All of this is true, but Valve is one of the best companies I know and for now, I’ll happily give them money.
It’s not about the fact that I’m actually going to use it. It’s about the fact that I want people to keep making things like this. It’s about the fact I want to reward them for not locking it down completely.
There's also another way to interpret that. For me for example, I have the same PC for 5 years now, and before that I had the same one for 10 years. Basically, I run it till I really really can't. I can afford replacements more than once every 10 years, but I don't buy it simply cos it's not necessary. But in this situation if I had a similar fondness for valve, I might go ahead and buy it and cut short my not-for-affordability-reasons wait.
I know a lot of people that behave this way with phone purchases.
Ultimately every purchase you make is a vote in support of the company/org you are buying from. Why do you go to one grocery store vs another? One hairdresser vs another?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the blog and/or comment, but if I don't need groceries, and can list 20+ reasons why I don't need groceries, I'm not going to get groceries anyway just because I like the grocery store very very much.
You wouldn't like Valve so much if you explicitly saw the 30% Steam tax, I mean fee, declared every time you bought a PC game on Steam. Imagine if Microsoft did that. +30% for every Windows software. Like iOS. Then Steam games would be +60% rather than +30%.
It's not really a tax though. Other platforms offer a lower percentage (Epic: 0% up to 1000000 copies sold and 12% above) and yet the prices on Epic aren't cheaper than on steam.
If the final price doesn't change based on the storefront cut, then as a consumer, I don't care.
That's still higher than what seems reasonable for a simple store front, but they aren't as bad as Valve or Apple.
Note that Valve is a relatively small company with only a few hundred employees, but with one of the most extreme revenue-per-employee ratios in the world, estimated at $19 million per employee:
That's orders of magnitude higher than companies like Apple, Elsevier or Nintendo. Steam is basically free money for Valve. Valve is extracting huge rents (around 6.5 billion yearly revenue) for negligible expenses (only 79 people working on Steam).
Based on what? Your arbitrary standards. I still don't understand what's wrong with 30% for everything Steam provides as a platform. It's perfectly acceptable. It's not making indie developers poorer. It helping to ensure Valve can focus on the things that matter to them and do things like invest in Steam Input, Proton, SteamOS, and Steam Deck/Machine/Controller/Frame/etc. And it's still significantly better than the times when your only option was brick and mortar, where you maybe got 10-30% as the developer.
Every other digital storefront does far less and still takes 15-30%. Why is Valve the big boogey man and everybody else is free to charge whatever they want on developers while doing fuck all for anybody but themselves?
> I still don't understand what's wrong with 30% for everything Steam provides as a platform. It's perfectly acceptable. It's not making indie developers poorer.
Of course it makes them poorer if a big chunk of what you pay for their games goes to Valve.
> It helping to ensure Valve can focus on the things that matter to them and do things like invest
But they basically aren't doing that. If a company has an extreme revenue-to-expense ratio, it means they are hardly investing any of their revenue. They only have a few hundred employees while making around 6.5 billion per year.
> Every other digital storefront does far less and still takes 15-30%. Why is Valve the big boogey man
Well, Microsoft seems to do 12-15% in the Microsoft Store. And I fully agree Apple is significantly worse than Valve with iOS, because there is no way to circumvent the 30% fee in iOS; indeed, it wouldn't even be possible to offer a software like Steam on iOS. (But it should also be noted that Apple has a much lower revenue-per-employee ratio than Valve, indicating that they reinvest a lot more of their revenue.)
There's a reason everyone else who comes to take on this "market inefficiency" fails. Amazon threw billions at it. So did Google. So has Epic. And Microsoft.
None of them dethroned steam, so 30% is still the cost to access the steam user base.
If tens of billions can't overcome this "inefficiency" then it sure seems like there might be more to the story than economics 101.
The fact is that Steam has an incredibly loyal _userbase_ and you won't convince them to leave unless steam betrays their trust, which they haven't.
The trust in any competitor is nearly 0 compared with Steam which has been a platform people have loved and used for over a decade now with basically 0 issues. No corporate missteps.
