284
That lawsuit against Steam’s 30% cut of game sales is now a class action, meaning many other developers could benefit
(www.rockpapershotgun.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2024
284 points (91.5% liked)
PC Gaming
8683 readers
171 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Steam singlehandedly stopped piracy overnight for me.
Developers were getting $0 from me before steam, and thousands of $$$ from me after steam.
The 30% cut is well worth it for developers, plus all the other services steam provides. Kids have no idea how buying, installing, modding, patching games used to be like.
You cant compare this to the apple app store
Name another platform that has gone 20 years without completely enshittifying itself.
We can start shitting on steam when they turn evil
This is similar to what Netflix did to their part of the industry for a time. Everyone I knew who pirated just got a Netflix subscription. Fast forward to now and the movie industry is manning the cannons to try and take on the pirates instead of realising it was content fracturing and profiteering that brought the pirates back.
Wik*pedia?
I mean a for-profit corporation owned by an ex-microsoft employee...
Everything about that screams enshittification, but they've done a pretty good job to be relatively consumer friendly.
Not being beholden to share holders demanding ever increasing growth figures goes a long way.
But 30% is still a figure for 2004 not 2024. Maybe scale it up to 30% based on game size. I don't give a fuck about Ubisoft and Activision, but give smaller devs a break.
Sure, i'm not against developers keeping more of their own money, i'm not even against valve getting sued....
What i am against is this blind hate of every corporation. Even the ones like valve who are doing some good things. (bUt tHeY'Re nOt dOInG goOd oUT oF tHe gOOdNeSs of THeiR oWn hEaRts! It'S aLL ABouT ProFiT$$$$!!!)
I get it, capitalism sucks, corporations suck, profits suck... We are on lemmy after all
But until you throw out your computer, your phone, disconnect yourself from the internet, and move into the woods... You live, breathe, and contribute to a capitalist society, so stop letting perfect be the enemy of good and shitting on every corporation, even the "good guys". (I dont mean YOU.. I just mean the fediverse)
This is just lesser-evilism. Though I do agree that Valve is a lesser evil than say Microsoft or Apple.
True. Almost none of the iOS games I bought run anymore. It is why I stopped buying apps, specifically games, on iOS years ago. But others did a good job maintaining backwards compatibility whether through hardware or software.
As a mobile app developer who has been in the business since before the iPhone was even announced, this is hilarious.
No, you can’t compare it to the App Store. With the Apple App Store you get so much more for that 30% cut than you get with Steam, it’s not even close. You kids have no idea how bad it was in the before times.
Can I ask what you get? I'd like to understand what steam provides for a 30% cut vs what app stores like Google or Apple provide and what you value more from one vs the other.
Stockholm syndrome, it sounds like.
Well, a complete development toolchain for example. Does Steam provide an IDE, compiler, debugging tools, etc? No. You got to license that shit from someone else. Does Steam provide developer support for any of the OSes their client runs on? No they don’t. If I’ve got a question about Windows internals, I have to pay Microsoft for help. Then there’s lots of services my apps can use for free, like the push notifications service.
People like to shit on Xcode, but they likely didn’t do any mobile development before the App Store was a thing. I’m talking 2005-2007 era. Development tools for S60, J2ME and BlackBerry were so bad, it was like they were built by someone who hates developers. The software was actively developer-hostile.
You want on-device debugging? Haha, why don’t you go fuck yourself instead? Oh no, I need to sign my iOS app. which takes all of 1 second and is done locally. With BlackBerry your app would be split into dozens of small chunks, and each chunk would need 3 different signatures to be able to access all APIs. Of course this signing wasn’t done locally, no it was done on one of BlackBerry’s servers which was slow as molasses, and each signature, which any non trivial app would easily need 100+, was requested separately. Of course you needed to do this every time you wanted to run your app on a device. To add insult to injury, the signing server was down all the time, to the point that someone made a website (something like ‘isthesigningserverdown.com’) to easily check its status.
