselves, so they will defend Valve's 30% revenue take no matter what. Myself being a PC gamer which means I put games above the stores, would like to see developers get a higher cut on their sales so they have the better opportunity to reinvest that money into making their next game even better than what they could compared to having less money.

Dear Ice Mountain,

Thank you for the valuable contribution to this discussion.

Yes, in fact, that applies to many things. College, for example: in some cases, people pay a high price but they only have mediocre or even bad teachers.

I'm afraid you're right, like I've said before: it's amusing to see gamers not supporting game creators, but choosing to support a seller instead.

[Haruspex]

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

So if you made a game, you would prefer to release it on Steam despite the higher cut, correct?

How much would you charge for it?

I've made games. I've never made anything that I think is worthy of actually selling, but I've at least dabbled in the world of game development since about 1998.

My lack of skill aside, let's say I made a game I felt was worthy of actually marketing. Naturally, I would want to put it on Steam first and foremost. Let's say $10. There would be my initial investment of $100 to list the game, and I would receive $7 per copy sold. After 15 copies sold I've made my $100 back.

Of course while my first and most obvious choice is to sell and list the game on Steam, I would not limit myself. I'm going to list the game on itch.io. I'm going to submit it to GOG and Game Jolt and Epic. I'll probably offer Steam keys up on Gamer's Gate. If the game gets some traction and sees enough success, I'll pay some console porting outfit to port the game over to Playstation, Xbox and Switch.

Every single one of those other platforms also takes 30%, with the exception of itch and Epic, who take 10% and 12%.

From my perspective, I'm not stressing out over the $3 Steam takes per copy. That's just the cost of doing business. I'm counting the $7 per copy instead and trying my best to market the game as hard as I can.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Originally posted by 8bitbeard:

Taking 30% is perfectly reasonable. We could always go back to the bad-old-days where an indie dev would have to pay to package physical copies, give the publisher a cut, give the retailer a cut, and at the end of it all they would be lucky to net 10% of the total sales amount.

70% of revenue and access to hundreds of millions of potential customers instantly, or 10% of revenue and some gigantic logistics hurdles. The choice is obvious.

Of course they could go to Epic where they get 88% of revenue. Sounds great on paper until you ask them how that's working out for them. Like SquareEnix, for example. Most of the stuff they released in 2021 was Epic exclusive. Now at the tail-end of 2022 most of their upcoming releases are coming to Steam and skipping Epic entirely. If Epic's 88% cut was worth it to them, why would this be?

The whole, "Valve is greedy because they take 30% from poor indie developers." was a narrative cooked up by Tim Sweeney and his friends at Tencent because it would be too expensive to try and compete with Steam head-on in an open market. Nobody was complaining about the industry-standard 30% before that. Instead of creating a better product that people want to use, they tried to paint Steam as some evil, greedy, monopolist while they paint themselves as the scrappy underdog who's looking out for the little guy. They even paid influencers in an effort to "distrupt Steam's organic traffic coverage"[i.imgur.com].

It's all part of their efforts towards total game market domination. Don't be fooled by the false veneer of altruism.

The first GDC survey that was conducted before EGS even existed, before Tim Sweeney was talking about the 12% of their store, had a question about Steam's revenue share if it was justified or not, and only 6% said yes. So you are wrong about the industry complaining about the 30% revenue share after EGS, it was before EGS, before Tim Sweeney was talking about the 12%.

Even in this article the guy conducts his own surveys through the years and even back in 2016-2017 developers were already feeling the 30% wasn't justified.

https://www.fortressofdoors.com/operation-tell-valve-all-the-things-3-0/

SO this idea that nobody was complaining about the 30% before EGS existed is wrong, it's been a growing concern for years prior to EGS even existing.

[[N]ebsun]

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

Please, open your eyes, dear friend. Can you name a sucessful indie game that wasn't released on Steam?

So, what you are saying is that without Steam, they cannot exist (and will have 100% loss) yet they are unwilling to pay the optional 30% which would allow their game to be sold through Steam ? it seems that 30% is worth it, since without that the game wouldn't even exist.

[Haruspex]

Originally posted by Eiswolfin:

The first GDC survey that was conducted before EGS even existed, before Tim Sweeney was talking about the 12% of their store, had a question about Steam's revenue share if it was justified or not, and only 6% said yes. So you are wrong about the industry complaining about the 30% revenue share after EGS, it was before EGS, before Tim Sweeney was talking about the 12%.

Ask a group of people, "Would you rather get $35, or would you rather get $44?" Of course they're going to answer the latter.

This question at GDC was asked in the latter months of 2018 when Epic began spreading the idea that 30% was too much and Valve was announcing their own plans to improve revenue sharing. Also in this same survey 55% of respondents admitted that the bulk of their revenue (75% or more) came to them via Steam.

Before 2018. Before Epic began their campaign to paint Valve and Apple as greedy. Nobody was talking about the 30% cut, and if anybody was, it didn't get much traction.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

Originally posted by 8bitbeard:

The situation demonstrates that most PC gamers who have sunk cost into Steam's ecosystem (Which is admittedly most of them.) do not like the idea of buying games elsewhere.

