• kingthrillgore
    link
    fedilink
    358 months ago

    I do think Valve could drop it to 25% and not lose much sleep over their coffers.

    • Johanno
      link
      fedilink
      388 months ago

      I mean I don’t know how much money steam is banking, but they provide quite a good service for their share.

      Max download rates at all times (almost).

      Amazing steam overlay. Online gaming. Online saves. Workshop. Linux support.

      And many more. Some of that epic has too but in comparison epic launcher is shit.

    • @RedditWanderer
      link
      368 months ago

      It would effectively not do anything for game devs to reduce it by 5%.

      On the dev side steam provides distribution and a bunch of tools while you develop your game. Tomorrow you can pay 100$, and steam will support you with keys, releasing and publishing your game, reviewing it for free etc.

      I have a game I’ve been developing for 5 years part time. I have steam keys I share with testers, and can distribute version for free, with all the patch notes and update features from steam for 100$.

      When I do release, they’ll have earned the 30%, and if I don’t release I’ll have saved a ton and steam will take the costs. This greatly reduces the barrier to self-publishing. Out of all the companies I deal with, this is by far the fairest and lest predatory model there is. Gaben could have just bled us of our money even more and it would have worked. They are very rich because they are very humble in a sense.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think Steam’s cut should probably be something like 0.05 * (log(x) + 1) where x is number of copies sold.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          58 months ago

          Yes. It would mean that small indie games with low sales wouldn’t be hit as hard by Steam taking a cut, and huge hits that sell millions of copies would help subsidize this.