PC CDPR will now receive an 80% revenue share of The Witcher 3 sales on Steam

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

 

[Brian]

Steam should really do this based off Publisher sales and not game sales.  It would be a great way to keep the big publishers from leaving. 

[crispy4000]

19 minutes ago, ManUtdRedDevils said:

Steam should really do this based off Publisher sales and not game sales.  It would be a great way to keep the big publishers from leaving. 

... While still leaving indies out cold.  That’s where Epic is swooping in.

[Xbob42]

I like how people are being "left out in the cold" in this despite the situation playing out exactly the same way on all current gen consoles and no one even ATTEMPTING to shake things up there. Really strikes me as a true cause to fight for when you'll never see a single goddamn dev bitching about the 30% cut Sony gets.

[crispy4000]

22 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I like how people are being "left out in the cold" in this despite the situation playing out exactly the same way on all current gen consoles and no one even ATTEMPTING to shake things up there. Really strikes me as a true cause to fight for when you'll never see a single goddamn dev bitching about the 30% cut Sony gets.

 

The issue, as always for indies, is discoverability.  A 30% cut isn’t so bad when you’ve got eyeballs on you.

 

Steam is just too oversaturated.  There’s no generational shift to ‘reset’ the library, and Valve’s solution is to let their AI scripts do the sorting work.

[Xbob42]

2 minutes ago, crispy4000 said:

 

The issue, as always for indies, is discoverability.  A 30% cut isn’t so bad when you’ve got eyeballs on you.

 

Steam is just too oversaturated.  There’s no generational shift to ‘reset’ the library, and Valve’s solution is to let their AI scripts do the sorting work.

I'd be more inclined to believe this if most big indie hits didn't originate on Steam. Hell, indie developers don't even talk about the PS4 or Xbox One, because those markets are similarly saturated (and with backwards compatibility possibly being a big thing, may stay saturated) obviously to a lesser degree, but saturated nonetheless, and they barely even talk about the Switch anymore because hey, when you find out there's a place where eyeballs will get on your indie game, a trillion indie games will show up to be seen, which is why the Switch is now utterly filled with garbage.

Frankly, if your indie game is good and generates enough interest, it basically stays around on Steam's front page indefinitely. The fact that people don't like to talk about is that the vast majority of indie games are hot fucking trash (as are the majority of bigger games, but there's less of them) so of course most of them will just wither and die. Indie devs liked the Switch initially because it didn't matter what stupid bullshit you put on there, you were guaranteed sales. Like how Steam used to be. This is great for the tiny fraction of people that get accepted, and then later on when the floodgates open, everyone bitches. But frankly there's no reasonable way to handle the situation that satisfies every party beyond trying to float those games to the top as recommendations to people who have interests similar to what the game offers, i.e. Steam's AIs and algorithms that everyone lambastes endlessly because they can't admit they really like looking at porn games and assume everyone else is also seeing porn recommendations.

 

You either vet the games (which is an impossible task if you're trying to get the best of the best) which locks out 99% of indie devs, fucking them over tremendously, or you let everyone onboard and try to let the cream rise to the top. Neither one is perfect and there should absolutely be different markets that handle it differently because people like me want to see absolutely everything, while a lot of folks just want to be told what they should be interested in, which is perfectly fair.

But to put the vetting concept into perspective: How many people do you hire to vet games? What criteria do they use? This month, 50 beat 'em ups were submitted for approval on your platform. Only one is getting through. Do you have multiple people playing through the entirety of every game? Do you have a single dude clicking through trailers to see whichever looks the most "legit," what if you let one through that has high production values but shits the bed in terms of gameplay, while one you turned down was simpler but was a beat-em-up fan's wet dream in terms of playability and feel? The idea of realistically vetting the tens of thousands of games people are making and submitting every year is a lunatic pipe dream. That's why platforms like EGS go by "what's generating interest," in other words, they're using the same popularity metrics Steam is using to recommend games but is just flat out denying anything that doesn't meet that criteria, which has not resulted in the EGS being some bastion of unparalleled quality, nor has it done for the Switch, the Xbox One, the PS4, or any other console I've ever played. The absolute majority of games on every single system under the sun (excluding systems with like 3 games) are just garbage.

