Epic CEO ANGRY email to Steam

🌍 Get my C# Complete Course! cmonkey.co/csharpcourse
🎮 Play my Steam game! cmonkey.co/dinkyguardians
❤️ Watch my FREE Complete Courses • Learn to make Games wi...
🌍 Get my Complete Courses! ✅ unitycodemonkey.com/courses
👍 Learn to make awesome games step-by-step from start to finish.
🎮 Get my Steam Games unitycodemonkey.com/gamebundle
arstechnica.com/gaming/2024/0...
🔴 RELATED VIDEOS 🔴
How much MONEY my Game made (and how much it cost!) • How much MONEY my Game...
The MOST IMPORTANT Skill to be a Successful Game Developer! (How to go Full Time Game Dev on Steam) • The MOST IMPORTANT Ski...
How the Steam Algorithm Works! (Indie Game Devs NEED to know) • How the Steam Algorith...
My game is in the TOP 15% of Steam! • My game is in the TOP ...
💬 Recently some documents were uncovered from a lawsuit involving Valve and some of them are from Epic CEO Tim Sweeney to Gabe Newell talking about the Steam revenue cut.
Some people feel that 30% is an excessive amount, personally I have a bit of a hot take on this topic mostly because I have experienced what it's like to sell games off-Steam.
Do you think Steam provides enough value to be worth the cost?
📝 Some Links are Affiliate links which means it costs the same to you and I get a nice commission.
🌍 Get Code Monkey on Steam!
👍 Interactive Tutorials, Complete Games and More!
✅ store.steampowered.com/app/12...
If you have any questions post them in the comments and I'll do my best to answer them.
🔔 Subscribe for more Unity Tutorials / @codemonkeyunity
See you next time!
📍 Support on Patreon / unitycodemonkey
🎮 Grab the Game Bundle at unitycodemonkey.com/gameBundl...
📝 Get the Code Monkey Utilities at unitycodemonkey.com/utils.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello and Welcome!
I'm your Code Monkey and here you will learn everything about Game Development in Unity using C#.
I've been developing games for several years with 8 published games on Steam and now I'm sharing my knowledge to help you on your own game development journey.
I do Unity Tutorials on just about every topic, Unity Tutorials for Beginners and Unity Tutorials for Advanced users.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
- Website: unitycodemonkey.com/
- Twitter: / unitycodemonkey
- Steam: store.steampowered.com/develo...

[@TheRibbonRed]

As for the big cut to the lesser sales, I agree. Steam should at least lower it to 20%. And I 100% agree that Steam didn't just sit idly by with that 30%; every day Steam is bringing new features other stores have yet to think of. But ultimately, why they did the pre-AAA cut is to not push the AAAs away from Steam. If they make the AAAs "pay taxes" for the indies, you know they'll bounce and create their own Origin/Ubisoft Connect/Blizzard Battlenet/whatever again.

[@geromeblara]

having their own launcher don't work as they all have one but most people still buy on steam even EA came back on steam

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@geromeblara work or not wasn't the question at the time. EA, Ubisoft, and Activision-Blizzard each wanted what Epic is crying for today; a 100% cut for themselves. But of course, we soon learn that consumers appreciate what Steam does for them & are willing to neglect those AAAs for what Steam does.

[@MaviLeb]

The 30% is fine.

[@vegitoblue2187]

Steam gives you Shader cache, fast downloads, invested a good amount of money on steam deck, provides multiplayer services of their own and has a community section with the store page of the game itself. Many of these features are not provided by other launchers The client is optimised unlike many other launchers and I laugh seeing Epic having the nerve to say crap like this while putting no effort to fix their laggy launcher.

[@MaviLeb]

@@vegitoblue2187 Gabe is the man. Steam has made more indies successful than anyone else.

[@MarushiaDark316]

If they made it $0 for anything under $10k, then you'd be incentivizing people to throw more trash and abandoned projects up there, taking up server space without paying for it, while Steam still has to eat all those costs. So having at least some skin in the game forces creators to take it seriously. Having all that extra content on there would also not do anything to help the over-saturation problem. This is something known as the Cobra Effect wherein you try to solve a problem but only wind up making it worse.

[@CodeMonkeyUnity]

Hmm that's an interesting point, I guess I'm too naïve in assuming indie devs are all good but some people would definitely abuse that system.

[@MarushiaDark316]

@CodeMonkeyUnity It's not even that they're malicious so much as you would have a lot of overly optimistic people who overestimate their abilities and the quality of their work. It's partly why Steam also has their $100 page fee, to provide friction and force people to think, "Is what I made good enough that I'm willing to put a hundred dollars behind it?" If the answer is no, then it indicates they need to go back and make it better to at least meet some minimum standard.

