6% of devs think Valve justifies its 30% Steam cut, according to GDC poll

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I'm guessing most of the devs polled have released obscure indie games that haven't sold very well on Steam.

Click to shrink...

I highly doubt that, and even then, "obscure" and "haven't sold really well" are two very.... obscure.... concepts when talking about subjective goods.

Remember that these devs were polled about the cut, not how well they did or did not sell. GDC also caters towards the more "well off" indie devs. It is not cheap to attend by any means, even with the base Expo Pass.

 

[Arebours]

Truthfully, devs are constantly underpaid and living on the edge even when a game sells decently. There -should- be a lesser cut.

I honestly have no idea why people are defending a gigantic, hugely profitable company like valve while everyone under them barely survives.

The fanboyism with huge organizations is so fucking weird

Click to shrink...

I would love it if valve took a smaller cut but it is the industry standard and out of all platforms steam is pretty much the best across the board in terms of features but also best in how they are comparatively benevolent(for example no exclusives) considering their market position. It's absurd to me that this thing is getting so much attention while the issue of paywalled multiplayer and being forced to buy the same game over and over on console storefronts never sees the spotlight.
Devs being underpaid and living on the edge is a matter of budgeting and management. The cut has been 30% for ages, it's not something that recently pushed them over the edge.

Lol at the sheer number of people that think Steam is the end all of PC gaming.

Minecraft by itself is the same size as Steam.

Battle.net is already half their size and theres quite a lot of others out there.

If one thinks that way they're effectively saying the sum of all PC gaming is about the same size as PSN which is pretty laughable.

Click to shrink...

Minecraft is not a storefront, it's a nonsensical comparison to make.

Per steamspy the total games owned count is 4,264,471,905. Minecraft has a long way to go to sell that many copies.

 

[Pryme]

I am. Unless you can tell me about Sony Greenlight? Microsoft targeted Discovery Queues? Nintendo allowing you to generate as many keys as you'd like and sell them off the eShop for a 100% cut? Google's built-in support for every major controller and fully-remappable controls? Apple providing VR hardware and Linux software support gratis, on-the-house, for any developer to use? Any of those storefronts, as well as Origin, Uplay, GOG, &etc., having even close to as many of those features as Steam?

.

Click to shrink...

Yes, cherry pick as list of Steam features, many of which don't make any sense for other storefronts, as your argument. Why should Apple push Linux support for their storefronts when said storefronts are exclusively on iOS and Mac? That's as inane as saying Steam is deficient since games bought there can't run natively on iPads.

Use cuts for other PC storefronts as basis for your arguments. This whataboutism using consoles and mobile OSes Just doesn't work.

 

[Alexandros]

Valve justifies its cut by creating a service that PC gamers en masse enjoy using and buying from. Valve is giving developers a huge userbase that is willing to spend money on games. It's not rocket science.

 

[TSM]

Steam has everyone but the big guys with their own storefronts over a barrel. I'm sure Valve could lower their cut, but I'm not sure what the incentive to do so would be without significant competition. It'll be interesting to see if Epic can give them a run for their money and what the fallout will be. I'd imagine that if Epic is successful the Steam cut will go down significantly or they will be incentivising devs to push customers to the Epic store.

 

[Valdega]

I highly doubt that, and even then, "obscure" and "haven't sold really well" are two very.... obscure.... concepts when talking about subjective goods.

Remember that these devs were polled about the cut, not how well they did or did not sell. GDC also caters towards the more "well off" indie devs. It is not cheap to attend by any means, even with the base Expo Pass.

Click to shrink...

If your game sells well, a 30% cut feels less substantial and more fair. If your game sells poorly, a 30% cut feels more substantial and less fair. If devs are complaining that 30% is unfair, that means they believe that Steam hasn't given them the success they were expecting. I seriously doubt the devs that have over 100k sales on Steam are complaining. It's far more likely to be the devs that have less than 10k.

Truthfully, devs are constantly underpaid and living on the edge even when a game sells decently. There -should- be a lesser cut.

I honestly have no idea why people are defending a gigantic, hugely profitable company like valve while everyone under them barely survives.

The fanboyism with huge organizations is so fucking weird

Click to shrink...

It's not fanboyism, it's logic. Valve offers developers a very large potential audience and a wealth of useful features. In return, they ask for a 30% cut of each sale which is standard for digital storefronts. It's not Valve's responsibility to ensure that every developer is successful. Given the sheer number of games on Steam (many of which would never be allowed on other platforms), that would be impossible. Ultimately, developers need to build their own success. Valve simply makes it easier for them.