 

I get that at some point I've gotten away from the concept of saturation, but frankly I think that's a red herring, because Steam doesn't show you 10,000 games, it shows you a similar amount of recommendations it always has, ranging from trending, best selling, popular upcoming, what's on sale, shit from devs/publishers you own games from, what your friends are playing, etc. You're not getting this unbelievable deluge of shit, and we're years past the era of the new releases being completely replaced every 4 hours by floods of games. As I've said before, this is in and of itself a sort of vetting process, but a less harsh one. You don't "win" just by showing up anymore, but you're also only denied a place on the big boy list, not a place entirely. At this point I'm going in circles so I'll stop, but I really believe that if we keep chasing shelf resets or the magical perfect vetting, we're only missing out on some of the best stuff out there. 

[Raggit]

Accumulated revenue on Steam alone? And only from October 1st 2018 till now? I'd really like to know how much they made from each PC store from the time the game was up for pre-purchase till now.   

[SimpleG]

15 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

I'd be more inclined to believe this if most big indie hits didn't originate on Steam. Hell, indie developers don't even talk about the PS4 or Xbox One, because those markets are similarly saturated (and with backwards compatibility possibly being a big thing, may stay saturated) obviously to a lesser degree, but saturated nonetheless, and they barely even talk about the Switch anymore because hey, when you find out there's a place where eyeballs will get on your indie game, a trillion indie games will show up to be seen, which is why the Switch is now utterly filled with garbage.

Frankly, if your indie game is good and generates enough interest, it basically stays around on Steam's front page indefinitely. The fact that people don't like to talk about is that the vast majority of indie games are hot fucking trash (as are the majority of bigger games, but there's less of them) so of course most of them will just wither and die. Indie devs liked the Switch initially because it didn't matter what stupid bullshit you put on there, you were guaranteed sales. Like how Steam used to be. This is great for the tiny fraction of people that get accepted, and then later on when the floodgates open, everyone bitches. But frankly there's no reasonable way to handle the situation that satisfies every party beyond trying to float those games to the top as recommendations to people who have interests similar to what the game offers, i.e. Steam's AIs and algorithms that everyone lambastes endlessly because they can't admit they really like looking at porn games and assume everyone else is also seeing porn recommendations.

 

You either vet the games (which is an impossible task if you're trying to get the best of the best) which locks out 99% of indie devs, fucking them over tremendously, or you let everyone onboard and try to let the cream rise to the top. Neither one is perfect and there should absolutely be different markets that handle it differently because people like me want to see absolutely everything, while a lot of folks just want to be told what they should be interested in, which is perfectly fair.

But to put the vetting concept into perspective: How many people do you hire to vet games? What criteria do they use? This month, 50 beat 'em ups were submitted for approval on your platform. Only one is getting through. Do you have multiple people playing through the entirety of every game? Do you have a single dude clicking through trailers to see whichever looks the most "legit," what if you let one through that has high production values but shits the bed in terms of gameplay, while one you turned down was simpler but was a beat-em-up fan's wet dream in terms of playability and feel? The idea of realistically vetting the tens of thousands of games people are making and submitting every year is a lunatic pipe dream. That's why platforms like EGS go by "what's generating interest," in other words, they're using the same popularity metrics Steam is using to recommend games but is just flat out denying anything that doesn't meet that criteria, which has not resulted in the EGS being some bastion of unparalleled quality, nor has it done for the Switch, the Xbox One, the PS4, or any other console I've ever played. The absolute majority of games on every single system under the sun (excluding systems with like 3 games) are just garbage.

 

I get that at some point I've gotten away from the concept of saturation, but frankly I think that's a red herring, because Steam doesn't show you 10,000 games, it shows you a similar amount of recommendations it always has, ranging from trending, best selling, popular upcoming, what's on sale, shit from devs/publishers you own games from, what your friends are playing, etc. You're not getting this unbelievable deluge of shit, and we're years past the era of the new releases being completely replaced every 4 hours by floods of games. As I've said before, this is in and of itself a sort of vetting process, but a less harsh one. You don't "win" just by showing up anymore, but you're also only denied a place on the big boy list, not a place entirely. At this point I'm going in circles so I'll stop, but I really believe that if we keep chasing shelf resets or the magical perfect vetting, we're only missing out on some of the best stuff out there. 

TLDR

The market is over saturated and the cream rises to the top. 

[Xbob42]

Well, tends to rise to the top, at least.  But we've had hidden gems since the dawn of gaming, which has always just been a euphemism for "we all missed this game and the studio suffered, but we found it years later, yay us!"

[crispy4000]

A substantial number of indie games have found their breakout moment first on Switch, if they don’t also launch there first.  Or now, in services like Games Pass.  I think finding marketing deals with kingmakers is just as important as the creating a good game nowadays.  No indie developer should bet on their game being a Steam success, unless it already is (Early Access).

