Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

gamasutra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 190 posts

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#71

Post by giobox »

whydoineedthis wrote: post #20
beerlord wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Valve have shown that they will do nothing unless their hand is forced. Your best bet is an Epic Store, which will hopefully charge commissions of 8-12%. https://www.neogaf.com/threads/tim-sweeney-not-sure-why-stea... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/29/app_store_duopoly_3... Valve and the other large platform holders know that if they abandon 30%, there is no going back. Over time that 'platform tax' will get p…

1 decade down and iTunes hasn't budged. I suspect your 100yr timeframe is close

If we stick to software and not tangent to movies/tv (itunes), Apple have absolutely moved some on this issue, since 2016 the App Store now offers 15-85 revenue shares for subscriptions once the user has subscribed for over a year.

Sure it’s slow progress, but it is progress.

> https://www.macrumors.com/2016/06/08/apple-major-app-store-c...

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#72

Post by Zelmor »

Valve's cuts are fine. I remember the times when developers were glad if they got 20-30% of the profits in general, with publisher deals starting at 70% cuts for IP-first game releases, and way higher if it was your first game. This after you pitched the game with a tech demo running, of course.

Steam is a blessing on digital distribution, and the most competent platform to date, albeit it has its problems.

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#73

Post by kbwt »

user5994461 wrote: post #62
michaelmrose wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be interested in data but logically wouldn't most of revenue at present come from 12-18 countries?

That's the point. Doing internationalization and payments for 12-18 countries is a pain. 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).

Steam certainly won't internationalize your game for you.

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#74

Post by michaelmrose »

user5994461 wrote: post #62
michaelmrose wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would be interested in data but logically wouldn't most of revenue at present come from 12-18 countries?

That's the point. Doing internationalization and payments for 12-18 countries is a pain. 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).

You are making assumptions. 30% is not a few percent. You are also assuming that merely being on steam and having users encounter your game while browsing will be the primary method people encounter your game and decide to buy it thus the "on a lot less sales" People encounter games via many means. If you only sell it via steam or steam is merely the most convenient means of acquisition then the fact that the buyer bought it on steam isn't proof that they found it via steam or further that they wont buy again if you aren't available via steam.

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#75

Post by giobox »

zeroname wrote: post #68
Dylan16807 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe. But the odds are far worse when Steam won't even filter out garbage asset flips that took three hours to make.

I have never seen any of these on "my" Steam. It's not part of my shopping experience in any way. 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.

You only need to read their blogs to see how it’s hurting the “good” indie developers. Heck just use steam - the discoverability of good indie software has suffered hugely as Steam dramatically lowered the cost of entry to the platform. It’s now incredibly hard to stand out. The numbers speak for themselves, with steam going from adding several hundred games a year to their catalogue to nearly 8000 last year. The growth curve is accelerating too - there was “only” 4000 or so games added in 2016.

Having some small but achievable degree of barrier to entry was a huge help in keeping the store free of trash software.

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#76

Post by giobox »

rochak wrote: post #4
beerlord wrote: post #2

I feel uncomfortable that smaller developers will be less profitable because they... don't have as much negotiating power? Valve is being very Walmart-esque with this move. Already game developers are the lowest paid workers in the IT industry - and a lot of it has to do with the huge revenue shares ('platform taxes') charged by the monopoly platform holders. I'm not arguing against any change, it just seems spiteful…

That will be sad since most of the games I buy are from indie developers. They put good amount of work in their games and don't charge much too. If Valve keeps doing this kind of stuff and forces them to move to other marketplaces, I will move too.

Just move already! Indie games are much easier to obtain from rival storefronts than big budget releases, and can usually be had with better terms (DRM free etc, like gog.com).

It’s relatively rare for an indie developer to distribute exclusively via Steam.

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#77

Post by [deleted] »

55555 wrote: post #41
PakG1 wrote: post #32

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. I mean, it's obviously possible because it's reality, but it's nonintuitive. I wonder if it will continue to be that way. For iOS, you don't really have a way to install apps outside the app store without jailbreaking, but you do for macOS, and I've seen a number…

Monopolies often charge around 30%. Google ads, App store, Play store, cell phone billing for subscription numbers, etc

[deleted]

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#78

Post by pier25 »

PakG1 wrote: post #32

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. I mean, it's obviously possible because it's reality, but it's nonintuitive. I wonder if it will continue to be that way. For iOS, you don't really have a way to install apps outside the app store without jailbreaking, but you do for macOS, and I've seen a number…

It's not surprising. Users want convenience, specially on mobile. Even on Android very few users would buy outside the Play Store.

On desktop it's different, at least for a portion of users. I prefer buying outside the Mac App Store, but I know users that were first introduced to the ecosystem in iOS and had never considered you can but software outside the MAS.

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#79

Post by ken »

philjohn wrote: post #3
beerlord wrote: post #2

I feel uncomfortable that smaller developers will be less profitable because they... don't have as much negotiating power? Valve is being very Walmart-esque with this move. Already game developers are the lowest paid workers in the IT industry - and a lot of it has to do with the huge revenue shares ('platform taxes') charged by the monopoly platform holders. I'm not arguing against any change, it just seems spiteful…

On the other hand - the big publishers need Valve less, so from a purely business perspective it makes a ton of sense to keep them on the platform, which is the biggest storefront for purchasing games. Yes, smaller developers have to pay more, but they're getting a heck of a lot of exposure for that take, without having to spend big on traditional advertising like the large publishers have to.

Economically this is true, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with it. The whole reason I got into computers in the first place is because it put everyone on equal footing.

As a kid I could write a program on my C=64 that was equal in every way to a commercial program that my parents bought. Personal computers were the great equalizer. (You don't even need a company! Magazines published amateur submissions all the time.) There's no other field I can think of where a kid could use a standard piece of equipment that they find around the house, and use it to build something on par with the top professionals in the world. Maybe a piano.

Valve and Steam (and all the other "app stores") were surely built by a lot of the people who grew up on personal computers in the same the way I did. I'm saddened to see that they're using their business success to help big companies get bigger. The economic value of the personal computer has changed from "equality for the little guy" to "leverage for the big guy".

This is what Bret Victor meant by "When I see a violation of [my] principle, I don't think of that as an opportunity. [...] I see a tragedy. To me it feels like a moral wrong, it feels like an injustice."

Re: Valve creates new revenue sharing tiers to give big sellers a break

#80

Post by leafo »

zeroname wrote: post #69
beerlord wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).…

> See for yourself: > https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2018/#salary 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…

> 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.

as the person who runs itch.io, I can say that this is true

Post reply on HN