Of course, that was if you were lucky and even got access to the signing server. You’re not a Fortune 500 company and want access to BB api’s that require signing? Why not go fuck yourself instead?
Of course you’re thinking, if testing on device is so painful, I’ll just test in a device simulator, right. Hahahaha, no. Because fuck you.
Also, all phones were super buggy to the point that our codebase was full of device-specific workarounds. We actually had a kind of database that kept track of which specific bugs were present in which device that was used in combination with a pre-processor to build a device-specific version of our apps. We didn’t upload 1 build to an app store, we built 200+ versions of our apps (which took hours btw). We didn’t have to buy a few ‘expensive’ iPhones to test on, no we literally bought every single phone that had any significant market share. We literally had to test our apps on hundreds of phones. We’d buy new phones every week. We had an entire team of people who did nothing all day but test our apps on different phones.
Also, since there was no app store we had to host the apps ourselves, that meant we had to buy and maintain our own servers (including writing all the server code) just to let users download the apps. There was no app store to handle payments, payment was usually done through reverse-billing SMS (a.k.a. premium SMS). You text a keyword to a shortcode and you’d get an SMS with the install link. We had to write and maintain the code to handle that. We had to pay to receive the SMS. Then the mobile operator took a 70% cut. Not for any kind of app store, there wasn’t anything like that. Not for hosting the app. Not for providing development tools. No, just for sending the premium text message with the install link.
So when Apple announced the app store. With good development tools. With them handling payments. With them handling the download. With an actual good OS that wasn’t buggy as fuck and actually got updates. And they only took a 30% cut? You bet everyone in the mobile app industry was jumping for joy.
As a developer who has done mobile development, I agree Xcode is solid. Still doesn’t excuse Apple for killing backwards compatibility and losing access to iOS games that aren’t even 10 years old.
The key feature of Steam to me is that it is better at game preservation.
You are giving props to the Apple store (among others) for a couple of things here 1. Good Development Tools. 2. Handling payments. 3. Handling downloads. 4. A good OS.
So okay. Let's break this down a bit. Apple is a closed system. It provides a lot of the tools you reference because you literally cannot get those tools anywhere else and meet the standards required to publish anything to their store. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it is important context in comparing steam to Apple and their ecosystem.
I'm also not sure what debugging tools you'd expect to get from Valve in regards to Microsoft as a platform. You have to pay Microsoft for help because they're the ones with the source code and other system elements. Steam doesn't have control over those. The same goes for Apple. So for the record I don't know that this is relevant unless you're specially comparing their steam OS and what it should provide as a platform for designing games for steam OS and working within the steam ecosystem with that of other players like Microsoft, Apple, and Google.
Steam handles payments and even refunds.
Steam handles downloads.
My understanding and use case is that steam OS is pretty decent as far as gaming OS's are concerned and I haven't seen them catch a whole lot of flak for that. However I actually don't know and can't speak to this but would be happy to have you or others elaborate on the experience of developing for steam OS specially or just Linux. I'm sure it has its own set of pros and cons.
Followup question. Do you receive any of this stuff from Nintendo? Sony/PlayStation? They also take an 30% cut. They also have closed ecosystems as far as development. They also appear to handle payments, and downloads. I know that devkits have historically been exhorbitantly expensive but don't know what the barrier to entry is now or how that compares.
Borg is arguing in bad faith, don't give him more attention.
A good part of what the said about Apple is not even true, and nothing he said has anything to do with Steam vs Apple Store.
From the first line, recently Apple released an OS update that broke some software from the Apple Store, like MS Office. They made people call the support from the app developers, Apple did not help anyone with that.
Borg went on an unhinged rant about how bad they are at deploying software to specific hardware, and how little they know about the industry. Completely unrelated to what you are asking.
It is not worth spending time, please don't feed the troll.
If you want to talk seriously about the industry, there are better places to do it.
