Support us on Patreon
PayPalAiming their sights at bigger developers, Valve have adjusted how much of a cut they will take for bigger titles.
Once a game makes $10 million on Steam, the new revenue split will be 75% for developers and 25% for Valve. If developers manage to hit $50 million, they will get to keep an even bigger share at 80% for them and 20% for Valve. When talking about revenue, this encompasses everything like DLC, in-game transactions and so on.
It's a smart move, one I expected Valve to do at some point given how bigger studios and publishers have been leaving Steam for their own launchers. On top of that, I was sent a screenshot of Epic Game's new beta of their launcher and it looks a lot more like a store itself now too. Considering Epic's launcher is the only place on Windows to get Fortnite, they could have a pretty huge pull and I'm sure that and more has worried Valve to make a move like this.
This doesn't directly help smaller developers though, since their share will remain the same which is apparently 70% for the developer and 30% for Steam. The argument there though, is the network effect of keeping larger titles on Steam and attracting more might help smaller developers find more users too.
The other change is a good one for developers. Before, developers were quite scared to share detailed sales data from how their games sold on Steam. Valve seem to understand that developers want to share this information, so they're now allowing it. The important bit from that:
We've heard you, and we're updating the confidentiality provisions to make it clear that the partner can share sales data about their game as they see fit.
That's really nice to see, I always felt like any attempt to hide sales data would be Valve covering up issues developers might be facing on Steam. Pleased to see that be opened up too. So now, if any developer wants to share how their games sold on Linux, reaching out to us shouldn't be an issue at all.
You can see the full post on Steam here.
You could argue for other stores like itch.io, which allow you to set the share you wish to give back which is rather nice. However, itch has a dramatically smaller user base and so sales are likely to be lower anyway. The same story for likely any other store that takes a lower cut.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: ElectricPrismQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: ElectricPrismQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: ElectricPrismThe best way to survive is not to charge less money but to make people NEED you, and know that you are the only one they can get what they want from.
Bill Gates knows this well.
Their cut adjustment strategy seems fair but they should really push hard on developing their console that way they can own their own mountain of gamers giving their store even more value than it currently has as the major PC platform.
STEAM MACHINES 2.0 - LET IT COME.
How is that supposed to make sense? What would be different then?
Have you ever been to a business or timeshare vs going to a mall? The experience is completely different.
When you own the real estate, the gaming machines people go buy, and you own the store you dictate who they can buy software and games from. Companies control it because it's profitable.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, all know the difference between being the Player and being the Man.
I don't appreciate your vague response, I think you damn well knew what I meant but simple disagree and were too afraid to actually say: I disagree because of X reason, Y reason, and Z reason.
No, I don't really get what you're suggesting.
You WANT Valve to create a closed system like Xbox or Playstation? For what purpose? To lock out other developers like EA or ActivisionBlizzard?!
Are you saying you do NOT want Valve to create a closed system like Xbox or Playstation?
Of course not. That would be horrible and be against everything that Valve stands for. I can't believe I'm reading this on a Linux site.
And again, how is this even supposed to work when Steam runs on every Computer? Do you want Valve to exclude everyone that uses Steam now and force them to buy a "console"?
Last edited by kuhpunkt on 1 December 2018 at 10:21 pm UTC
Quoting: kuhpunktThey LITERALLY just released a game this week.Yes, and I mentioned it in my original comment.
QuoteDota 2 wasn't bought in. And just because you don't know what happens behind closed doors doesn't mean they aren't working on games. What else do you think those developers are doing?I said “effectively”, and admit that wasn't a good way of putting it. But IceFrog was hired for Dota 2. What I meant was that it didn't originate at Valve, from a Valve creative team. Of course their own people did most of the work on it.
But even that was five years ago. Clearly their eyes have been off the ball. They've let a lot of developers, especially on the creative side, go over recent years. It's one of the reasons many fans have lost hope of ever seeing HL3 or Portal 3.
Last edited by Dunc on 2 December 2018 at 1:04 am UTC
Last edited by Shmerl on 2 December 2018 at 1:07 am UTC
stretch611 Dec 2, 2018
Quoting: ShmerlValve should have put Linux version release as a requirement for such discounts. It would incentivize big developers (who have money) to make Linux versions. Win win for everyone.