Completely true. No argument there.

Convenience is key, and if most of your library is already on Steam, it's inconvenient to install additional launchers and spread your library to other platforms.

Dear 8bitbeard,

Thank you for the valuable contribution to this discussion.

It's not like devs have a choice, do they? I mean, have you heard about any successful indie game released outside Steam this year?

You make it sound like releasing on STeam = Successs.
Kinda backwards.
But I'm quite sure there've at least been a couple. I mean between itch.io, the google play store, and the apple store, there are bound to be a few indies. Keep in mind that success for an indie is not always measured as you'd expect.

But even iof I take your word and say that STeam is necessary for an indie game to be successful. That kinda proves the 30% is worth it. It's like how a location that's not burning landfill adjacent is necessary for a restaurant to succeed.

[Haruspex]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

You make it sound like releasing on STeam = Successs.
Kinda backwards.
But I'm quite sure there've at least been a couple. I mean between itch.io, the google play store, and the apple store, there are bound to be a few indies. Keep in mind that success for an indie is not always measured as you'd expect.

But even iof I take your word and say that STeam is necessary for an indie game to be successful. That kinda proves the 30% is worth it. It's like how a location that's not burning landfill adjacent is necessary for a restaurant to succeed.

I'm mostly talking in reference to PC gaming. Of course mobile gaming is an absolute beast and a juggernaut in the gaming space, and if I had considered that I could come up with several examples of successful indies that never released on Steam. Apple and Google also take 30%, mind you.

Also if you measure success differently, you could probably come up with even more examples. If someone's itch.io exclusive indie game earns just enough revenue to keep the creator eating out every weekend, that could be considered "successful" to them.

Steam does not automatically equal success, but failure to release on Steam does cut one off from the majority of potential revenue. Unless a developer has some other incentive, like a giant up-front check from Epic, it's foolish not to release on Steam.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by 8bitbeard:

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

So if you made a game, you would prefer to release it on Steam despite the higher cut, correct?

How much would you charge for it?

I've made games. I've never made anything that I think is worthy of actually selling, but I've at least dabbled in the world of game development since about 1998.

My lack of skill aside, let's say I made a game I felt was worthy of actually marketing. Naturally, I would want to put it on Steam first and foremost. Let's say $10. There would be my initial investment of $100 to list the game, and I would receive $7 per copy sold. After 15 copies sold I've made my $100 back.

Of course while my first and most obvious choice is to sell and list the game on Steam, I would not limit myself. I'm going to list the game on itch.io. I'm going to submit it to GOG and Game Jolt and Epic. I'll probably offer Steam keys up on Gamer's Gate. If the game gets some traction and sees enough success, I'll pay some console porting outfit to port the game over to Playstation, Xbox and Switch.

Every single one of those other platforms also takes 30%, with the exception of itch and Epic, who take 10% and 12%.

From my perspective, I'm not stressing out over the $3 Steam takes per copy. That's just the cost of doing business. I'm counting the $7 per copy instead and trying my best to market the game as hard as I can.

Dear 8bitbeard,

Thank you for the valuable contribution to this discussion.

That's what I would do as well, put my game on all platforms (or try to). Regardless, we know that most people will not buy from other platforms even if the game is cheaper there, which demonstrates how dominant Steam is (close to a monopoly), thus leaving no choice for devs but to release their games on Steam.

After all, people NEED Steam, they even buy free games from other platforms here. Therefore, any developer with serious ambitions is pressed to release his game here.

Yes, developers have a choice. Well, you can also go to war with a butter knife but that's not a good choice, is it?

You seem to be perfectly fine with Steam taking 30% from you, I suppose you have a good job?

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by Start_Running:

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

Dear 8bitbeard,

Thank you for the valuable contribution to this discussion.

It's not like devs have a choice, do they? I mean, have you heard about any successful indie game released outside Steam this year?

You make it sound like releasing on STeam = Successs.
Kinda backwards.
But I'm quite sure there've at least been a couple. I mean between itch.io, the google play store, and the apple store, there are bound to be a few indies. Keep in mind that success for an indie is not always measured as you'd expect.

But even iof I take your word and say that STeam is necessary for an indie game to be successful. That kinda proves the 30% is worth it. It's like how a location that's not burning landfill adjacent is necessary for a restaurant to succeed.

Dear Start_Running,

Thank you for the valuable contribution to this discussion.

Allow me to correct that for you:

Releasing on Steam = chance of success

In fact, I've mentioned that many indie games are not selling well, remember?

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Originally posted by 8bitbeard:

Originally posted by Eiswolfin:

The first GDC survey that was conducted before EGS even existed, before Tim Sweeney was talking about the 12% of their store, had a question about Steam's revenue share if it was justified or not, and only 6% said yes. So you are wrong about the industry complaining about the 30% revenue share after EGS, it was before EGS, before Tim Sweeney was talking about the 12%.