[@TheRibbonRed]

​@@MarushiaDark316 funny enough, back when Steam announced they'd be rethinking the Greenlight program & changing it to a fee, some vocal Western devs wanted it to be 1k/title. Same reason as you said; to make half-effort attempts more unprofitable. But that idea would've killed indie devs from developing countries.

[@PeterMilko]

WOW, great video. Respect for making content like this. Thanks man.

[@DevGods]

Say whatever you want about me but I'm 100% behind what Tim Sweeney is saying. 30% is absurd when the store is mostly asset flips, clones and shovelware. And now a days if you're game breaks through it has NOTHING to do with steam. Its the content creators and strategic marketing. Steam just benefits from being the pc monopoly.

[@TheRibbonRed]

Tbh, this "percentage" issue is already answered with itchio. It's 10% by default, and devs can lower it to 0% to the store *meaning 100% to developwers*. It's basically what you did years ago but without the hassle of creating nor hosting a site yourself. EGS meanwhile is still 12% and it's still not profitable in 2024; leaning hard on Fortnite profits & cutting Creator shares on Epic Creator Partner programs.

[@cybernoid001]

you can also sell your own steam key for your own game on Itchio and bypass the 30% fee, and as a dev, meaning you don't have to update the game on both steam and Itchio and only update on Steam

[@ultimaxkom8728]

@@SkeleTonHammer **Re-check the basement lock** I don't know what the waffles you're talking about.

[@magnusm4]

Though that would mean many, and quite a few big names; Would lower it to 0% by default and hope Itch or others don't complain to see how far they can go. Second is Steam's service and maintenance to keep up with the huge active numbers using Steam on top of maintaining the titles and ensure it all works. Then thirdly is the features. Steam does that very well as well as keeping it very user friendly and not forcing much on anyone. Finally it's Itch. You can't upload too big games on there. It's limited. Otherwise I would've loved to sell my future big games on there. Would be neat if you could have an upgraded Unreal/Unity/Steam fee version where you start at 0% then you set it to increase by a margin divided by a set value and set an exponent to that which caps at the set value. This would mean that let's say you set the value to 10 000. Then the margin/10 000. And multiply that by an exponent of 3. This would mean that the higher the exponent. The slower the fee rises in the beginning and gradually increase along a curve. Once the margin divided by 10 000 reaches 1, it caps at that fee. Say 12%. This would set the fee of the game based on it's revenue and be adapted to it's success and by the size and situation of the developers to release it. The higher the exponent, the more the developers get in the beginning. Ensuring that if you're a small indie trying to make a living. Then a higher exponent would mean you guarantee a higher pay early on in case the game sells but not that well.

[@paulm8501]

Couldn’t agree more!! Great points, thanks for your honesty.

[@pixels_per_minute]

While the 30% cut can be lowered, Steam provides tools and services that no other storefront provides. Epic complaining about Devs still going to Steam with the high cut while not providing a fraction of the tools Steam dose is petty.

[@suicune2001]

I'm hoping to publish my first game on Steam by the end of this year. I'm not worried about the fee for the reasons you said. I published a book and my editor highly recommended I publish it on Amazon because she said publishing it anywhere else will basically guarantee no one sees it. I see Steam the same way. It gives me an audience who could stumble upon my game who wouldn't otherwise. Also, I do have a job so it's not like I'm dependent on game sales.

[@bananaboyTS]

isnt that a problem for the whole industry tho? one company having a monopolistic control whether your product will be seen or not?

[@suicune2001]

@@bananaboyTS Yeah, that'll be a hurdle that needs to be overcome. We have to figure out how to diversify platforms while still being able to reach a large or targeted audience.

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@bananaboyTS indie games hosted on Itchio like Vacant's Mine & Buckshot Roulette (before it's finished) were getting enough attention without your "one monopolistic company control whether your game will be seen or not".

[@bananaboyTS]

@@TheRibbonRed getting a normal person to buy a game from itch challenge

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@bananaboyTS both games are literally free

[@Ansman92]

Appreciate your insight

[@Baelfyr]

The way i see it, is if I'm an indie developer and I have to pay 30% to be on the same platform as triple A developers who also have to pay 30%, then it is worth it, Steam gives me the same opportunities to host my game as anyone else even if they won't make nearly as much money off me as if a big developer was to sell their game. While I would prefer Steam to give those same percentages to indie developers as well, I can see why they made this decision.

