this post was submitted on 25 Nov 2025
80 points (100.0% liked)

Games

21160 readers
203 users here now

Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.

Rules

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] OgdenTO@hexbear.net 39 points 5 days ago

They say efficient, all I hear is stolen value

[–] GeckoChamber@hexbear.net 41 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Personally I think taking a 30 % cut from games sold on Steam is the reason, but their corporate structure is pretty cool too I guess

[–] booty@hexbear.net 17 points 5 days ago (8 children)

It's not an unreasonable cut, the reason they're successful is they provide such a good service that any time someone thinks "well I don't wanna pay that 30% cut, I'll just do it myself" they fail. That 30% is for all the million features that benefit both devs and players which nobody wants to build an alternative for.

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 39 points 5 days ago (12 children)

Come on, I'm sure you understand that just because they provide a real service does not mean we can't be critical of rent-extracting bullshit, and the failure of other attempts does not simply happen in a vacuum of perfect meritocracy but instead in the smothering shadow of a pre-existing monopoly.

I was doubtful of people complaining about g*mer communists becoming capitalist apologists when it's their preferred monopolistic extraction operation, but people really do forget everything they know better than sometimes.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Soot@hexbear.net 27 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

How is that not unreasonable? Your justification is literally just supply and demand.

The exact same justification an employer uses to exploit workers, your argument is "if game devs want better pay, why don't they go set up their OWN company???". Actual upbeared justification of technofeudalism.

Massively overcharging on commission, with anti-competitive practices, is kind of the definition of unreasonable in my books. Absolute HONKTONS of people - I'm amazed you emphasise 'nobody' in that sentence - want to build alternatives for it, but struggle because Steam has users locked in and deliberately have made it massively inconvenient to ever leave.

[–] TraschcanOfIdeology@hexbear.net 23 points 5 days ago (1 children)

All the more reason to nationalize Valve and make it better for players and devs.

[–] very_poggers_gay@hexbear.net 14 points 5 days ago (3 children)

What does nationalizing an internationally-used online service mean? Genuine question

[–] nohaybanda@hexbear.net 31 points 5 days ago

It becomes sole ownership of the DPRK, I assumed

[–] Soot@hexbear.net 12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

These would be interesting challenges in a world where capitalism still exists in half of countries, and socialism exists in a variety of progressed stages, but,

I imagine the company is nationalised by the country it's headquartered/mostly managed in. Nationals/Allied socialist states get free/subsidised service (ie commissions and purchases), everyone else pays as usual. Efficiency savings for the socialist nations is a net benefit anyway, with the bonus that capitalist states subsidise it, job done.

well first we build a really big guillotine

[–] femboi@hexbear.net 18 points 4 days ago (3 children)

There's a very important detail that is missing here, namely that Steam has a clause where you cannot list your game elsewhere for less than you list it on Steam. Many indie games are published to Itch.io and Steam, but Valve forces them to list both at the same price, meaning thay since most gamers use Steam they will automatically choose the version that invisibly only gives the devs 70% of the revenue. Sure Valve does have lots of nice features, but those features could be duplicated over time by one of Valve's competitors. The problem is that to get a competing platform off of the ground, you need to entice people with lower prices since you can't compete on features. Valve uses its monopoly status to make this impossible.

[–] towhee@hexbear.net 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Epic Game Store has pretty much succeeded with their weekly free (often quite good!) games. I've even bought a few things from them. Unfortunately they fucked up royally and EGS is an unusable slow piece of shit. Really an indictment of modern software engineering practices but they need to ether than entire thing and rewrite it from scratch. Steam is much more performant. Still, EGS shows that it is possible to break in as long as you have a boatload of cash to burn. However, Valve has started to run up the score by making their own their hardware; using EGS on steam deck is a pain.

[–] FleetwoodLinux@lemmy.zip 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

~~My understanding is that you cannot sell steam keys to your game at lower than steam prices (since they can't/don't take their cut from directly selling those keys). If you had a direct download from your website or from itch you'd be fine to sell that cheaper.~~

~~It's been a little while since I've read in detail about this so I'm open to being wrong about it.~~

I was wrong! Please see the next comment down

[–] purpleworm@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What are you basing this on? Looking it up, e.g. here: https://www.create.ac.uk/blog/2025/07/01/parity-and-power-steams-antitrust-reckoning-in-wolfire-v-valve/ it looks like what the other user described in addition to some other underhand bullshit informally policing even discounts.

[–] FleetwoodLinux@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

Just vague recollection of what I thought I had read. I guess I didn't couch the statement enough

[–] booty@hexbear.net -1 points 4 days ago

There's a very important detail that is missing here, namely that Steam has a clause where you cannot list your game elsewhere for less than you list it on Steam.