 

[HylianSeven]

I mentioned this in another thread, but Valve not providing info on how the dev cut is used to fund stuff like Photon and other user experience/game compatibility features probably contributes to that lack of faith from devs.

Click to shrink...

Proton is seriously nothing to sneeze at, especially if it gets devs' games on more operating systems.

 

[HylianSeven]

Yay, now they get to deal with all the extra complaints from that version of the game having more bugs cus of the many different versions of Linux while not getting many sales.... what a boon?
http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/182220552875/what-would-necessary-for-linux-to-become-bigger

Click to shrink...

Not how proton works. It's more like just running a Windows program in Linux rather than being native to Linux. It's a souped up version of Wine and is in fact based on Wine. Developers don't have to do anything for their game to be playable on Linux with Proton.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

If devs are complaining that 30% is unfair, that means they believe that Steam hasn't given them the success they were expecting.

Click to shrink...

You're speculating. Nothing in the poll would suggest this.

 

[Valdega]

You're speculating. Nothing in the poll would suggest this.

Click to shrink...

Logic suggests it. People complain when they are unhappy. If a dev sells 1+ million copies of their game on Steam, they are more likely to be happy and less likely to complain about Valve's cut. Whenever I read an article that features devs complaining about Steam, they're almost exclusively the developers of obscure (and usually generic) games that nobody has ever heard of.

 

[TSM]

Logic suggests it. People complain when they are unhappy. If a dev sells 1+ million copies of their game on Steam, they are more likely to be happy and less likely to complain about Valve's cut. Whenever I read an article that features devs complaining about Steam, they're almost exclusively the developers of obscure (and usually generic) games that nobody has ever heard of.

Click to shrink...

The more copies you sell of something the bigger the amount that Valve pockets. I'd think the developers that sell a huge amount would be more dismayed by the size of the cut that Valve took than the little guys. If your game sold $30 million it has to be hard to see how Valve did enough to earn almost $10 million of that.

 

[mugwhump]

In my ideal future all digital storefronts take 10% or less. Not likely on the storefronts that have captive audiences, but hopefully the new competition pushes valve in that direction.

 

[TheTrain]

The more copies you sell of something the bigger the amount that Valve pockets. I'd think the developers that sell a huge amount would be more dismayed by the size of the cut that Valve took than the little guys. If your game sold $30 million it has to be hard to see how Valve did enough to earn almost $10 million of that.

Click to shrink...

Btw, right now is the other way around. The more you sell, the less Valve takes as a cut. (25% at 10M$ - 20% at 50M% | Including DLC, In-Game sales and community fees)

 

[spineduke]

The more copies you sell of something the bigger the amount that Valve pockets. I'd think the developers that sell a huge amount would be more dismayed by the size of the cut that Valve took than the little guys. If your game sold $30 million it has to be hard to see how Valve did enough to earn almost $10 million of that.

Click to shrink...

But thats based on their decision to sell on Steam - if they're upset after the fact that they sold millions it suggests a lack of foresight and accountability on their own decision making.

 

[TSM]

Btw, right now is the other way around. The more you sell, the less Valve takes as a cut. (25% at 10M$ - 20% at 50M% | Including DLC, In-Game sales and community fees)

Click to shrink...

That's very recent and the rich get richer narrative isn't really helping Valve here.

But thats based on their decision to sell on Steam - if they're upset after the fact that they sold millions it suggests a lack of foresight and accountability on their own decision making.

Click to shrink...

Or they can realize they made the only viable decision by putting their game on Steam and question if Valve actually earns the 30% cut.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

When fanboyism levels up and class-changes into straight out denialism.



"I may be a fanboy, but it's because my beloved company is actually, objectively, the best."

The lack of self-awareness in this thread is fucking embarrassing.

Click to shrink...

Says the guy who entered a frenzy state and straight up LIED about being "insulted in PM" to give me a ban when I made a cheap joke about Nintendo.

Just for context.

 

[dex3108]

In my ideal future all digital storefronts take 10% or less. Not likely on the storefronts that have captive audiences, but hopefully the new competition pushes valve in that direction.

Click to shrink...

And customers get higher prices. That 30% allows 3rd party key sellers to lower prices up to 25% day 1. Steam cut goes down, prices go up because developers for sure won't lower prices (look at Epic Store games).

 

[spineduke]

Or they can realize they made the only viable decision by putting their game on Steam and question if Valve actually earns the 30% cut.

Click to shrink...