[@Mel-mu8ox]

I kinda get why games that make steam a lot of money would get to pay less. Not only would other platforms want the game to be removed from steam, and be exclusive their their platform. But also if you've already made a lot of money from something, you can afford to take a little less over time

[@abdullah4653]

Sir your thoughts are amazing

[@MarkusSeidl]

I like these percentage discussions. There is one cutthroat yelling at another and people are joining in. Rest assured if Steam Store were invented and owned be Epic we would had also 30% cut if not more. Companies behave the same and there is no better than another in the long term. The best way would be to cut the middle man altogether, but for that the customer would have to change (=we). And nobody wants that. All this started only because Epic wants in the market. If they are in the market and have reached their market share they will suddenly become quiet.

[@theunbearables]

It'd be nice if we could all come together and just create a "nonprofit" game store that takes only enough to build out core functionality and a few other features. I guess you could argue that is itchio but they need to build out more steam features if possible. Steam can lower it to 10-20% and have plenty of profit but they don't, and I'm glad people are striving for something more ideal. That being said as you mentioned, one could always try to make it without steam but discovery is going to be difficult. I kinda don't get why AAA companies still publish on steam because they can cut out the middle man but I guess the capcoms, fromsoftwares/etc probably strike a deal up front beforehand.

[@CodeMonkeyUnity]

Yup that's pretty much Itch, which while being a great store it doesn't attract even 0.1% of the Steam's audience. But there's no need to be exclusive, so yup place your games on Steam for the general audience and on Itch for the more devoted fans

[@Zertryx]

Something you also didn't mention about Steam is from my understanding you can Generate UNLIMITED game keys for your game. and then Sell those KEYS on 3rd party websites (like Humble Bundle / Itch / Your own site) and THOSE sales Steam takes 0% because they don't charge you for keys. Also like you said Steam has world wide reach which is just so valuable as it can adjust prices for other countries based on income so you game is more likely to sell in other places and you don't have to manually adjust those prices if you were to say sell it on your own site.

[@renseiga66]

You are most likely wrong about this topic. I read an article about this key generator thing and most developers said that they still have to pay their % to steam. Im not a game dev yet so i dont know for sure of its true or not. Thats why game developers said "we prefer you pirate our game and play it rather than buying keys from unofficial sites".

[@gamepeon8038]

I wouldn't mind the 30% cut if there wasn't a $100 per game fee on top of it. Your example of visibility was when steam got less than 600 releases a year now it's 12,000. Unless you get lucky and find that one period of the year when releases are slow you're going to have to spend a lot on marketing.

[@CodeMonkeyUnity]

By the way that fee is recoupable so I don't think that really matters much, basically it's only a fee if your game doesn't make $100

[@dirtyleon]

Valve: *(Literally minding their own business)* Epic: You a--holes.

[@bazyt1]

30% seems a bit high, but then you consider a world without Steam -- the PC game market might simply not exist, outside of big publishers.

[@TheRibbonRed]

They definitely did a lot with the regional pricing, community features, and recently Steam Deck. Even Tim Sweeney had to praise Valve for the Deck.

[@rocksfire4390]

non-sense, the void would be filled by something else or many things else. there will always be someone who tries to fill the void. all EG needs is better features for their platform, that's really the biggest hold back right now.

[@daniel3dart]

Great points, great video

[@jacobmars1902]

maybe the epic store should actually be usable and have at least some support for linux

[@luciorojas4278]

Another point to take in mind is how much VALVE works on pro users features. For example: Proton/Linux support, Innovation on vr and portable (steam deck), offbrand joystick compatibility and much more. Steam is a pro user ecosystem that haves no true competitor in this regard.

[@TheRibbonRed]

0:57 I wouldn't trust that stat unless the discovery gives out that stat with real records. Tim has been proven time and time again to say things that are beneficial to him but proven unfounded. Valve being claimed by him as a "monopoly" is the big red flag; itchio, GOG, and even Epic Games Store itself wouldn't have existed if Steam is truly a monopoly.

[@SylvanFeanturi]

And Windows isn't a monopoly, because MacOS and Linux exists, right?

[@MichaelGGarry]

@@SylvanFeanturi Windows isn't the monopoly it once was. Legally under US law it probably still counts as one, but in reality its been waning for years.

[@nullx2368]

in practise it is a "monopoly" these other stores are literally useless in terms of selling your game.

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@SylvanFeanturi you try to be smart but that's how the law goes almost anywhere else in the world. Only in the US where marketing magically makes any market leader "is a monopoly". Maybe once you had to pay your electric bills to 1 single company, that would forbid you from getting your own electricity on a legally-registered household, & even force you fees for having your own off-grid solar panels, would you realize what monopoly really is.