I mean. On the one hand you may have a point. But I wouldn't have learned any of what I have learned in this thread by not engaging with the people making comments here. I'm not sure that Borg intends to be a troll. The rant was unhinged but Borg is correct in that Apple and their app ecosystem aren't comparable to Steam and their storefront. They obviously have some feelings about development for app stores vs development for steam and obviously this wasn't the place to do it, but I'm not sure they were intending to be a troll.
Some people in this thread are obviously laboring under some pretty interesting and unfounded assumptions. We can't understand how they came to such conclusions without interacting with them. Some of these discussions may be worth it. Others may not.
SteamOS can really only be a good thing for devs, as I understand it. The steam deck gives them fairly limited hardware to target for development if they're inclined to do so, and Valve's effort with Proton have done wonders for general Linux compatibility, even in the absence of a native Linux version of their games. That's opened up a sizable market for them that was previously unavailable.
My point was that you can’t really compare them because Steam provides a lot less value than Apple to developers, yet they still take a 30% cut. With Apple you get a lot more for your 30% than you do at Valve.
I don’t develop for consoles but a quick Google search shows that PlayStation provides support and even free development kits (special console hardware for development) to indie developers. They all obviously provide SDKs as they are the only ones who can.
Steam is great, but it’s just a storefront. Steam doesn’t get involved until your game is done and ready for sale. This is very different from Apple/Google/Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo who are much more involved in the entire development process than Steam.
I guess I'm trying to compare the bits and pieces that are the same across these platforms and that's why I was wondering about developing for things like the steam deck. I agree that providing a development space and tools for development when you are the entity providing the hardware is different than acting as a management and aggregation tool with appropriate included services. I'm still reading this https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/home
And seeing if I can find answers to some of the questions I have about what services they do provide on the development side for the hardware they do sell.
Steam has multiple dev kits and various other tools available for free. Steam also has enormous resources available for after you publish that the companies you list do not have.
Really? Never heard of it. How does it compare to e.g. Visual Studio, XCode, Android Studio and the like?
"it" is an entire massive list on steam.
I wasn't aware apple was behind visual studio, android studio, xcode and the like. Those are all tools anyone can use.
It's ok to say I was mistaken and don't really know what I'm taking about.
That's like saying "the landlord fixing my plumbing, so I'm thankful he's charging me so much in rent." Fuck no. I like Steam and what they've done, but I'd rather more money go to the people actually creating the content. Steam is useful, but they aren't doing 30% of the work of game development, so they shouldn't get 30% of the cut.
Then stop complaining and go buy the game directly off the developer's website. Many large publishers have their own storefront. Or you can tell your favourite Indie dev that they can set up a virtual storefront (with diacoverability so users find their game), distribution service with CDNs, support forums, online user reviews, customer support, and who knows what else for their own game. If this sounds like a lot of work, that's because it is. Alternatively, they are allowed to pay someone in the form of profit sharing for all of this if they want to. But no one is forcing you to use Steam.
It just seams the majority of pc gamers find the service useful, so they tend to buy the games there.
"There's a systemic issue harming developers."
"Stop complaining, just don't engage."
How does that help with the systemic issue? Imagine saying "just down own slaves if you don't like slavery." Bad argument, right?
And they still would if the cut was 20%. I'm not sure what your argument is except that developers aren't allowed to fight to benefit themselves and we should all bow down to Valve because they're making a good product (for now). Microsoft once made a good product. They used their market dominance to shove Internet Explorer onto all devices. They also still are the only option provided if buying a computer. Market dominance is always a bad thing. It's only a matter of when.
I like the Steam platform. I have no issues with it. As a Linux user, I really respect what Valve has done for Linux compatibility. (Although, again, they did this for their own benefit, not out of good will.) I choose to use it because I like what it provides. This doesn't mean I think we shouldn't point out flaws or fight for better outcomes for those on the platform, like you seem to. I want it to continue to be a better platform, not to line the pockets of people at Valve.