So

If I publish Super Meat Boy on Xbox and sell millions, then Microsofts cut is a-okay, they can keep those millions

If I publish on Steam, I'm giving Valve the evil eye for taking the same exact money.

Pretty questionable if you ask me.

 

[Deleted member 24118]

Says the guy who entered a frenzy state and straight up LIED about being "insulted in PM" to give me a ban when I made a cheap joke about Nintendo.

Just for context.

Click to shrink...

Oooo, tell us more.

 

[TSM]

So

If I publish Super Meat Boy on Xbox and sell millions, then Microsofts cut is a-okay, they can keep those millions

If I publish on Steam, I'm giving Valve the evil eye for taking the same exact money.

Pretty questionable if you ask me.

Click to shrink...

Consoles are a walled garden. While Steam is also walled garden the PC is an open platform. It's not a healthy situation when the only financially viable way to sell games on an open platform like PC is through a single walled garden.

 

[Deleted member 11517]

And customers get higher prices. That 30% allows 3rd party key sellers to lower prices up to 25% day 1. Steam cut goes down, prices go up because developers for sure won't lower prices (look at Epic Store games).

Click to shrink...

Ironically, I could see that actually happen IF they lower their cut. Ironically because it's yet another thing where a vocal minority knows better and demands things they're not really knowledgeable about or that's actually their business.

And before someone says something about fanboyism, I don't really like Steam much, but I have no issue with them taking the same cut as everyone else.

 

[Igniz12]

Consoles are a walled garden. While Steam is also walled garden the PC is an open platform. It's not a healthy situation when the only financially viable way to sell games on an open platform like PC is through a single walled garden.

Click to shrink...

We already tried that. People couldn't stop falling over themselves to call PC gamers pirates and thieves and hop on to consoles. The whole Japanese prominence on Steam was a direct result of Valve's efforts to bring a healthier and stable market place to PC. Even western devs did not release games on PC for a time.

To ignore all that and keep parroting this idea Seam does nothing to earn its share because Tim Sweeney said so strikes me as totally disingenuous, doubly so when you claim that it is ok for consoles because they are different somehow. Steam did not kill a thriving PC market in order to place itself as the defacto option to sell your games on PC, it did the opposite.

 

[Alexandros]

Consoles are a walled garden. While Steam is also walled garden the PC is an open platform. It's not a healthy situation when the only financially viable way to sell games on an open platform like PC is through a single walled garden.

Click to shrink...

It will be even less of a healthy situation if the PC market is damaged.

 

[qrac]

They don't think it's worth it, but more than half of them do 75% of their sales there... ok

Click to shrink...

The games would sell on other platforms. Say that Steam didn't exist, then an other platform would have 75% of their sales. Those 75% sales wouldn't just disapear because Steam does not exist.

 

[TSM]

It will be even less of a healthy situation if the PC market is damaged.

Click to shrink...

I'd argue that the fact that there's only one financially viable store for PC devs means it's basically damaged now. It's not a fatal wound, but it's not healthy either.

 

[Alexandros]

The games would sell on other platforms. Say that Steam didn't exist, then an other platform would have 75% of their sales. Those 75% sales wouldn't just disapear because Steam does not exist.

Click to shrink...

There is no guarantee of that. There are other platforms that customers could migrate to.

 

[Tuco Benedicto Pacifico]

I'd argue that the fact that there's only one financially viable store for PC devs means it's basically damaged now. It's not a fatal wound, but it's not healthy either.

Click to shrink...

This one comes to mind:

 

[Valdega]

The more copies you sell of something the bigger the amount that Valve pockets. I'd think the developers that sell a huge amount would be more dismayed by the size of the cut that Valve took than the little guys. If your game sold $30 million it has to be hard to see how Valve did enough to earn almost $10 million of that.

Click to shrink...

The difference is that if you make $30 million in revenue, you're still getting a ton of money even after Valve's cut. Conversely, if you only make $10,000, $3000 is a much more meaningful loss.

As I and others have mentioned, 30% is the standard cut for digital storefronts and Steam offers more features and services than any other platform. The key difference between Steam and other platforms is that 90% of the games on Steam would never even be allowed on other platforms. The Epic Store would have never sold Pony Island or Thief Simulator, for example.

 

[Alexandros]

I'd argue that the fact that there's only one financially viable store for PC devs means it's basically damaged now. It's not a fatal wound, but it's not healthy either.

Click to shrink...

And in turn I would argue that the service has earned its place because it is by far the best of its kind and its competitors do not offer even a fraction of Steam's features and services. The best service being on top is actually a sign of a very healthy market.