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@nullx2368 no it isn't. You're still able to sell on other stores and get some money from there, regardless of how small it is. Don't confuse market leaders with monopoly, else everything is a monopoly because some people don't like how they're being run.

[@savage5757]

1:30 2017, it shows, was so long ago

[@LuRybz]

Hey CM Would suggest for you to increase a few decibels (5, maybe) in your videos. Just a feedback, take it if you want. Tks for the content!

[@MarushiaDark316]

It always baffles me how people are so quick to whine and complain about not getting paid for services rendered; but the second someone else demands the same thing of them, suddenly they clam up and become outraged at the prospect.

[@TarrenHassman]

I also think there is a big difference between Valve and Apple. Valve is the platform for the final seller, which isn't always the same for Apple.

[@shayoko6]

some people are against steam because of DRM. they don't like the idea that they don't really "own" the things they buy. since it is all tied to your account and their servers.

[@TheRibbonRed]

Itchio & GOG would be a good platform for them then. But stay away from CDPR's Galaxy launcher; that one's trying to have some sort of DRM, whether its own or other partners' like Epic.

[@TheDrsalvation]

@@TheRibbonRed don't forget gamejolt, which also allows devs to choose how much revenue they wish to share

[@pixels_per_minute]

Steams DRM is technically optional for developers. Both the GOG and Steam versions of Baulder's Gate 3, for example, are the exact same game. You can launch and play the game without Steam, even launching on your system.

[@arufianz]

@@pixels_per_minute does that mean i can just copy my BG3 files to my other PC and run it without installing steam?

[@pixels_per_minute]

@@arufianz I haven't tried myself, but I don't see why you couldn't. You don't need Steam to run it, and you don't need the internet to play it. You'd just need to copy over all the files needed to play. The whole Steam DRM thing is blown way too out of proportion for how optimal it is.

[@SachinMaurya98]

hi sorry weird question, but is it possible to lets say put the game on steam for eg 10$ and on a personal website for 5$ and try to drive the traffic from steam to your website ?

[@CodeMonkeyUnity]

No, Steam requires price parity, that's actually one of the main reasons for the Valve vs Wolfire lawsuit

[@SachinMaurya98]

@@CodeMonkeyUnity interesting, thanks

[@EduardKaresli]

I think if Epic store improves over time it will be good for the consumer and for the indie developer.

[@PotatoManager420]

Haven't published anything yet. But on the way though. I'd be glad to have 30/70 or any just to earn some experience for the beggining.

[@UneditedRequiem]

I like the 0% till 10 grand option. Can also see the traffic to unknown sites compared to Steam, so choose Steam.

[@Cheshirecrow]

According to Tim’s calculation, adding another 20% taxes after sale would give devs 5% actual earning. Why even bother to make a game then

[@nursultannazarov8379]

That's why Tim is fighting for us game dev. He is our Saviour

[@ELI-wi8nd]

When it's come to user/customer experience in the store like steam it's justify the 30%

[@MathsPlusGames]

Great video as always Epic should take 0% for a few years to grow their audience, and only increase it to 12% once they can compete with steam This will incentivise publishers to publish on Epic, and at the same time publishers can afford to sell their games for less, this will take traffic away from steam, this will also force steam to be more competitive with their pricing

[@TheRibbonRed]

What you want already exists, it's called Itchio. 10% default but devs can set it to 0% if they want. We'll see if Itchio would even get big or that 10% is not even enough to grow a platform. Epic v. Apple has already shown that EGS' 12% is not profitable, and they're even cutting creator shares off Epic Creators programs in an attempt to substitute it.

[@Larsson19933]

Even if Epic took 0%, developers still wouldn't move to Epic because all customers (gamers) are on Steam. This is the true issue and why people are taking about monopolies even though Steam might not technically be a monopoly, because it has the same negative effects on the market. If you could get the same amount of sales on Epic as on Steam, but with 12% instead of 30%, then ALL developers would move to Epic. :)

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@Larsson19933 you're ignoring that with the 30%, Steam is not only nurturing but also growing its consumer base with new features each year. That's why the playerbase stayed. Meanwhile, it took Epic 3 years to implement a shopping cart. And before that, they automatically temp-banned people making big quick purchases at sales. What's Steam doing is at least worth 20%. But they're definitely not "just the big bad monopoly, stealing everyone's money & doing nothing" that media, journalists, and Tim Sweeney want people to see them as.

