Epic sucks so bad they have to bribe both the gamers and the developers to use it.
Also fuck Epic.
Man it’s a shame the Epic store sucks so so bad. I’d love to give developers a bigger cut. Steam is amazing but taking a 30% cut is a bit insane.
Still, having to struggle with the Epic launcher… oof. GOG’s isn’t great either but it beats the hell out of Epic still.
Steam is amazing because of that 30%. That money goes into features that attract users which in turn brings publishers.
No other store has invested so much money on their platform. If you take that 30% off, you defund development.
That said, Steam has different percentage tiers for different amounts of sales. That could obviously be better or refined to give indies a better chance.
But I’m more than happy when Steam takes big chunk out of Rockstar, EA and Ubisoft for example.
30% has been industry standard across any digital storefront until Epic found out they couldn’t beat steam by just paying for exclusivity deals. Then they decided to go down this race to the bottom strategy.
Steam is good because of that 30%.
Firstly, data transfer and storage isn’t free and is an ongoing cost for Steam even after purchase. How many times can you think that you installed a game, then deleted it and ultimately downloaded it again—Steam doesn’t get any more money, but that costs them. They could have done all the limited number of downloads or transfer speed limiting shit that used to be more common.
The profit they make on top goes straight back into Valve. They are a private company without shareholders to please and pay dividends to. This has allowed them to keep reinvesting into Steam and making it the best experience for the consumer they can—they’ve been rewarded with a load of goodwill and market share following that. You can guarantee that we wouldn’t have proton or the steam deck without the money valve made from steam sales.
Epic doing this is just another attempt to try and tempt developers to choose their store and not list on Steam. They have no interest in actually improving their offering, their only strategy is to try and find ways to put Steam users at a disadvantage and hope that people go “well I guess I’ll go for it on epic if I have to”. They don’t have any problem getting companies to list their games on Epic, this is 100% about manipulating developers to not list on Steam.
GoG is the alternative to Steam, and offers something that benefits consumers to compete with Steam in DRM free games.
Friends don’t let friends reward Epic for anti-consumer business practices.
Simple just use short term oriented goals because that’s what the company is focusing on. Steam was always long term oriented from the beginning Gabe said CD less gaming.
Hey don’t mistake that comment for a defense of Epic. I am a fan of Steam in general (in so far as I can be regarding “license selling” companies.) I think Gabe did many great things for game distribution. I’m working on an indie game myself and if it ever gets to the point that I can release it, it will be on Steam no doubt. I do dread the day Gabe has to pass on the torch though.
Didn’t Steam essentially create the “standard” for 30% price point for digital distribution in the first place? While a 30% margin makes sense for physical retail, it’s never made sense for digital distribution.
If they created the problem in the first place, then isn’t that actually an issue?
I’d argue it makes more sense for digital distribution, once the sale has been made in a physical store, there’s no ongoing cost for them.
A digital storefront has the ongoing cost of downloads and updates, as well as the distributed storage costs (Steam has many copies of games all over the world to mean downloads are quick)
Data transfer costs back in the mid 00s mean that every install of a game like HL2 cost them a dollar or so (A quick Google suggests they might have paid a couple of cents a gigabyte, but they may have had a better deal given the volume of data). If a user ever uninstalled and reinstalled more than a couple of times (a lot more common back then with the limited storage everyone had), and couple that with ongoing update transfer costs then most of the profit from a full price sale could easily be gone, let alone if the game was bought with a discount as is very common. If they never made any profit from the sales, Steam never makes it past its awkward years.
Data transfer is definitely cheaper these days, but then games are bigger and they probably spend a lot more on datacenter space than back in the day
A physical storefront has to deal with asset depreciation however. A product can sit on the shelf and reduce in value as it ages, there is no such thing with digital distribution.
Based on estimates, and various reports, leaks etc. since they aren’t a public company… Steam makde an estimated $10.8 Billion in 2024. They made $780,000 per employee as of 2018 based on an internal report, more than nearly every other company on the planet. They’re not spending anywhere near that on operations.
Surely the sales are an equivalent there? Both ultimately mean the total price goes down and the store’s cut goes down accordingly.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re definitely profiting these days. $11bn is a massive amount of revenue* for a company with the number of staff they do. But Steam are going to have disproportionately high datacenter costs compared to most other companies. As a rough comparison: Watching an hour of netflix at HD quality is about 1GB of transfer or so, Call of Duty is something like a quarter of a terabyte. Someone who downloads call of duty once would have to watch 250h of netflix to cost them the same—and Netflix is funded by subscription.
Then remember they’re likely paying their staff very well, I would not be surprised at all if well over half of their revenue just goes to operational costs before any reinvestment.
*Checked the figure was revenue and not profit.
The sheer data transfer happening is insanely costly and is not something people think about. Valve could certainly tweak their cut for small developers in sone way, but they arent just pocketing 30%.
