Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
Steams cut off that, at just the $3 million mark, is $450 million. This is $900,000 per game.
People wonder why other companies wanted to make their own launchers. They leave millions on the table by having steam 'handle' things.
This is also why Valve isn't that inclined to pump out tons of new games.
A game like Palworld, which as of 3 weeks ago, has sold 12 million copies would end up making Valve somewhere in the neighbourhood of $72 million as of the end of January.
There's nothing stopping game companies from selling through multiple storefronts, or even direct to customer with Steam's cut removed.
The fact is, players are happy to pay a premium so that the games live in their steam library, are downloaded via Steam's delivery network, and integrate with steam features.
Steam is not anti-competitive, it's just good.
100% accurate. Hell, it doesn't even feel like paying a premium when the user cost is the same or lower than in stores the majority of the time.
Seems like the majority of time buying "in store" just gets you a code to use for a digital storefront anyway.
Gaming on the PC around the 90s-2000s was pretty rough. I remember installing a game from a CD, typing the key on the back of the CD, and installation failed because I needed different sound drivers or something. I remember most games on my janky PC would be a gamble if it worked or not, even if it met minimum specs.
I remember still facing that issue in around 2010s even with Steam, and then seeing how slick installing apps were on the iPhone and it just "worked", and wishing PC games were as simple.
PC gaming is great now. It's been a long time coming.
The fact is, players are happy to pay a premium so that the games live in their steam library
i don't think you can make a statement like that, that is so untested. If capcom were to start selling games at $70 on steam, and $50 on capcom.com things might be different, we can't really say.
We've seen games sold on Epic for less, and people wait to buy them until they're on Steam. I do it myself, even.
Exactly. Steam provides a service to these companies (a pipeline to customers) and they don’t want to pay.
They are free to make their own, like epic, ubisoft, origin, etc. have, and I am free to continue to use Steam, which I prefer because it provides a service and it works and I feel is a superior product.
Me too. I will not spend a single cent on Epic, but I'll happily buy Steam games.
Another thing is the infrastructure that Steam provides to get the games to the users and support them costs money. If Capcom wants to build the infrastructure themselves it will cost them more. they will have to charge $100 (exaggeration) and they will only be serving Capcom games.
Steam offers many services to users and developers more than just being a simple storefront. They didn't become top dog by virtue of being early, there are plenty of competing launchers that do not offer even a tenth of what steam offers.
I feel like a lot of people, myself included, forget that there's all kinds of software and such available on steam. Their main thing is games, but they have stuff like Blender (which is free), Vegas Movie Studio or whatever it's called, and a bunch of others. Don't they also have movies, or am I wrong on that one?
They used to have purchases of "streaming copies" of movies, which is the same thing as setting your money on fire, but they don't do that anymore.
Even though I’m on a huge open source change, Steam seems to be at least pretty consumer friendly