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@Larsson19933 you're ignoring that with the 30%, Steam is not only nurturing but also growing its consumer base with new features each year. That's why the playerbase stayed. Meanwhile, it took Epic 3 years to implement a shopping cart. And before that, they automatically temp-banned people making big quick purchases at sales. What's Steam doing is at least worth 20%. But they're definitely not "just the big bad monopoly, stealing everyone's money & doing nothing" that some groups want people to see them as.

[@shannenmr]

EPIC DO actually have a system in place where they only take 0% for "up-to" 6 months if you release it there exclusively called "Epic First Run".

[@tomasgonsales483]

The game is currently in development. but I haven’t decided yet which platform I’ll choose. In fact, 30% is infuriating! But as you said: it’s better to get a small percentage from a LARGE number of users.😉 It’s bad that you can’t simply get REVIEWS in the EGS. I don't know why Tim doesn't finish his store.

[@Larsson19933]

I don't think most people understand the real issue. This isn't about: - if Steam is better than other game stores (becuase they are the biggest and best one), - if Tim or Gabe is evil or good, - if Steam is by definition a monopoly or not, The issue is that developers are dependent on Steam (and other digital stores) and because of this, the store take advantage off this by having unfair policies (payments alternative etc. for Apple) and take very high percentages. Steam could raise their take and we developers would not have another choise then to pay it. Even if Steam or Apple aren't monopolies by definition right now, the market and users are effected in similar bad ways. Laws are very slow and digital markets of these scales are realativly new in "law making" time. In EU, we can now see the new Digital Markets Act Regulation start trying to fix issues like this, even though the companies are not monopolies. So if your only answer is that the companies are not monopolies so everything is fine, you're right but also don't understand the issues. These kind of issue are "new" and there will come new laws to regulate it but we are in the begining of it right now and they don't exist everywhere yet. Some point to make it extra clear that developers are depentent on these main digital stores: - Developers cannot only use other stores like Epic and Itch, becuase all the players are on steam. All their customers are on Steam so if they only launched on Itch or Epic (without extra epic exlusive money), they would most likely go under as a company. No developer in the world is big enough to let their decision to not publish on Steam effect Steam enought to make Steam change. The logic "if you as a developer don't like Steam, use something else. And if enough developers are unhappy with Steam, Steam need to change or loose all it's customers" (how regular companies work), doesn't work when the other part is as big as Steam, Epic or Google. They have all the customers and nobody can rival them becuase they are so big and established. - Non of the biggest gaming publishers managed to escape Steam's cut by creating there own stores (even tough most of them tried), becuase gamers don't want to use multiple stores and Steam is great for them. - Epic didn't manage to create a rival store to Steam, even though they are litterly giving away free games all the time to their users, loosing tone of money on it right now. If they event can't rival Steam with all the money they are putting into their store, nobody can. If you're still thinking that all gamers use Steam becuase Steam is the best (which is true), and that there are no problems with this. Then you probably need to go back to the basics and learn about anti-trust laws and way we already have them in place. Anti-trust law aren't new so we have known about these kind of problems for a long time. The new thing is that global digital stores have similar kind of bad effects that monopolies have, but these stores don't currently fit in the current anti-trust laws.

[@litjellyfish]

This is perfect explanation. Then I must say that I don’t think they take crazy big cut. In general other digital and before physical cuts was often 70% leaving 30% to the creator. So one need to look back historically. Problem is as you say. That is going into a monopoly situation. But it’s not a forced monopoly. They have just created a platform most uses. Should they be punished because of that? Why should they not be allowed to share what they want for a product they created. Should they be victims of their success. Again remember. Before it was waaay less cut for devs. And everyone gladly welcomed the at that time seen very low cut of 30% so for me it seems actually that it’s the developers that are getting greedy and want a publishing service for free. Well though luck this is not how the world works. Actually problem is that thanks to steam and other great services now so much more content are done and then it’s harder to eat money due to the spread of choice for the consumers. Well cry again content creators that is how the market is. Do better content or find other markets or wats to eat money than expecting others to work for you for free

[@Motivational-Mango]

I think Steam mainly is popular because it is a very high quality platform. They do take high fees, but they are not really high enough to scare developers away. However, if they were to increase the fees by a lot, I am sure that people would move to other applications. It is not like Steam has complete control over the market just because they are well known. Steam has control because it is a very good application. Steam does have competitors. And if Steam would make some major changes which would affect developers, I am sure the competitors would increase in number. I mean, look at Unity. They thought they more or less had a monopoly so they started driving fees up and doing weird stuff. The developers responded directly by finding alternatives and fighting back. Sure, Steam probably overpower competitors more than Unity does, but still, Steam is not somehow invincible.