Valve actively increase their cut for small developers and their entire business model is to keep staff to a minimum and costs aggressively low.
They are absolutely just pocketing 30%.
What they are doing with the 30% is anybody’s guess, because they are a private company, so I don’t know how much of it becomes new boats and knifes for Gabe and how much goes to VR HMDs and handhelds, but they are a VERY lean company that sure seems to like being cash-rich.
It would be impossible for them to pocket 30%
They apparently transfer approximately 50 exabytes a year.
Some napkin maths has that as costing around $5bn to do from a provider like AWS. Which is half their annual turnover not profit.
Now sure, they will not be spending that much on just data transfer, everyone in the industry knows you get bespoke deals with the cloud providers before the bill gets close to that—but they’ll not get anything close to half price.
Then they need to pay for the actual storage costs
And the compute needed for running all of steam’s API and web servers
And staff, which if they only have 80 of them, will be paid some of the best salaries in the industry.
If you think they’re taking even half of that 30% as profit, I think you need to give this another look.
They don’t need to take that 30% as profit for it to be high. They cost less to run than any other first party. We know this from their recent lawsuits. And no, they do not pay 5 billion for their traffic, but whatever they pay isn’t higher than Sony or Nintendo, or at least not so much higher that it entirely drains their revenue.
And even if they paid your back of the napkin figure, best guess is they pulled ten billion in revenue last year. They don’t tell anybody that, though, so it’s all estimates, and considering the have the biggest distribution platform, the biggest game on that platform and a separate hardware business I’m going to say Valve is not about to buckle under the pressure of bandwidth costs anytime soon, even if they spread the cash around a bit.
Meanwhile, the developers using Valve’s platform do have to pay salaries with a fraction of that revenue, sometimes to staff larger than Valve’s. And for a number of them they also have to deal with server costs and general running costs on the back end.
I don’t know Valve’s operating costs. Nobody does. I know Gabe Newell is very rich. I know the few people working at Valve are very well paid. I know they run that ship as quiet and cheap as possible. And I know they take in just as much (or more) than other platforms with the same or higher costs and a similar or lower take.
So none of that flies.
I don’t think this is true. 20% was the standard, as I recall, not 30%. I think it has moved that way over time, though. And even that only made some sense while retailers were too powerful to compete with them on price. Storage and bandwidth are much cheaper than bricks and real estate and salaries.
This is a good thing, Steam’s cut is too big, especially for a company with next to no staff that runs on a heavily Uber-ified model and produces very little and I an very tired of the fanboyism.
I agree that people should default to GoG when possible, though.
I do wonder just how much a policy like this would effect Valves bottom line though.
This would be pretty amazing for small studios.
Steam makes a shit load of money. The server fees are basically a joke and they have 80 employees in the steam division.
The only things that is being invested in is Gabens fleet of mega yatchs, worth an estimated 1 billion, and costing between 75 and 100 million annually to maintain.
Valve has been fined in the EU for anti-consumer practices and received an F from the better business bureau. They are currently in the middle of another lawsuit.
30% is way too high and it’s a joke to see actual consumers defend it.
I’d love to give developers a bigger cut.
Sure, but this just gives the publisher a bigger cut, developers and gamers will see absolutely no difference, as usual.
Developers do care about this. Investment on software is fleeing the market like crazy. Unless Valve has decided to go back to financing games, developers are desperate for publishers to get some cash flow these days.
Just curious what issues you’re having with the Epic store. I’ve bought a few games now and thought the process was pretty smooth.
Main problem: incredibly slow/unresponsive. Clicking things doesn’t give good visual feedback and can take forever for the underlying webpage to load/reload.
It’s designed as a webshop first and game library second (third, fourth?) Unintuitive UI, hard to search, hard to categorize, poor feedback on what’s being downloaded and why. Basically every quality of life feature from Steam is missing.
But to be fair it’s been a few years since I opened it. Might have improved a lot since then. I use Heroic these days. Also not amazing but at least it’s open source.
Honestly, it used to have much, much bigger functionality gaps than it currently does.
The things all major Steam competitors are missing are value added features Steam has been investing on for decades. Those aren’t basic or fundamental, but you may miss things like their controller compatibility layer if you favor a Sony controller or their metadata layer if you use that a lot. And devs do get value from their dev back-end, that is true (although console digital distribution systems have similar features these days, albeit a bit less streamlined).
I don’t think that extra value justifies a whole-ass monopoly, though.
Ah yes. Epic, store that gave Hell Let Loose for free in January and the community is still recovering.
Imagine Mahjong matches constantly visited by new players that sit down, dont say anything, flip the table and shout at you for losing.
might have to reinstall and see how many more of my free games have magically disappeared.
I wish Etsy would follow suit.