Steam’s biggest problem is that in any given day, you have as many anime porn and shovelware titles released as anything else.  It happens exponentially more than on other storefronts.  And if you don’t hide that shit, it shows up all the time on the front page. Even within the supposed curated new release list.  That takes up eyeball real estate that other games might get, and furthermore, discourages browsing because it feels like exploring a trash pile.

This is worth a watch.  I don’t disagree that the cream generally rises to the top, but the way Steam’s storefront is operating really does make it hard for them to use it as a vehicle to that end.  The lane is clogged.  Even with the adequate stuff and ‘hidden gems.’  Meanwhile, new lanes are opening all the time elsewhere in the industry.

 

 

[Massdriver]

Developers should always receive at least 80% of the revenue on Steam. I like Steam given the terrible alternatives out there, but they need to improve on these revenue sharing numbers. I also would rather Steam be more walled off, but I understand the argument for the way it is.

[SimpleG]

13 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Developers should always receive at least 80% of the revenue on Steam. I like Steam given the terrible alternatives out there, but they need to improve on these revenue sharing numbers. I also would rather Steam be more walled off, but I understand the argument for the way it is.

Thats not really feasible. That leaves 10% publishers and 10% for Valve.

 

Edit: In the case of smaller studios self publishing I agree with you

[Massdriver]

1 hour ago, SimpleG said:

Thats not really feasible. That leaves 10% publishers and 10% for Valve.

 

Edit: In the case of smaller studios self publishing I agree with you

What is Valve doing that requires such a large cut? 

[SimpleG]

20 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

What is Valve doing that requires such a large cut? 

They host all the data, provide workshop for modding,provide steam keys at no cost that can be sold on other websites,streaming,user created content,forums,a massive direct network between 30 major cities that allow for access ,steam market place, and of course they have the market share for visibility.

In the case of Steam Vs Epic you have all this plus reviews, a fucking shopping cart,achievements,wish lists,curative content .....

[Massdriver]

2 hours ago, SimpleG said:

They host all the data, provide workshop for modding,provide steam keys at no cost that can be sold on other websites,streaming,user created content,forums,a massive direct network between 30 major cities that allow for access ,steam market place, and of course they have the market share for visibility.

In the case of Steam Vs Epic you have all this plus reviews, a fucking shopping cart,achievements,wish lists,curative content .....

Fair enough, and there’s no question that Steam is better than any of the other stores. 

[Jason]

2 hours ago, SimpleG said:

They host all the data, provide workshop for modding,provide steam keys at no cost that can be sold on other websites,streaming,user created content,forums,a massive direct network between 30 major cities that allow for access ,steam market place, and of course they have the market share for visibility.

In the case of Steam Vs Epic you have all this plus reviews, a fucking shopping cart,achievements,wish lists,curative content .....

 

10 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

Fair enough, and there’s no question that Steam is better than any of the other stores. 

 

Doesn't Valve also provide a lot of infrastructure and framework for multi-player? 

[SimpleG]

9 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

 

Doesn't Valve also provide a lot of infrastructure and framework for multi-player? 

Steam started as a multiplayer gaming platform with the release of Counter-Strike 1.6 and multiplayer has always been a huge focus. Steam provides many different features and APIs to improve the multiplayer experience for developers and customers alike. With these features you can easily allow players to find and play with each other using the Steam Matchmaking APIs, or use the Steam Game Servers API to provide persistent dedicated servers that your players can create communities around.

To facilitate multiplayer games on Steam, there are many options available and different paths to take. Before starting you will want to have the following questions answered:
Does your game already have networking?
If your game is peer-to-peer then all you need to do is integrate Steam Matchmaking & Lobbies with your networking to provide a great experience for Steam users.
Do you want your game to be Peer-to-peer based or server based?
Depending on the type of game one or the other will likely make your game more enjoyable for users.

If your game is highly competitive like an esport then we recommend that you use Steam Game Servers.

If your game has smaller party sizes, you'll likely want to use Steam Matchmaking & Lobbies and Steam Peer-to-peer Networking.
Do you want voice chat?
The Steam Voice APIs provide almost everything you need to implement voice chat quick and easily. It does not network the recorded audio by itself, so you'll still need to send this data to other users using something like Steam Peer-to-peer Networking or Steam Game Servers.
What is available?
Steam Matchmaking & Lobbies
This provides the backbone for getting players playing together. The lobby system is most common when you have players get together before actually starting the game session. Matchmaking and lobbies do not provide networking features, you'll want to use something like Steam Peer-to-peer Networking or Steam Game Servers, or the networking that your engine provides along side.