[@litjellyfish]

@@Motivational-Mango so true. Also the current fee is basically the “standard” so going above it would not work I think. Only thing steam could do is offering more services of monitoring the game and more data. And charge for some of those opt in ones.

[@Larsson19933]

​@@litjellyfish Thank you! However, I don't agree with you. "Why should they not be allowed to share what they want for a product they created. Should they be victims of their success". This question is already answered with anti-trust laws and the answer is no, they should not be allowed to do what they want when they become so big and monopoly-ish. Why? Because it create bad effects for the market and hinders inovation and competition. Also, I don't agree with how you justify the percentage. Just becuase it was expensive before, is not a good reason to justify high prices today because a lot has change. It's like saying that home computers should cost $ 10 000 just becuase they where expansive in the 80s or something. No, I think the best way of setting the price is to let the market decide, but this only works if there isn't a monopoly (or similar monopoly effects). We don't know if 30% is fair, just that it's standard for digital markets. However, these big markets, Steam, Apple, Android etc. are all in the same position as Steam, they have monopoly power even though they are not technically monopolies. So the price standard have been set by companies that has monopolies-ish power, and not by the market. :) Are you a developer? I would argue that 30% always is a high cut for most things. Is hard for me to find other examples where someone takes 30% of revenue, unless there is monopolies effects. No company would for example pay 30% for a software tool. Think of all the work that goes into tools like Unreal or Adobe suit etc, and they could never take 30% of revenue. Unreal take somewhere like 4%, and I would argue that Unreal engine is more complex then Steam. Usally, only the state or monopolies can take so high percentage of revenue. ;)

[@litjellyfish]

@@Larsson19933 that is more than ok we don’t need to agree on all. And I think we share the core stuff. I am just telling me point of view since I have been working in game development for 33 years. What year did you start? Do you know the markup rates for items in general. In stores. Physical and on lines. Before usually a publisher took 70% and left 30% to the developer. At best. So yes things have change. And I agree they can change. I am just putting in perspective the “spoiled” mindset I and many along me (colleagues) we feel in younger. Like people complain and throw hate to Unity / Adobe etc if they change some models : cuts. When they offer almost free engines software supports. Etc. like come on back 15 years or so and either you made your own engine or needed to put down a couple of hundred K $ for a game engine. And then suddenly when them selves have a product and something to sell they are sad that few buys it / want to profit maximize it. And also is the “but it’s different for those big companies” - it’s always different. Up until they come to the point they have good profit. Then suddenly when they have the chance to lower the price of their games etc they don’t. As they need to save up “buffer money” if something happens. So again I agree with a lot of what you think should happen. I am just saying that it’s not so black and white. And also remember that when those 30% digital store cut came there was no monopoly. I am totally onboard that in the current situation there need to be some outside control. And that is because yes there is a close to monopoly situation. And that is the bad thing. Not the 30% Just because you make a profit there is no obligation to then start to lower the price. It’s their company. Or if it’s going that way they it should be the same for all devs. That if they make profit on their game project then the price of the games should start to be lowered. Same rules then need to apply for all. I mean valve / epic started out once as just developers remember.

[@Haipeer]

you forgot about the "u mad?" response from gabe to that e-mail. XD

[@ultimaxkom8728]

*Steam employee

[@alec_almartson]

In the end it's like a Tango Dance between "the added Value" the store offers (e.g.. Valve) vs. the Price it's charging you with. In any case, is Valve offering any MARKETING value for those extra bucks, or not?? Because Marketing and Exposure is what really Sells a Game (and it doesn't matter where it is - the URL of the Server...), usually. For example, if the store becomes too much popular (as Steam is becoming) then the Exposure that any Indie Game would have (without much Marketing...) would be close to zero. The bigger the number of titles on the store, the greater the woods... so it becomes like a forest where your Game can live without attracting any attention for years.

[@TheRibbonRed]

So far, Valve has given the biggest marketing value on the PC space, yeah. I'd argue all their effort would worth at least a 20% cut. Continuous Linux support? Workshop? Quality CDN that's not AWS? Community features? Proper Game Discovery features? Regional pricing guidelines? Even off-platform key sales? None of the other platforms done as close as all of that.

