this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
369 points (97.4% liked)
Games
16380 readers
1089 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For it to "even out" they'd only have to increase your reach ~50%.
They do way more than that. And they give you an inherent legitimacy that putting it on your own site doesn't. It's not just handling refunds; it's the certainty as an end user that you'll get one hassle free.
Without Steam (or another retailer with similar traits), selling an indie game would be closer to a pipe dream than really hard. In almost all cases (and this seems to apply even to AAA publishers as most of them come back), the 30% they're taking is money you wouldn't have without them.
I think there are a lot of people who weren't around for, or don't remember, how buying digital titles was before Steam got quite so popular.
It was pretty rare, and the overwhelming majority of indie games were released for free. There just wasn't many good ways to get the word out, and most ways of taking payment were costly enough to set up that it was rarely worth trying to get some meager amount of pay if you were just a one man show with no external financial backing.
And exactly none of that matters because Valve has never attempted to maliciously take market share. If someone else wants to step in all they have to do is stop being shit. Steam has tons of issues. From the limited UI adaptability for devs to the rather archaic games list and somewhat silly discussions forums from the 90s, all the way to the convoluted larger menu system.
Yet rather than put any real effort into things we get shitty launchers from 9 different companies ONLY selling their limited scope of bullshit.
But they do give you an advantage. If steam didn't exist at all, without a comparable replacement, it would not be possible for you to move a real quantity of units at all. The market they provide has massive value, and their market share is a product of genuinely being far and away better than any alternative.
People don't refuse to buy games on Epic or Origin or Uplay just because they need everything in one place. It's because all of those platforms are so much worse that they degrade the experience of games purchased through them.
Again, that's because every other way to distribute games is terrible.
And it doesn't really matter, because any sales you actually drive yourself you can give them 0% of, with free steam keys. Sales through their storefront are inherently partly driven by their value add.
Of course it's relevant.
It's why the PC market is what it is.
Valve controls the PC market because they created the PC market and are responsible for the overwhelming majority of its progress. And they have done nothing remotely abusive with it.
They've justified their cut and are fully entitled to it.
They are entitled to a fair cut of sales through their platform. That's how platforms work.
You're the one disqualifying the huge service they're providing.
They're exactly as entitled to their cut of sales on their platform as the developers of the games are to get paid for their game.
This is an anecdote, but it is also absolutely not speculation. I won't install Epic, I avoid most AAA launchers/required accounts, prefer GOG, and get most of my games on Steam. Epic and many other studio launcher apps are hostile to the consumers or just a royal pain to use. I have a couple Sony games. Why should I have to be online to play a 20-year-old single-player game that I bought through Steam? So now I check if they have that garbage before I buy them through Steam.
I think Steam could afford to charge less, but I don't think most smaller companies could get a basic store up for less than they charge (and the big companies have the tools to determine if thos is saving them money), and that still doesn't get you everything Steam brings to the table, consumer confidence being the most important.