I really hope some day they will get to the beta stage, it's such a great effort.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

The blog post makes a clear and honest statement, which is a good thing.
I think the price equivalency point looks like a monopoly in the way it is enforced more than in itself, and Rosen has been advised to make a lawsuit in this respect.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Not trying to make any point but part of the debate. [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Tuxee

Quoting: omer666

Quoting: Guestwow everyone here is an expert at games development and marketing!1!

Yes, because movie critics are all expert filmmakers.

"30% is too much" is not a qualitative assessment but rates a very specific figure. Yet all in this discussion who have stated this failed to come up with the adequate cut Steam deserves.

Anyway, the "discussion" is really getting toxic.

If it is not a qualitative assessment, how can you say 30% is too much? How can you discuss the price of something you don't qualitatively assess?
The discussion can get very toxic indeed, but I think there are smart people in here who want to discuss the issue at hand in a civilised manner.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guestwow everyone here is an expert at games development and marketing!1!

Yes, because movie critics are all expert filmmakers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineI'm making this argument (on behalf of the Indies I follow) on multiple threads, so I might have lost track of who I was quoting. Sorry. But in any case, my point is that a 30% cut is only justified if Valve add value. They used to, but with the algo changes, they now see no value at all. Honestly, I'm losing track of the various attacks on this position, so genuinely, apologies if I've misread what you're saying.

No harm taken. We can all see why this issue is sensible for Linux gamers, torn between their inclination towards indie devs and the massive impact Steam has had on Linux gaming. And I don't have a clear answer either, it's just that we must keep in mind that there is more than meets the eye.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineWow... why do you think I keep repeating it?? Maybe because people are constantly parroting the same tripe counter-argument that "it must be competition" or "their game must be crap", ignoring the fact that these devs were previously selling in the thousands, then a day later selling almost nothing. Literally a day, btw. Quite a few devs shared sales graphs of the month it happened.

So why do you quote a post with none of those arguments in it? You say publishing an indie game on Steam isn't worth bothering any longer, I tell you this is true, but it doesn't mean the 30% cut is the issue here, which is the real subject at hand in the lawsuit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: x_wingValve creating a feature were game journalists can freely share reviews of games of the platform isn't doing something for you? What's your point here? That Valve should contract reviewers for the platform?

My point, as I wrote originally, was it's not something Valve should take money for.

Buy who said Valve took money for this, or for their algorithm?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe very article you link to also has Epic stating that 12% is enough to cover their running cost. Yes, no profit from that alone. So increase it to 15%. Now you've got profit

If a 12% cut doesn't make profits with their barebones storefront, how in the world can you imagine a service like Steam could make some with 15%?

I understand developers need to eat, and if you want to maximise profits and scale down services, it is your own right. But it also means Steam is not the place to sell your software.

Quoting: GuestSidestepping the issue there. Valve have far too much control over gaming.

So much control that they can't prevent Epic from buying exclusives and enforcing a lower cut upon the whole market.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: scaineI'm tired of arguing this on behalf of the various indies I follow on Twitter, but I'll say it one more time - these Indies used to (past tense) get great value from Valve, by way of large customer base and a tiny bit of exposure to engage that customer base. As of the 2018 change, that is no longer the case.

If you are tired of repeating the same argument, why do you keep repeating it?
I read it and acknowledged it, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. What I can state is what I obviously see most of the time: people like Steam as a software, as a product in itself, and someone has to pay for it. If you don't charge developers, then you will have to charge customers for the premium features. What do you think is the best compromise?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Liam Dawe

Quoting: toorI feel now that my money should rather go to Valve than to them for sure.

They haven't been a part of Humble Bundle for years.

Rosen and Graham have been CEO and COO of Humble Bundle up until 2019, and are still in the company today as "advisors" after stepping down. Source [External Link]

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe solution is simple: Lower the minimal cut to something reasonable (closer to the Epic cut), then allow developers to opt-in to features they actually need, which would then increase the cut.

If you do this, it's the customers who will complain, like they did with the Epic store. People want community hubs, Steam Family Sharing, Steam overlay's custom gamepad button mapping, etc. Games from developers who don't have the money to get these will be even more prejudiced.

Quoting: scaineThese aren't popular games, but they're solid games that used to get exposure. Now they don't. So the 30% cut by Valve, for these devs, is particularly insulting, because Valve is adding precisely no value. Indeed, many of these indies saw (for the first time, ever, over years) greater sales via Itch, than on Steam.

The algorithm is a real problem indeed, but it doesn't mean the cut is unfair. People these days want to get everything for free and they realise later on why it was so cheap. Steam does take 30% but they inject it back in functionality, infrastructure and (sometimes open source) development.
Epic spend most of their money into buying exclusives, which are AAA games. In the end both consumers and indie developers get screwed but no one seems to care.

View this comment - View article - View full comments