[@alec_almartson]

@@TheRibbonRed you got a good point. Agreed. I also believe that Steam offers more value than the average Online Game Store... Idk if it's worth 30%, but definitely it's offers a very complete service and set of options to show your Game. On the other hand... let's not forget that (in the end) it's "Marketing" what Sells (I wish that stores these days would offer a "Marketing Service Package" or something similar... so Indie Developers could work together with marketing experts provided by the Store... I think that in that case it would definitely be worth that 30% (maybe even more...).

[@GabrielGreedy]

Valve already shown that if your game gains traction they'll do whatever it takes to impulse it into heaven, See Palworld, See Dave the Diver, see many other options. I think the best way to put it is that you need to prepare your game for launch day, if your launch day is a success you can imagine Steam will boost it really hard and multiply your sales.

[@SoundBubble]

It's true that with the sheer amount of games releasing every day, the majority get drowned out. But at the same time we constantly see indie titles hit it big and I'd argue Steam is the only platform where that could ever be possible as their system is purely based on interest rather than paid ads, which gives their front page titles and suggestions actual weight and relevance. It's hard to get the ball rolling, but once it goes it doesn't matter whether it's a GTA 6 or a Vampire Survivor, your game will get exposed to millions of potential buyers. I don't have any numbers on this obviously, but I genuinly wouldn't be surprised if Steam's conversion rate (times a game was shown vs that leading to a sale) was massively higher than other stores.

[@visitante-pc5zc]

that was long time ago when all one had to do was to toss your game there and get visibility and sales. Today the scenario is different. Over 50 games are published daily. Not only that, AA and AAA also fight for visibility slots. The free visibility is mostly over. Indies often have to invest in marketing. The 30% is not a good deal today looking by the developers perspective.

[@BaddyPlays]

Steam has made it extremely easy for devs n players alike to push updates to games. Imagine doing that via your website.

[@TackerTacker]

I really hope Epic is going to improve their games store so that it can be an actual competition to Steam. But also Epic is taking a 60% revenue cut from Unreal Editor for Fortnite (UEFN), so how the hell does that fit into their white knight hero of the industry agenda?

[@TheRibbonRed]

They're also paying only 5% for Epic Creators program since 2022, and recently marking up UE 5.4 price to 1800USD/seat for non-gaming development (which kills its use as a sim tool for smaller companies, btw. For perspective, I work in a small sim company that uses Unity). The creator cut recently was discovered as a subsidizing method for covering EGS losses through this same lawsuit too.

[@ultimaxkom8728]

@@TheRibbonRed _"marking up"?_ $1800 per non-gaming seat *_after_*_ $1mil annual gross revenue._ Before: 5% of *(at least)* $1mil -> *>$50k.* >25 3D artists is not _"small"._

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@ultimaxkom8728 *or* 1 million lifetime downloads. At least Unity finalized on 1 million downloads _per year._ And that 1800/seat each month is a markup from previously nothing. Where'd you get the ">25 3D artists"? A simulation product having more than 1 million _lifetime_ downloads does not mean there are more than 25 3D artists working on it.

[@AvirajMahadik115]

UEFN doesn't count here

[@TackerTacker]

@@AvirajMahadik115 hmm 🤔 okay why?

[@timmygilbert4102]

'U mad bro' - Gabe Newell

[@narf0339]

If it's too high, why can't they create another company like steam and charge only 15%?

[@nowherefool5869]

my main gripe with steam is early access. purchases should be held at an escrow by steam, while the "beta-testing players" can ask for a refund anytime, as long as they don't exceed the refund timer limit that should only begin upon playing the full release version. according to steam agreement. developers should NOT rely solely upon early access purchase to fund their game development.

[@GameDevProf]

The bottom line is this: If it was just as good to put your game on EGS then most people would do that. The only way you will get them to change is by making a better system and undercutting the price. Valve has literally no incentive to change. They aren't losing tons of people to EGS and people like @CodeMonkey are still willing to pay the 30% price to get access to the market and user-base that steam built up. Exclusives suck for the players and that is not the best way to get people to use your system. They will resent it and stick with the one with all their games on it.

[@MrSofazocker]

What the hell? Steams not only a storefront first of all. That Epic doesn't understand this clearly shows at their half-assed attempt at it with the Epic Games Launcher.. (Which really is just a launcher.. its not competition at all) On Steam you pay 100 bucks for Steam to eat the entire cost of distribution and downloads for forever... like indie games that sm1 put up years ago, you can still buy, download and install. Steam handles everything from payments to distribution and also handles installs of redistributable (to keep things working on newer OSes), game-updates, Betas, versioning, dev channels, canary channels etc etc, and also online-services for multiplayer games (at least steam-matchmaking through P2P will theoretically work for forever), achievements, forums etc. etc. etc. Tim Sweany should be using Steam and actually publish and develop a modern game on Steam before talking sh*t. And see why devs still eat that cost over using epics launcher or building their own... bcs its not abt the game launcher part at all.... So if Steam matches Epics percentage, there wouldn't be any choice anymore!? Everyone would obv choose Steam at this point, making any other software pointless. I'm not sure what he aim to accomplish with this?