 

[abracadaver]

Without Steam I wouldn't be a PC gamer nowadays. It's the only platform I use because I love the features it offers.

I spend tons of money on Steam and ignore every other store. The 30% cut is well deserved in my opinion.

 

[Valdega]

Consoles are a walled garden. While Steam is also walled garden the PC is an open platform. It's not a healthy situation when the only financially viable way to sell games on an open platform like PC is through a single walled garden.

Click to shrink...

How is Steam a walled garden? Developers don't have to use Steam. There are a multitude of ways to sell your PC games. If developers truly believed that Valve didn't justify their cut, they wouldn't put their games on Steam.

 

[spineduke]

Consoles are a walled garden. While Steam is also walled garden the PC is an open platform. It's not a healthy situation when the only financially viable way to sell games on an open platform like PC is through a single walled garden.

Click to shrink...

what does this have to do with the optics of a developer who feels that 30% is justified or not in either case

your answer is baffling

 

[Ge0force]

Console makers design, build, and operate their own proprietary platforms (including hardware!). Those expenses are dramatically higher than Valve's.

Click to shrink...

Except for the console hardware, Valve offers the same (and even more) than what Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo offer. Console makers are also SELLING their hardware, they get royalties from accessoires and they are charging their customers a monthly fee for access to online gaming. Surely that covers the development costs of the hardware.

Thanks.
Thats a pretty unfortunate set up for publishers then. Anytime you are paying a % instead of a flat dollar amount is going to make someone else rich at your expense. Their costs are fixed but yours are not, ouch.

Click to shrink...

Wait a minute. Valve offers a complete ecosystem for both publishers/developers and consumers, with loads of tools and features that are completely free to use: download servers, (optional) DRM, online matchmaking, reporting services, mod support, forums, cloud saves, streaming etc etc etc. It's not that Valve isn't doing anything for this 30%.

 

[Jakisthe]

This is why:

lol

Click to shrink...

Someone explain these graphs to me and what they say about where most % of sales comes from.

 

[Deleted member 1759]

Someone explain these graphs to me and what they say about where most % of sales comes from.

Click to shrink...

Did you read the quote I included in my post?

 

[XNihili]

Being a developper is different than being a consumer.
I laugh at the people saying that "if they are not happy with the 30% cut they should go elsewhere" and then "Why are X going to Epic store, I bet they are getting paid by Epic".
Consumers wouldn't care if Steam take 40% or 50% if they don't have to pay more.

 

[Ge0force]

Proton is great for Linux users, but Linux users make up such an incredibly small portion of PC gaming. PC publishers don't bother with Linux versions for that reason. Why should Valve put any resources into it?

Click to shrink...

Because PC gaming shouldn't be locked to a single OS. I can't stress enough how important that is. There should always be an alternative for Windows in case Microsoft screws up.

 

[Jakisthe]

Did you read the quote I included in my post?

Click to shrink...

I did, but I assume devs can sell their games on more than one platform. which makes the graphs rather strange to try and parse.

 

[Sarcastico]

Sounds like they're just trying to haggle with Valve.

 

[elyetis]

More competitors for Steam would be a good thing for everyone, obviously. Steams quasi monopoly in the PC market makes it impossible for most devs to avoid the platform, even if they wanted to.

Click to shrink...

Most of us never had anything against competiton like gog and the like, giving options to the consummer is obviously a good thing.
But the idea that competition can only lead to "good things for everyone" is faulty, exclusivity deal being the current prime example.

 

[horkrux]

How is Steam a walled garden? Developers don't have to use Steam. There are a multitude of ways to sell your PC games. If developers truly believed that Valve didn't justify their cut, they wouldn't put their games on Steam.

Click to shrink...

You often can't afford to not put your games on the biggest store there is. You can still believe the cut is not justified.

 

[Ionic]

I still think it would be cool if Steam's revenue share worked like a skewed bell curve where the first like, 500,000 dollars was taken at some much lower rate and then a normal rate above that and then the reduced rates for the big earners above the thresholds they've already specified. I imagine the sum total of all the the money made by Valve from small indie games (I'm talking one to two person projects of which there are thousands) is quite tiny compared to the total revenue Valve receives from a small handful of big name mega hits. Working out a great deal for the smallest earners would have the highest impact for the largest number of developers for the smallest change in revenue from Valve. I can imagine an extra few dollars per sale means more to a developer of a game that will sell 7,000 copies than to a larger publisher who breaks a million in revenue within two hours of preorders opening.

