this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
748 points (90.3% liked)
Games
16828 readers
988 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
Steam's de-facto monopoly is so strong, Epic can't break it. Epic made four billion dollars per year on one game. Epic licenses the engine for like half of all noteworthy games. Epic has the only platform not seizing one-third of all revenue from developers, and that platform throws free shit at customers in constant desperation. And they still can't move the needle.
Monopoly doesn't mean there's zero competition. It means the competition does not matter.
PC gamers have alternatives to Steam the way that Android users have alternatives to Google Play. Yes, there are dozens. And that's how many users each one has.
If it's even possible it would take years or decades of work building up good will. It's kinda Valve's game to lose right now. They just need to not make any enormous mistakes and they win by default. Fortunately for Valve, they seem to be one of the few companies in game dev that isn't managed exclusively by misanthropes and buffoons.
Would it though? Being a competitor to Valve, not sucking, and not pulling shady anti-consumer shit would result in immediate good will for a decently large (though disproportionately loud) section of the market. Hell, EGS failed at the 2nd and 3rd thjngs in that list and they still got a loyal fanbase
Then why isn't GOG bigger?
Epic can't make a dent because their product is dogshit.
Customers don't care that Valve takes a well earned cut (that only applies buying directly from Steam); they care that their games are on a platform that's actually fucking useful. If Epic didn't insult gamers shipping that piece of trash and had put work into actually providing a product that could possibly be considered acceptable, they might have been able to make a dent.
You're not going to take market share with shitty gimmicks if your actual product is a crime against humanity no one wants.
yeah epic might have a chance if they actually tried to make their launcher and client good and have similar features as steam
No platform earns an entire third of developers' revenue.
Laughable horseshit.
They make far more than 50% more because of steam.
The cut, genius. The cut you said is "well earned." That is what's horseshit, here.
And on consoles.
And on phones.
And every one of them comes back because paying Steam 30% is by far the most profitable way to do business. They absolutely deserve every single penny of it.
30% commission on an all margin product is not even sort of unusual or unfair.
Also key activations cost the dev zero on Steam. And the dev can generate keys for free to sell elsewhere. details here: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
Neat.
A third off the top is still obscene.
The fact 'everyone does it' is worse.
Then developers can release games off steam, and some do.
But steam has many features people want and use that would add development costs if every dev had to make similar tools in house.
Think SteamVR, Steam Controller, workshop, community forums, steam achievements, steam overlay, friends, etc ...
'This thing should be slightly different.'
'Then use something else entirely!'
Some of y'all really do not know how criticism works.
Lol I see you don't have an actual response so you move the goal post
Incorrect.
Weird because I provided actual services and functionality that steam provides in exchange for that cut, and your response was that me mentioning devs do have other options isn't "understanding criticism"
So do you have an actual response or..?
Your response to criticism of Steam was 'there's other services.'
That does absolutely nothing to deflect from criticism of Steam.
Praising their various features comes a little closer, but still doesn't justify taking an entire third of every game's revenue. It takes a whole fucking lot of hypothetical work, which you imagine developers would have to do, to amount to the slice Steam takes right off the top.
What Valve offers that makes companies put up with that is their de-facto monopoly presence. They can sell many copies through Steam - or they won't sell many copies.
So you didn't actually read my comment, cool.
'There's other services.'
' It takes a whole fucking lot of hypothetical work, which you imagine developers would have to do, to amount to the slice Steam takes right off the top.'
Lie better.
Do you think it's simple for a developer to create a friends list network, host/moderate community forums, host/moderate a mod website integrated into the game, achievements syncing, ability to share the game with friends, and integrate VR functionality for the above, on their own dime?
These are recurring ongoing costs for server and continued developmental changes, you are severely underestimating the time and money cost to create/host/maintain all those services?
You are asserting without evidence that Valve needs to take all that money. As if they would go broke if they only took a quarter of all the revenue on most PC games.
Valve makes ten billion dollars on Steam, every single year. Their margins are not slim. And being an established de-facto monopoly, people go there because that's where the products are, and products are there because that's where the people go. They could slash costs to nothing, do the bare minimum work going forward, and still rake in the money on sheer momentum, for years and years and years.
The only feature that really matters here is adoption. And that's not a feature you can design. Even Valve didn't rope people in with a convincing sales pitch. They forced Steam onto everyone who wanted to play Half-Life 2. If you didn't want to put up with an always-online DRM service aimed to take over PC gaming - you didn't get to play the most anticipated game of the year. Whatever benefits you ascribe to the service, whatever functionality you argue developers would otherwise budget for, the core was always 'accept this or pound sand.'
"It makes money so it can't be wrong."
"It's commonplace so it must be fine."
Y'all have no idea what criticism even looks like.
The fact that using their services and paying them their cut is more profitable than not doing so absolutely, in and of itself, proves beyond discussion that their cut is fair.
Yes, sales should cost money. Moving units is a fucking massive value add. Valve deserves every penny they take and more. They're the best thing that ever happened to PC gaming and nothing else is remotely close.
Beyond discussion! What a mind-job.
Continued use only proves this is a way to make money. Probably the best available way. But to suggest that, so long as people are doing it, there cannot possibly be problems, is obvious crap.
Especially when you add "and more." Oh: so this isn't the exact right amount, as decreed by mighty god himself? We can talk about the middleman's cut, so long as the rent goes up?
There is no point humoring abusive word salad.
Valve could take a lot less and it wouldn't kill them. Or PC gaming. Wouldn't be whatever frothing insult you pretend it is, either. It's just... less money. They'd still make a shitload of money. Just... less.
The number can be smaller and the sky wouldn't fall.
The number right now is obscenely high. It's the most they think they can get away with. And they can only get away with it because of their de-facto monopoly, which should end.
What's your metric for "well earned" here? What are some ways it could be earned? What do you think is the right amount?
What's wrong with Epic's thing
Other than the fact it's full of Chinese spyware?
Let's see...
The interface sucks.
The app is barely stable and crashes randomly.
Absolutely zero thoughts on Linux gaming.
Unusable communities.
I'm sure others can give more reasons.
OK that's fair.
For starters, they put so little developments money into EGS that they went two years without a shopping cart, a feature that effectively every other online store has and could be custom coded properly in a day