It's really dumb. So much in this site is anti-corporation or anti-owner-class, but if you dare to even say developers should fight for better compensation of Steam you get downvoted. It's the most bootlicker mentality. Steam isn't trying to help you. They're trying to make as much money as possible. That is all. They make stupid amounts of profit. They don't need (or deserve based on percentage of labor done) 30%.
What systemic issue? If you as a player don't like steam, you can just not use it. It's not like apple where the hardware is locked to a single storefront. Even the steam deck is open for people to get games from anywhere.
Developers are allowed to do whatever they like too, including not putting their games on steam as a form of protest. No one will stop you. They can even sell their games on multiple platforms and reduce the price where the storefront cut is smaller. The only thing they are not allowed to do is sell steam keys on their own store below the price on steam, which is completely understandable. The fact that they are allowed to sell keys directly (AFAIK for no cost) is already a huge boon.
The one's actually behaving in anticompetetive behaviour is Epic with paying devs for exclusivity to their store. This is forcing you to use the platform to play certain games without having any other options. Of course the devs taking the deal are also complicit but that is somewhat more understandable, being a gamedev is difficult these days.
The difference is obvious, ~~you don't have to be a genius to see it~~. Epic is the plague of modern capitalism and greed, where the product is kept afloat by an unsustainable inflow of investor money. The service is ready to enshittify the second the amount of users crosses a certain threshold. Then they will continue to fight with dirty tactics to keep users locked in for as long as they can. How long do you think giving away free games weekly to anyone can last. (Aswer: as long as the fortnite money is coming in)
Steam is an old type of corporation (for now anyway). They focus on making a good product for a "fair" price. Fair as in this is what makes the platform sustainable. If they were to charge exorbitant prices, there would be a huge developer exodus. But there isn't. Most devs seem to have come to a conclusion that paying this optional fee is worth it for that value that steam provides. This money allows them to reinvest in the platform to make upgrades, and yes, make profit too. What other reason would they go through all this trouble for?
Steam is also a privately held company, meaning they are not beholden to the short term vision of investors' pump and dump schemes. But to reiterate, literally no one is forcing you to use steam.
These days you have to capture a large user base with unsustainable prices/practices and then extract every cent for infinite growth. This is not just bad for users in the long term but also means setting up a "normal" company offering a good product at a "fair" price is impossible because everyone is buying the cheap unsustainable products essentially below cost.
I miss the times when a company would make a good product at a fair price and that would be enough.
Edit: that was unnecessarily harsh. I can see you want positive change but unless someone opens a FOSS storefront and pays for the work/distribution, steam is the best we have for now (as gamers). And reducing costs by ~10-20% is not going to make it better for us long term.
They're doing 100% of the distribution though. And some of the marketing, when they promote a trending game or feature one in a collection.
I don't know if a 30% cut is fair, but from my perspective, it seems to be working.
Sure, it seems to be working. That doesn't mean developers should be complacent. You shouldn't settle with an owner doing something that's in their best interest but charging more for it. Stopping piracy and promoting games gets Valve more money. They aren't doing it out of kindness. Just as they're doing what's in their best interest, devs should be too. They should be trying to get that 30% knocked down.
Valve is doing a lot of good stuff right now, but accepting them as some kind of hero is how you get fucked over. Don't be complacent. They're a capitalist company trying to make as much money as they can. As long as their goals align with the consumer it feels great, but don't think it always will.
Unlike publicly traded companies, Valve is not beholden to shareholders, so they, unlike most others, are in a unique position to not JUST maximize profits. I think it's okay to point at Valve as an example for other companies to be more like, because most are still worse. But obviously we can always strive for better, as well.
(Also, out of curiosity: Under a capitalist system, can you have anything BUT a capitalist company?)