Arguably the biggest controversy is the latest way they made CS2 loot boxes less valuable, popping the insane bubble in the skins market. That's still ultimately good for the average gamer and I expect they'll come out smelling like roses.
> There's a reason everyone else who comes to take on this "market inefficiency" fails.
Yes, network effects, as discussed in the Wikipedia article linked above. It's the reason why Facebook or Twitter are so hard to replace, or eBay, or Amazon. In these cases larger platforms benefit from the fact that everyone else is already there, which makes switching hard. That doesn't mean they are inherently better though. They can even be significantly worse than alternatives, apart from network effects.
Part of the reason why these companies are still around and strong is because they continue to innovate. Facebook spun up Instagram for younger folk, Amazon has some of the best shipping/warehousing/distribution in the world. eBay has slowly become less relevant for local p2p purchase because its market share got eaten up by Facebook Marketplace....
Twitter had a big chunk of its userbase eaten up by Threads, hey I'm seeing a pattern here?
Microsoft takes 30%, Sony takes 30% so that argument is out of the window.
Let's break down what you actually get for that 30% with Microsoft/Sony
- $120/yr (xbox) or $80/yr (ps) subscription fee
- Price subsidized console
- Friends system, voice chat/messages
- Online store/publishing regional pricing and associated locks
- Store for MTX
- Cloud based game saves
- Trophies/achivements and other player related goal setting
- CDN to distribute your game
- Remote play e.g. using your console to stream to your PC/Phone
- First class controller support
Steam gives you all of the above with literally 0 cost to the consumer aside from purchasing your game. The fact that anyone even pretends like this is a valid argument is a joke.
There are only a few hundred people working at Valve, with 79 working on Steam, but they are making 6.5 billion USD yearly. That's extreme. One of the highest revenue per employee ratios in the world. They are spending almost nothing. The 30% are almost pure profit.
Since PC is an open platform, the proper comparison would be other PC store fronts which are substantially cheaper than Steam. Unfortunately there is no incentive for users to switch, as Valve apparently contractually forbids games to be sold at a lower price outside Steam.
"Valve apparently contractually forbids games to be sold at a lower price outside Steam." This quote is based on one email from a valve employee circa 2017.
Furthermore, is it not Valves right to say if you wish to offer the same product at a lower price, we reserve the right not to sell your product anymore. Keep in mind in most cases when a game is not freely purchased through steam anymore you can still download the game from the CDN, you can also still use all of the online features for the game. You just cannot purchase a new copy
I really don't understand why price parity requirement is a bad thing. If you want to take a bigger slice of the pie you can eat up the infrastructure costs yourself or take your business elsewhere, EOS, Xbox, PlayStation store ect
"There are only a few hundred people working at Valve, with 79 working on Steam, but they are making 6.5 billion USD yearly. That's extreme. One of the highest revenues per employee ratios in the world. They are spending almost nothing. The 30% are almost pure profit."
You are absolutely right. that is far too much money and to which I simply ask the question why no other serious competition? Companies have poured millions into this and always miss the first stop gap of consumer rights first meaning any attempt they have to eat away at the market share fails so hard its actually embarrassing. Anyone arguing against the current system is just arguing against capitalism.
Out of all the companies in the gamer space hardware/software Valve are the only one who actually care for their customers and have regularly extended rights that go well beyond the legal minimum requirement, this is just a fraction of a reason why they have been and will continue to be first class in the gaming space
I don’t care about the Steam tax. Steam is one of the few storefronts that actually show me what I want. That give me the ability to download any game I downloaded 20 years ago when I first installed it. They went through a few dozen iterations of nonsense social stuff, but through that all the core functionality just kept working.
I hate the iOS store because it’s full of ad-riddled slop. Steam isn’t remotely close to that. If I find a game on there, even if it’s bad, someone clearly spent time and love making it.
there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of for-profit companies that are not “evil” - making money is not evil endeavor, you provide goods and services in exchange for money :)
It’s not about the fact that I’m actually going to use it. It’s about the fact that I want people to keep making things like this. It’s about the fact I want to reward them for not locking it down completely.