Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's not like each game creators could run a worldwide distribution and payment operation" You mean like a website? I think it's more fruitful to imagine multiple merchants competing to sell devs wares and lessor commissions as a result of competition.
You realize that it takes a lot of work to make a website to accept payment from a hundred countries in dozens of currencies and handle customer support and chargeback and fight fraud? You can try to run your own website, to save 10% fees on a minuscule userbase, it simply doesn't cover the costs.
Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
61–70 of 190 posts
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
You realize that it takes a lot of work to make a website to accept payment from a hundred countries in dozens of currencies and handle customer support and chargeback and fight fraud? You can try to run your own website, to save 10% fees on a minuscule userbase, it simply doesn't cover the costs.
I would be interested in data but logically wouldn't most of revenue at present come from 12-18 countries?
Steam helps you with that. You could try to do better yourself but the effort is not worth saving a few percent of fees (on a lot less sales).
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe not need them, but want them. EA and Ubisoft both launched their own competing platforms, so they have a lot of leverage to negotiate with.
Then they should lower rates across the board. There used to be a time when "just being on Steam" justified the high cost to smaller developers, but the market is over saturated now because they don't curate anymore that it isn't the case.
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>> I actually am surprised that services like Steam, the Apple App Store, and Google Play are able to command as high a margin as they do for sales commission. What makes you think that they have high margin? It's not like each game creators could run a worldwide distribution and payment operation with just a few percent more of revenues.
"It's not like each game creators could run a worldwide distribution and payment operation" You mean like a website? I think it's more fruitful to imagine multiple merchants competing to sell devs wares and lessor commissions as a result of competition.
Admittedly it is supposedly lower value now, with Steam Direct replacing Greenlight, but it shouldn't be overlooked -- it's the same reason that tons of products are sold on Amazon even though you can also purchase the same product directly via the brand's website...
FWIW, I'm lead dev of SimAirport[0] which is in Steam's Early Access program. The 30% has been tough to swallow, but without Steam (and given our lack of internal marketing/spend) we probably wouldn't have sold a quarter of what we have thus far. And while we wouldn't qualify for any of these tiers had they been in place previously, it's still a solid upside "just in case" your game blows expectations out of the water.
I'd love to see them add a tier around $2-5M at 27-29%, even if just as a "bone" to indie developers; it'd make developing a 'game as a service' (ie long & consistent feedback-driven dev cycle) more palatable and likely result in demonstrably better games.
Tangentially related at best, but sometimes I wonder what Steam _actually_ optimizes for -- if their algorithms always show the "best" games (ie ones that players spend hundreds++ hours playing) then I'd expect that to actually hurt their revenues short term. In theory they'd be better off marketing/optimizing to push games that satisfy users but that have low play-time/hours on average, so that they can sell the player a different game that much sooner. It's a strange set of incentives & it's hard to tell how aligned they really are (with either players or developers).
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can't something like Stripe + Braintree provide the same at a fraction of the cost?
Not at all. For starter Stripe is only usable if you are a small US company selling to a US user base. It also restricts your audience to customers with a card and willing to enter it on your website. It's better than nothing but it's in no way comparable to what steam offers.
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
"It's not like each game creators could run a worldwide distribution and payment operation" You mean like a website? I think it's more fruitful to imagine multiple merchants competing to sell devs wares and lessor commissions as a result of competition.
You realize that it takes a lot of work to make a website to accept payment from a hundred countries in dozens of currencies and handle customer support and chargeback and fight fraud? You can try to run your own website, to save 10% fees on a minuscule userbase, it simply doesn't cover the costs.
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#67Many larger studios are working on self publishing and have projects in the works. The percent that Valve takes even at 20% is still too high, but the bigger issues is that Valve locks up your users so when you make your next game you have to reacquire them, ownership of ones users is the key due to this issue. We’ll see how they fair over the coming years but this does look like they’re starting to wake up a bit to…
As an entrepreneur in this space, I'd be okay with 20%. The issue is the current thresholds. I'd want it to be 20% over $1M not $50M. Around a million it starts being worth it to handle credit card processing, chargebacks etc.
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not just lack of marketing, it's the fact that there are now far more games, but gamers have neither more money nor time to compensate. There are too many game developers, it's as simple as that. Too many millennials don't want the regular old "grown up" jobs anymore, they want to be creatives or artists and the market just can't soak them all up. If you think it's hard as a game developer, try living off painti…
Maybe. But the odds are far worse when Steam won't even filter out garbage asset flips that took three hours to make.
I know they exist because Jim Sterling sometimes makes funny videos about them, but I can't fathom how they make a significant impact on "genuine" developers.
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Already game developers are the lowest paid workers in the IT industry That is not true if you factor out all the people developing games independently on their own dime, against better financial advice. To counteract that, there just aren't enough developers working on enterprise Java architecture for no money, out of passion. It's also only fair that people who get to work on "fun" things like games are paid less…
See for yourself: https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018/#salary > The little guys can go to itch.io, which charges as low as 0% commission. They may even have more visibility on there than on Steam, given that it's a smaller pond. There's also the Humble Store, which leaves commission up to the buyer. Steam has a monopoly. There is no alternative for anyone with revenue below $10 million (hence this change).…
Like I said, you need to factor out those unsuccessful developers that don't make any money. This is self-reported data is of questionable merit, but if you switch to US, game developers aren't at the bottom anymore and none of the salaries listed are bad in any way.
Again, if you do what you love, you should be able to stomach a pay hit. If you don't love it after all, don't wait for the industry to change, change industries yourself.
> Itch.io yields about 1% of the revenue of Steam.
That doesn't generalize across different titles. Maybe some title has zero visibility on Steam, but some visibility on itch.io. Then you're better off with itch.io.
Either way, it's just a guess.
> No, only once a game reaches $10 million of total sales revenue.
I misread that, my bad.
Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then they should lower rates across the board. There used to be a time when "just being on Steam" justified the high cost to smaller developers, but the market is over saturated now because they don't curate anymore that it isn't the case.
So where would a small developer launch nowadays? As far as I can tell, they're still on Steam, so they disagree with you that the cost is not justified.
Steam has brand recognition for developers, but that is changing with competition.