123
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2024
123 points (95.6% liked)
Linux Gaming
15850 readers
4 users here now
Gaming on the GNU/Linux operating system.
Recommended news sources:
Related chat:
Related Communities:
Please be nice to other members. Anyone not being nice will be banned. Keep it fun, respectful and just be awesome to each other.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
Wrong with what? 30% cut? It seems a lot, but from the greater distance I don't think it's that much.
Developers do get great benefits from this. The game is downloadable at any time with great speeds everywhere in the world. They get steam workshop for mods, free forums, reviews, steamplay, proton, friendlists with super easy game invites, ... and all this is basically free advertisment for developer.
Now what does Epic offer in this regard? Nothing.
I think many folks are too young to remember before the Internet when everything was published through retail stores. Publishers took big risks paying for advance copies of games to be produced and shipped, and developers typically got less than 70% all told.
When steam came out 30% and you didn't need to print advance copies, or deal with retail channels, it was a huge win.
Now, the world has changed, but so has steam. Steam has continued to introduce features, sales based % tiers, grown the community, push Linux development, push VR, etc. they also go out of their way to support their devices and make them user repairable.
In any other sector people would be bitching about not having a pro customer option, and yet in this market we get a bunch of non-developers bitching about the revenue split from the best game store other than GoG.
It boggles the mind.
I don't have any frame of reference for how much content delivery on Valve's level costs, and whether a lower cut would be sustainable. I assume that a lower cut for the first $X of revenue a game makes on Steam would be doable without cutting into profits too much, and would probably help smaller indie devs. In the end, since Valve is private, we can kinda only speculate about what would be fair, or even just feasible.
Of course, Valve isn't obligated to do any of this, but if they would in response to pressure from Epic, I'd consider that a good thing. Considering the article above, that seems unlikely, needless to say.
I also do agree that Epic's store isn't all that great.
But it's not just content delivery, they have a lot of software engineers building and maintaining lots of things, such as:
And a bunch more. That cut isn't just going into the coffers, it's being invested in the platform.
What does EGS do?
EGS basically wants to draw you in with the free games and exclusivity, but that's it. They have no actual draw to their platform. Valve invests in their platform, EGS just buys eyeballs.
Yeah, Epic does a lot of sucky stuff. I think that their 12% cut, if they can sustain it, is good, but that isn't an endorsement for all the other things they do.
I'd also argue that Valve is, considering their market position, on the whole extremely light on anti-consumer practices, in a way that a publicly traded company likely wouldn't be.
I am not arguing that Valve is bad, I just believe that a lower cut, if it is sustainably doable, is a good thing. Since neither of us know their numbers (unless your pretty high up in Valve, in that case, Half Life 3 pls), it all comes down to assumptions in the end.
The 12% cut is there to attract developers to their platform. They know they're not going to sell nearly as many copies as Steam, so they need some reason for developers to list their games on EGS. If EGS caught up with Steam, I'm guessing that number would also go up, or they'd add on other nonsense fees to increase profit.
And yeah, a lower cut would be good for devs, but it might not be good for PC gaming (i.e. less investment into stuff like Steam Link). But I agree, I don't have the numbers, so I don't know how much of that cut is profit vs reinvested.
Still, with 30% cut, it was never easier for indie devs to release their game before. Now it's basically like "you made your own game in your garage or basement in your free time, then you log in to steam, fill some paperwork, set price, upload, and you can start selling copies already as you have link you can share on your social media and everywhere". Some 20 years ago you'd need to find publisher that would like the game, be willing to invest in pressing CD/DVD and distribute this across the city/state/country/world/whatever. Then you had to market the game in paper magazines, online ads or wherever and hope people will see the ad/review and go to store to buy the game. Then wait for money to run the circle back to you. With much greater cut than current 30%, especially with indie titles. Even like 10 years ago, you'd have to be "green lit" for steam to actually sell your game, meaning you had to beg for a lot of clicks, to be able to put your game on steam.
Point taken, though I'd argue that it is slightly harder than it used to be before Steam opened the publishing floodgates completely, mostly because of the overwhelming amount of games that are ostensibly spam, not that Greenlight was that great a system either. It is, of course, probably quite hard to actually moderate the amount of games that get pushed onto Steam, but many interesting titles do get buried a bit.
I will not argue that Valve hasn't changed the PC Gaming landscape in a very positive way, both for customers, as well as for developers. I also think that they are using at least some of their profits for some pretty good things.
I just also think that they could be doing some further good for small developers, while not sacrificing all that much profit, though, as I said, I am not really in a position to make an informed judgement on the feasibility of anything like that.
Do you really think that an indie game with a few people working on it should pay the same cut than bigger companies? And even so, the game industry is not doing good, that's why games are getting worse and worse and there are so many lay-offs.
Why not? It's the magic of % that with huge sales you'll throw money at steam, but with few copies sold you'll pay steam next to nothing.
I would not say game industry is doing bad. It's jist many big corpos thought too mich about themselves and now they face the reality. Shitty recycled games and another 1000th successor to your once-famous series with juat shiny graphics but nothing interesting is simply not enough now. Greedy CEOs realized it too late so now they have to lay off people so they can keep their $$ for themself.
But there are examples like Palworld or Helldivers or BG3 or others where smaller/independent studios release absolute smash game because they either 1) were bold enough to do something fresh, inovative and/or 2) absolutely love what they do and put so much more than "now the usual bare minimum" in their game it simply shows.
Just deliver good product and people will buy it.
And it's the advice for Tim Swepic too. Steam is just better in every aspect, so maybe if you delivered better experience instead of just bitching about unfairness, people would actually buy in your store.
Smaller doesn't make it a small company. You only gave examples of companies that aren't small at all. Many small studios are facing bankruptcy even if they have successful games and depend on publishing deals to keep existing. Have you watched the Double Fine documentary about Psychonauts 2 development? If you haven't I really recommend it, it is very interesting.
In the end, you need to have money to pay people wages. Game developers don't work solely because they "absolute love what they do".
Just to illustrate, there's a dev of a game I am interested that post monthly reports of revenue on Mastodon. It just feels really weird to me that they end up getting 15% of the gross revenue. Should be a little higher if we take out refunds, but this sucks.
Sure, Larian is big (400?), but compared to some of the gaming industry behemots, it's still small(ish). Arrowhead (Helldivers) should be like 100 people which is not that much. And wasn't Palword developers studio like 30 people? I'd call that pretty damn small. Especially in contrast with the sales.
And of course not everything is fine and dandy in gaming industry. But where is?
The game I linked to you is literally made by two people.
It doesn't change the fact that "30 people that made Palworld" is still really small studio. And that being small studio doesn't mean you can't make vastly successful game.