This is, at least in part, the topic of the book Capitalist Realism -- basically the Reagan-Thatcherite thinking that no other system could exist https://archive.org/details/capitalist-realism-is-there-no-alternative 10 min vid using fallout to explain that
Now, Valve could today make the company entirely a worker-owned cooperative, with sociocratic decision making. They could even extend these to consumers, a gaming collective. That'd still participate in capitalism, but it would do a lot of good systemically, compared to other options.
Yes, they're privately traded, so all the profit goes to the owners. I don't know why that matters. They're still trying to maximize profit, which is at the expense of the consumer.
You could have a worker owned collective or many other things. They'd still be capitalist under capitalism, yeah. It wouldn't be beholden to the ideals of capitalist individualism though.
Regardless, the point was that they aren't special. You shouldn't hold them above other companies. They're going to exploit you and developers. They aren't working for you.
It matters because they are not forced by law to maximize profit. They can and do make decisions that are good for the future health of the company, such as making sure developers and customers are happy, and unlike other companies they put that 30% cut toward at least some things.
Regarding worker coöps, I wanted to respond to the other commenter and didn't know how to phrase it. I'm currently leaning towards describing myself as an anarcho-communist, though I'm not well-read at all. However I question a coöp could grow to a size comparable to Valve. From some things I've read about the company, their internal structure might not even be THAT far off from that, allowing employees to choose what to work on and such, even if it's far from ideal.
Finally, Valve has done much more than any other company considering they push gaming on Linux. Also their handheld is dope.
It's a myth that publicly traded companies must maximize profits.
For now, you (and I) like the product, but it won't last forever. The developers should fight as much as possible to do what's best for them to allow them to invest in themselves just as you praise Valve for doing. They are providing more than 70% of the labor. If Valve wasn't making money off their labor they wouldn't even have a product to sell.
I'd also consider myself somewhere in the anarchist side.
Publix is a worker-owned company. They operate nationally and are doing very well for themselves. It can be done just fine.
I have said multiple times in this thread that I appreciate what Valve has created. I don't deny that. However, just as my landlord fixing my plumbing, I recognize that they aren't doing it out of a desire to help me. They're doing it to help themselves. They've made a very good product, so good that people rush to defend them from developers who want to be exploited less. This is to dominate the market and increase sales though, which they get 30% of. They done a lot for Linux, but they did so to make a product using Linux that they sell, and also allows them to sell more games to Linux users. It's all self-serving. They aren't doing it out of a desire to help us.
I find it frustrating people can't separate themselves from liking a product and criticizing the company that makes it. You don't have to defend them just because they make something you enjoy. In fact I'd say it's important not to. If they know their users are going to fight any criticism, they know they can exploit you more and you'll get a worse product that asks even more from you.
I don't think I disagree with you, I just think Valve should be the last company that should be under fire for the 30% cut. As in, it should come after plenty of other companies, because they actually do offer many valuable services in return. I'm all for lowering the cut Valve takes, just make sure every other storefront that does objectively less is required to do the same.
It also feels like complaining about the food from one store being expensive, while you get larger potion sizes than other places for the same price. Yes, food should be affordable. Shouldn't the complaint be made towards the industry as a whole rather than the store that is (for now) objectively better than the alternatives?
I never agree with the idea that one thing being worse means we can't improve elsewhere. That only works to protect things doing worse than they could be.
Steam is the market leader, so it makes sense to start there.
I'd say start with Apple's and Google's app stores.
This was the argument when EGS came, and it's been known for a long time that for the most part devs don't see a cent from that extra cut, the publishers keep it. Unless they self-publish, of course.
That would depend on the contract they signed with their publisher. Sure, some contracts may be like you said, but that can be taken up with them. That argument (which you provided without context) is just you trying to provide cover for marketplaces taking a larger cut and it's bullshit.
It's not a larger cut, it's the industry-standard cut.
The "industry standard" is made up and can change. There isn't some dictated industry standard.
Valve's role is more that of a custodian I'd say. And one that is really competent.