Though with any goodwill decision that gets made by Valve, I wonder how some devs would try to abuse it by somehow finding a way to relapse their 500,000 dollar (in my example) revenue limit by just chunking their game up into 5 cheaper titles instead of one big one...

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

what does this have to do with the optics of a developer who feels that 30% is justified or not in either case

your answer is baffling

Click to shrink...

It's the console user defense. It's okay that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo collect 30% because they created their own little walled gardens.

You'll find plenty of console players chiming in whenever there's a Steam related thread.

 

[Nanashrew]

How is Steam a walled garden? Developers don't have to use Steam. There are a multitude of ways to sell your PC games. If developers truly believed that Valve didn't justify their cut, they wouldn't put their games on Steam.

Click to shrink...

They don't have to, they are forced to by current market conditions, and the sentiment I've been seeing from developers is fear that Valve is growing far too powerful for its own good and would like to see healthy competition and not feel trapped and live or die by a single storefront.

There's also ton of concern over Valve's own algorithms and bugs, that if you happen to get hit by it, there's very little that can be done about unless there's been some sort of coverage from sites like PC gamer or Kotaku, like in the case of Wandersong. Valve also doesn't seem to talk to devs big or small, they are silent in all things. Getting any feedback from them can be nigh impossible.

Many are feeling soured by Valve unless Valve changes their tune.

 

[Valdega]

You often can't afford to not put your games on the biggest store there is. You can still believe the cut is not justified.

Click to shrink...

If the benefits of putting your game on the store outweigh the downsides, then the store has justified their cut. There are already other platforms that offer lower cuts than Steam. Itch.io, for example, doesn't take any cut at all. However, the profits you make from Steam significantly outweigh any benefits those cuts would offer.

The rants about Steam not justifying their cut are just completely inane.
- Steam's cut is the standard cut for digital storefronts.
- Steam offers more useful features and services for developers than any other platform.
- Steam offers a potential audience that's larger than any other platform's.
- Steam sells a much larger variety of games than any other platform.

The only way you could think Steam doesn't justify their cut is if you released a game on Steam, it sold below your expectations and you blame your failure on Steam.

They don't have to, they are forced to by current market conditions, and the sentiment I've been seeing from developers is fear that Valve is growing far too powerful for its own good and would like to see healthy competition and not feel trapped and live or die by a single storefront.

There's also ton of concern over Valve's own algorithms and bugs, that if you happen to get hit by it, there's very little that can be done about unless there's been some sort of coverage from sites like PC gamer or Kotaku, like in the case of Wandersong. Valve also doesn't seem to talk to devs big or small, they are silent in all things. Getting any feedback from them can be nigh impossible.

Click to shrink...

Again, there are plenty of platforms on PC. Origin, Uplay, Itch.io, Humble, GOG, Epic Game Store, Discord, etc. Why do none of these count as "healthy competition?" Because they don't come anywhere near to Steam when it comes to features, service, flexibility or audience. Is Steam perfect? Nope. Are there sometimes bugs that can affect sales? Sure. As a whole, does Steam offer much greater potential profits and exposure than its competitors? Definitely.

 

[LewieP]

I would believe devs saying that more if they stopped releasing on Steam.

And not just because someone else offered them payment in exchange for exclusivity.

 

[horkrux]

If the benefits of putting your game on the store outweigh the downsides, then the store has justified their cut. There are already other platforms that offer lower cuts than Steam. Itch.io, for example, doesn't take any cut at all. However, the profits you make from Steam significantly outweigh any benefits those cuts would offer.

Click to shrink...

So you're basically saying, "as long as the profit is right, every cut is justified"

The rants about Steam not justifying their cut are just completely inane.
- Steam's cut is the standard cut for digital storefronts.

Click to shrink...

You assume that those devs would accept this standard cut in general, but not on Steam in particular. That doesn't have to be the case.

 

[oni-link]

It's amusing how this thread is full of consumers justifying why they use/like/prefer Stream when the thread is about developers

I'm sure a lot of devs agree Steam is the gold standard while also believing 30% is a lot to hand over for what they get in return

 

[Alexandros]

I would be supportive of an industry-wide effort to reduce the digital storefront cut. I wouldn't be supportive of anything that targets Steam specifically.

 

[Deleted member 10601]

Maybe Valve should introduce a two tier approach?

First tier: all the Steam stuff. 70% devs / 30% Volvo
Second tier: no cloud saves, no workshop, no steamworks integration, no forum. 85% for the devs/pubs / 15% for Volvo

Would that make some devs feel better?

EDIT: It's not a joke question.

EDIT2: Reviews are obligatory. :D