Yeah as the other user said, this isn't true.

[–] Johnny_Arson@hexbear.net 18 points 5 days ago

I hated steam when it first rolled out because I knew it was going to become a monopoly once they ironed out the kinks. Not only was I right it paved the way for a bunch of garbage imitators. Anyway as always the answer is socialism.

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 14 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's not an unreasonable cut, the reason they're successful is they provide such a good service that any time someone thinks "well I don't wanna pay that 30% cut, I'll just do it myself" they fail. That 30% is for all the million features that benefit both devs and players which nobody wants to build an alternative for.

I mean it is unreasonable in that this sort of thing should be publicly owned and operated infrastructure, rather than a digital walled garden for the master who owns it to make obscene profits from

part of what you describe is people "not wanting to build" an alternative, but part of it is also that 1) building an alternative means dealing with breaking into what is effectively a monopoly, and you can see how successful that's been for Origin/Epic/whatever, who seem to be slowly gaining steam but that's only after years of literally giving away free $60 games just to get people to download their launcher and 2) having alternatives ultimately degrades the quality for everyone because instead of having one integrated service you now have all these competitors with all their varying (or missing) features and just the general hassle of having to keep up with what's on any of them

[–] booty@hexbear.net 5 points 4 days ago

building an alternative means dealing with breaking into what is effectively a monopoly, and you can see how successful that's been for Origin/Epic/whatever

Yeah it's not successful for Origin or Epic because their idea of breaking a monopoly is to strongarm their own pseudo-monopoly by bringing Console Wars to the PC, which is one of the dumbest ideas possible. If Origin or Epic ever made their service good instead of just walling off exclusive games and forcing users to use their obviously terrible software (a move which creates the most negative possible feelings toward your company) they would be a lot more successful.

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 13 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

any time someone thinks "well I don't wanna pay that 30% cut, I'll just do it myself" they fail.

I have seen so many extremely successful games that aren't on steam though. Starsector immediately springs to mind. Minecraft was never on steam too.

I think genuinely good games do well without steam. I would not attribute success of a game to steam.

[–] booty@hexbear.net 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Okay, if that's true then just don't put the game on steam and don't pay a 30% cut. Hell, put the game on steam and then also sell it for less money on your own website to try to funnel sales there. There's literally nothing stopping any of that.

Devs use Steam because it kicks ass and it's well worth the cut.

[–] Alisu@hexbear.net 5 points 4 days ago

Nope, you can't sell it for less outside of steam, you have to agree to price it the same before they let your game on steam

[–] Taster_Of_Treats@hexbear.net 6 points 4 days ago

It is an unreasonable cut because they are taking profit that should be going to the workers developing and marketing the games.

They could easily still be hugely profitable at 15% cut or even less.

[–] woodenghost@hexbear.net 28 points 4 days ago (1 children)

So every single employee is a millionaire, right? anakin-padme-2

[–] AernaLingus@hexbear.net 8 points 4 days ago

The company claims it has one of the best compensation packages in the industry, and we can see this in the leaked data shared by The Verge, which shows that Valve spent nearly $450 million on employee salaries, with a weighted average of more than $1.3 million per employee.

That does actually seem to be the case (at least on average), although they're obviously still not being paid their fair share if Gabe Newell is a billionaire.

[–] SupFBI@hexbear.net 27 points 4 days ago (1 children)

$50M per employee? Explains GabeN's gamer yacht.

[–] LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 9 points 4 days ago (1 children)

gamer yacht? the description read to me like he's trying to live through climate change like it's Waterworld

[–] SupFBI@hexbear.net 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I described it as such given that there's a room dedicated to 15 gaming PCs.

It's not a wrong description

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 26 points 4 days ago

boss makes did-i-miss-a-page 50 million dollars i make a dime thats why i phoenix-think have a 5 course meal in the bathroom on company time? idk whats x5000 better than taking a shit on company time tbh

[–] darkmode@hexbear.net 18 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Is that enough money to make a non VR half life game yet?

[–] blipblip@hexbear.net 6 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Supposedly they're going to announce one before the end of the year

Trump called up GabeN and told him it's time, it's needed to distract from Epstein

[–] viewports@lemmy.ml 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

mediating a network/marketplace is very valueable

[–] cricbuzz@hexbear.net 15 points 4 days ago
[–] ryepunk@hexbear.net 12 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Imagine if valve was trying to implement AI agents to assist you finding a game to buy. Think of all the investor cash they're leaving on the table by not actively destroying their platform with bloat that does nothing.

[–] burlemarx@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 4 days ago

Valve's revenue does not come just from the labor of their direct employees, but from all content creators that post games and other software in their platform. This is typical of the platform business, such as Uber, Airbnb, Etsy, Epic, Google App Store and others