Ask a group of people, "Would you rather get $35, or would you rather get $44?" Of course they're going to answer the latter.

This question at GDC was asked in the latter months of 2018 when Epic began spreading the idea that 30% was too much and Valve was announcing their own plans to improve revenue sharing. Also in this same survey 55% of respondents admitted that the bulk of their revenue (75% or more) came to them via Steam.

Before 2018. Before Epic began their campaign to paint Valve and Apple as greedy. Nobody was talking about the 30% cut, and if anybody was, it didn't get much traction.

The survey was conducted before EGS was even announced, which is was announced December 6, 2018, the survey had already been conducted before that. SO you are still wrong. Also the link I provided you asked if the price was justified, that is not the same same thing as what would you rather pay. So again, you are wrong. So between the GDC survey conducted before EGS was even announced and with the survey conducted years before EGS even existed, it shows that developers were not happy about Steam's revenue share.

You only became aware of developers not being happy with teh revenue share Steam takes because of Tim Sweeney, and you wrongly think that is what it started, but in reality it started before EGS, years before EGS.

[Pierce Dalton]

Originally posted by Nebsun:

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

Please, open your eyes, dear friend. Can you name a sucessful indie game that wasn't released on Steam?

So, what you are saying is that without Steam, they cannot exist (and will have 100% loss) yet they are unwilling to pay the optional 30% which would allow their game to be sold through Steam ? it seems that 30% is worth it, since without that the game wouldn't even exist.

Dear [N]ebsun,

Thank you for the valuable contribution to this discussion.

No, I'm saying they are doomed to obscurity without Steam.

Obscurity: the state of being unknown, inconspicuous, or unimportant.

[DiceDsx]

Can we ask the same to consoles too?

Seems rather unfair that only Steam gets complaints about this.

[Tito Shivan]

So, I'm guessing the prophesied mass migration of developers to greener pastures with a more attractive revenue share hasn't happened and they're still here anyway.

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

So if you made a game, you would prefer to release it on Steam despite the higher cut, correct?

Can I answer this one, pretty please?

I would, despite the higher cut. Why? Two reasons (but mainly the first one):
-Faster and easier approval process over other shops. I can start selling my game faster here.
-Big available customerbase for my business.

But there's a factor this question seems to overlook which is:

I can do business in multiple storefronts simultaneously.

I can sell in Steam and start making money while I try get my game in Epic, Humble, GOG, or any other storefront. I can spice my sales amongst multiple sites and play around with multiple revenue channels. I can make profit of the benefits from ALL the places I sell my game in.

Once you frame the question within a business viewpoint, it becomes very intrascendent.

[Haruspex]

Originally posted by Pierce Dalton:

After all, people NEED Steam, they even buy free games from other platforms here. Therefore, any developer with serious ambitions is pressed to release his game here.

Yes, developers have a choice. Well, you can also go to war with a butter knife but that's not a good choice, is it?

You seem to be perfectly fine with Steam taking 30% from you, I suppose you have a good job?

Let me just cut to the chase here and say that I agree that Steam taking less than 30% would be better for indies.

Do I think Valve should cut their revenue share though? Is 30% justified? Do I, as a customer, feel strongly enough about it to outright say that Valve should cut their revenue share?

In the GDC survey another poster mentioned, it's often quoted that only 6% believe the cut is justified. You usually have to read further in to see that 32% outright say it's unjustified, and 27% say it's "probably" not justified.

We have 3 different forces at play here though. The customer, the developer, and Valve themselves.

The customer wants a nice, feature filled platform that's easy and enjoyable to use.

The developer wants ease of publishing, features that help them to reach their customers and effectively market their games, and of course they want a fair revenue share.

Valve wants everyone to be happy, I think. If customers are happy, they stick around and spend more money. If developers are happy they continue to sell their games on Steam. If everyone is happy then Valve is more successful as a platform.

A balance between these three forces is ideal.

Previously you said Steam is "almost a monopoly", which I disagree with. As the judge in Epic vs Apple said "Success is not illegal."

If Valve dropped their revenue share, it's possible they would no longer be able to afford some of the projects they have put together as a result of their reinvestment into the company. I own a Steam Deck, which has completely changed the way I play PC games. The cost of developing and manufacturing that device, then selling it, most likely at a loss, is where that 30% is going, and that's just for starters. Steam is the most feature rich PC gaming platform, and only got to be that way as a result of reinvestment into the platform.

If only taking 12% means having as barebones of a platform as Epic and other competitors, then I would much rather they continue to take the 30%, as they have for decades now, which was considered such incredible improvement over the old, physical distribution method.

[Haruspex]

Originally posted by Eiswolfin:

The survey was conducted before EGS was even announced, which is was announced December 6, 2018, the survey had already been conducted before that. SO you are still wrong.

The survey concluded December 19th, 2018. Epic announced their storefront on December 4th, 2018, so 15 days where the announcement could have effected the outcome.

Even if there was no announcement though, I don't think it would have made much of a difference. If you ask someone "Would you prefer to have more money?" Of course they're going to answer in the affirmative.