Indie developer behind 'Overwhelmingly Positive' rated shipbuilder argues that Steam's "free advertising" is worth the 30% cut

https://sh.itjust.works/post/22820575

Indie developer behind 'Overwhelmingly Positive' rated shipbuilder argues that Steam's "free advertising" is worth the 30% cut - sh.itjust.works

Lemmy

30% seems rather high

but… when they handle payments, refunds, advertising (within their application) and game download costs (server infrastructure?), etc etc etc. it doesnt seem that crazy.

at least, for a lot of indie developers, not having to worry about those things, might easily be worth those 30%

For it to “even out” they’d only have to increase your reach ~50%.

They do way more than that. And they give you an inherent legitimacy that putting it on your own site doesn’t. It’s not just handling refunds; it’s the certainty as an end user that you’ll get one hassle free.

Without Steam (or another retailer with similar traits), selling an indie game would be closer to a pipe dream than really hard.

All of this is true but the ugly truth people don’t want to unpack is this is largely because over 90% of PC game purchases occur on Steam, meaning it’s not that they give you an advantage much as you’re nearly dead in the water if you aren’t on Steam unless you’re a AAA game made by a major dev.

Valve didn’t do something nefarious to get there. But saying “they’re so helpful and expand your reach” is like saying “google search helped me so much” when the reality is if you can’t be found on google you practically don’t exist.

But they do give you an advantage. If steam didn’t exist at all, without a comparable replacement, it would not be possible for you to move a real quantity of units at all. The market they provide has massive value, and their market share is a product of genuinely being far and away better than any alternative.

People don’t refuse to buy games on Epic or Origin or Uplay just because they need everything in one place. It’s because all of those platforms are so much worse that they degrade the experience of games purchased through them.

That’s highly speculative. But again, I like valve and think steam is beyond a net good. We need to be asking these questions though. Market dominance is a risk in any hands.

Again, that’s because every other way to distribute games is terrible.

And it doesn’t really matter, because any sales you actually drive yourself you can give them 0% of, with free steam keys. Sales through their storefront are inherently partly driven by their value add.

I didn’t say their success wasn’t due to offering a great product over a sea of bad ones. That isn’t relevant nor am I contesting it.

Of course it’s relevant.

It’s why the PC market is what it is.

I am not arguing about why the market is the way it is, it’s not relevant.

I am saying regardless of how we got here, valve controls the PC game market, and that will always be a liability no matter who is in control. We have to be sober about this.

Valve controls the PC market because they created the PC market and are responsible for the overwhelming majority of its progress. And they have done nothing remotely abuse with it.

They’ve justified their cut and are fully entitled to it.

I agree they have not been abusive, but no they are not entitled to anything. That is a ridiculous outlook. You’re talking about a for-profit company dude.
They are entitled to a fair cut of sales through their platform. That’s how platforms work.
Dude the tunnel vision here jfc. I’m done

You’re the one disqualifying the huge service they’re providing.

They’re exactly as entitled to their cut of sales on their platform as the developers of the games are to get paid for their game.