You can read more about it in the Steam Matchmaking & Lobbies documentation.
Steam Peer-to-peer Networking
This provides peer-to-peer networking for small groups of players.

You can read more about it in the Steam Networking documentation.
Steam Game Servers
The Steam Game Servers API provides everything you need to create dedicated servers for your game. You can host these game servers yourself, or allow your community to host them for you. This is the best choice for highly competitive games (such as Dota 2) or games with persistent servers that keep running even after all players leave (such as Team Fortress 2).

You can read more about it in the Game Servers documentation.

[Massdriver]

9 hours ago, Jason said:

 

 

Doesn't Valve also provide a lot of infrastructure and framework for multi-player? 

It's still had for me to accept they need the cut to be this large. They are a private company so I can't look at their income statement though. 

[SimpleG]

Honestly cant fathom why people think Steam is taking to large a cut. As @Xbob42 stated earlier all 3 console makers take the exact same and people still have to pay for online cost, terrible infrastructure , and a walled garden.

[SimpleG]

Also want to add that this case is an extreme anomaly. Most Devs wont ever see a dime of sales as they already got paid when the made the game, they might get a bonus if the game does well. A smaller cut in most instances puts money into the publishers hands not the Devs.

[Keyser_Soze]

14 minutes ago, SimpleG said:

Honestly cant fathom why people think Steam is taking to large a cut. As @Xbob42 stated earlier all 3 console makers take the exact same and people still have to pay for online cost, terrible infrastructure , and a walled garden.

 

A lot of EGS fans out there!

[AbsolutSurgen]

If devs don't want want to pay 30% to Steam -- they don't have to.  There are many other stores out there for them to put out their games -- Nintendo, MS, Sony, Google, Apple, Epic, EA, Ubisoft (and even CD Project Red via GoG) offer other alternatives.

Given that almost all put their games on Steam, indicated that they believe that Steam, even with all of its flaws, is one of the best alternatives.

[SimpleG]

5 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

If devs don't want want to pay 30% to Steam -- they don't have to.  There are many other stores out there for them to put out their games -- Nintendo, MS, Sony, Google, Apple, Epic, EA, Ubisoft (and even CD Project Red via GoG) offer other alternatives.

Given that almost all put their games on Steam, indicated that they believe that Steam, even with all of its flaws, is one of the best alternatives.

Devs typically have no say in where the game goes, publishers do that.

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 hour ago, SimpleG said:

Devs typically have no say in where the game goes, publishers do that.

Lots of indies are self published.

[Xbob42]

I mean isn't being indie pretty much defined as not having a publisher? Otherwise you're not independent. I guess limited publisher support probably counts at this point, and we use the term as a catch-all for basically anything that isn't AAA at this point anyhow.

[Keyser_Soze]

18 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Lots of indies are self published.

 

Lots of indies aren't allowed on EGS.

[Guest]

I would suggest that retail shelf space is valuable, even when that shelf space is digital.If you have the fortune to get prominent placement in that digital retail store, the effects can be substantial. This value goes beyond whatever specific costs are associated with getting the game into the hands of consumers. 

[Xbob42]

55 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I would suggest that retail shelf space is valuable, even when that shelf space is digital.If you have the fortune to get prominent placement in that digital retail store, the effects can be substantial. This value goes beyond whatever specific costs are associated with getting the game into the hands of consumers. 

Yes. And no one is under any obligation to give you that space simply because you exist. It is not the job of Steam or any other storefront to do marketing for you because you think something is or isn't fair. If your entire marketing strategy is hoping that you get prominent shelf placement, y'done fucked up.

[Guest]

33 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Yes. And no one is under any obligation to give you that space simply because you exist. It is not the job of Steam or any other storefront to do marketing for you because you think something is or isn't fair. If your entire marketing strategy is hoping that you get prominent shelf placement, y'done fucked up.

Exposure is pretty much the only way to be successful in an industry like gaming, and there aren’t many routes to it. Looking for primo retail shelf placement shouldn’t be your only marketing strategy, but it is a key one. This phenomenon is consistent within digital entertainment.
 

Lots of stories of things like the Apple App Store, podcasts, etc. where relatively unknown companies had their product end up spotlighted and it completely changed the trajectory of the product and often the company behind it.

 

But knowing how difficult that is, you’ve got to pull all the levers and hope for the best.