I doubt that,,, It would probably make them create their own distribution platform and/or drop Steam completely.
Do you honestly think that Ubisoft or Bethesda would start writing linux games? They have crunched the numbers and even though they can probably support Linux profitably, (and have the money to do so), they still refuse to do it. Ultimatums annoy people more than they coerce them to work together; even if it is better for them in the long run.
Sadly, I think that this would be bad for Valve. And while I only mentioned Ubisoft and Bethesda, I think many other companies would also take this the wrong way.
Last edited by stretch611 on 2 December 2018 at 1:53 am UTC
Quoting: Segata SanshiroQuoting: TermyQuoting: MayeulCWhat would be interesting for them is to take a (slightly) lesser cut if the game is cross-platform. Everyone would be happy about this, I think, especially bean counters :)
now that is one of the best ideas i've heard in a while to boost Linux-acceptance among the devs...too bad valve is not looking into this comments xD
Super good idea. It could also be platform-specific incentives as opposed to the whole cake, ie. they take their 25% cut for Windows sales but only 15% or less for Linux. Something like that might actually tip the balance and would cover the port costs presumably.
Nope, that would not achieve anything. Linux sales are low, so getting slightly more from it is not that big an incentive. But saying something like "if you support Linux, we get 1% less from your windows sales", that's suddenly huge.
Quoting: stretch611Do you honestly think that Ubisoft or Bethesda would start writing linux games?
If Steam discount makes sense for them, I don't see why not. It's not an ultimatum. It's an incentive. Those who don't care - get standard rate. Those who release for Linux get a bigger cut.
For someone like Bethesda especially who have good Vulkan expertise in-house it makes even more sense. They don't see Linux as profitable enough? Give them an incentive to release for it.
Last edited by Shmerl on 2 December 2018 at 5:04 am UTC
Quoting: kuhpunktThey LITERALLY just released a game this week.You mean that pay2pay2win Dota card game? As I read in reviews, people either don't like this game because it's a cash grab, or write something like "spent $20 on the game, sold cards for $30, 10/10." I suspect most sales are from people who wanted to gain some profit, not to actually play. While even EA and Ubisoft are stopping to put lootboxes in their games, Valve's new game is literally a lootbox itself.
Quoting: kuhpunktAnd just because you don't know what happens behind closed doors doesn't mean they aren't working on games.They made no games since 2011 (I mean REAL games). If they wanted to make one, they would have released it already.
Quoting: kuhpunktWhat else do you think those developers are doing?Probably this:
Mblackwell Dec 2, 2018
Currently Camp Santo is working on In the Valley of the Gods for release next year (they are owned by Valve).
Last edited by Mblackwell on 2 December 2018 at 4:07 am UTC
Quoting: DuncI said “effectively”, and admit that wasn't a good way of putting it. But IceFrog was hired for Dota 2. What I meant was that it didn't originate at Valve, from a Valve creative team. Of course their own people did most of the work on it.
What is it always with discrediting Valve's work? Is TF2 not a Valve game, because Valve once hired Robin Walker? Is Portal not a Valve game, because some students came up with the portal concept and Valve then hired them? Is Left 4 Dead not a Valve game, because Turtle Rock Studios originally came up with the game?
How do you even define a Valve game? The guys (or most of them?) who founded Blizzard aren't with the company anymore. Is Overwatch thus not a Blizzard game?
Quoting: DuncBut even that was five years ago. Clearly their eyes have been off the ball. They've let a lot of developers, especially on the creative side, go over recent years. It's one of the reasons many fans have lost hope of ever seeing HL3 or Portal 3.
How are their eyes "clearly" off the ball when you literally have no idea what's going on behind the scenes? Yes, some people left, but also a lot of other people joined them. And some of the people that left actually returned to Valve.
Quoting: ageresThey made no games since 2011 (I mean REAL games).
As if Artifact is no real game. Just because you don't like it or just listen to this dumb hate train?
Quoting: ageresIf they wanted to make one, they would have released it already.
How do you know? Thos things, they take time. TF2 was shown at E3 1999. Then nothing for 7 years.
Quoting: ageresProbably this:
You know that's a dumb argument.
See more from me