[@antijulius]

As a Unity educator, how do you feel Steam compares to Udemy for paid courses? I noticed you don't really put your courses up there anymore. Personally I'm more than happy to pay the discounted $10-15 just to have the courses organized into sections and lectures, each with their own Q&A section. For a similar reason self-hosted courses via platforms like Teachable don't really appeal to me due to having to manage multiple logins and platforms vs. Udemy's Steam-like centralized platform.

[@CodeMonkeyUnity]

On Steam, when the algorithm finds a player to buy my game I get 70%. Whereas on Udemy, if their algorithm gets someone to buy one of my courses I keep 25%-50% And on Steam players don't usually require support, they just play the game, whereas on Udemy since courses are all about learning students have all kinds of questions which I have to answer every single day. But more importantly is the limited price, on Udemy courses HAVE to be $10-$20, their whole model is based on heavily discounting courses but the market for courses is much more limited than Steam, courses can't really sell 10k copies like you can of a Steam game. So that means being forced to make simpler courses in order to make the cost justifiable. For my C# course, I wanted to both make it really in-depth and make it with an optional free version, meaning I know the sales numbers are going to be relatively low since most people will just stick with the free version. In order to make it work I need to charge more than $10-$20 which is one reason why I started hosting it on Teachable. Yup I fully understand not wanting to keep track of multiple logins, but in order to make the best courses I can make the only option is hosting it directly.

[@antijulius]

@@CodeMonkeyUnity Very interesting. Thanks for the insight! That's an outrageous cut that Udemy takes. Will definitely be making an effort to use creator coupons in the future.

[@centerfield6339]

It's easy: if it's worth putting your game on Steam, then put it on Steam. If it's not, then don't.

[@kpr2]

I wish Steam's cut was lower, too. They're not about to give up the leverage they have though, so I'll just charge 1/3rd more for anything I'm put out.

[@otallono]

Not much different than me complaining about the corporation I work for giving more money to corporate employees and less to us, the more the company grows.

[@RobLang]

I don't think transaction processing (VISA) is a good comparison. I think other online reseller service stores are a better match. Such as but not limited to: eBay (~13%), Amazon (8-15%) or Etsy (6.5%). At 30%, Steam is gouging as first to market monopoly. It's not justifiable, especially when you see the publicly presented profits.

[@jerujedesu]

Profit motivated choices.

[@Wanfanel]

already hear this some month ago. Ask how much Steam take from Steam keys sell? answer 0%! and now ask how much Epic or other take from they keys xD

[@Wanfanel]

you can put that's keys in your webpage and get 100%

[@MrXlee1967]

@@Wanfanel Can i ask why is everyone then not doing that? 100% is Huge. Why bother selling through steam then? and how does one do this?

[@Wanfanel]

@@MrXlee1967Steam is Huge and lots of players will find your game with Steam Shop and get there

[@Wanfanel]

kzbin.infoUgkxhjgJw5VxLuZZhago4_jPbveSeJ8c73V0?si=abHJ3CcyxbNMhgL4

[@GameDevBox]

Steam keys doesn't have option for post review.

[@toegap202]

The problem is that for developers, steam sucks, for for gamers, steam is awesome. The player does not have to pay for any of the features steam provides, but the developers do. All of the benefits Code Monkey mention only benefit the player, not the developer. I would argue that the only reason people prefer steam is that it was the first, and so there are more people on steam with more games. Times have changed, steam does not benefit the developer at all aside from having a place to put your game. Which I agree they should get a cut, but by no means should it be 30%. Everyone on the side of steam are typically just gamers, but don't see the perspective from a developer.

[@PathForger_]

Perhaps Steam including infrastructural support that smaller developers are less likely to have covered than larger ones, might make the larger cut a less bitter pill to swallow. The up-front costs were supposedly introduced to reduce scam and shovel-ware games - but I don't get the impression that this objective has really been achieved. It has gone a ways to reduce any risk on Steam's side.

[@Hietakissa]

Yeah. Steam is obviously very worth it for all developers, the extra sales having your game on Steam brings in greatly outweighs the 30% cut, however the 30% itself is very high imo for what they actually offer, which is basically nothing. You get to have your game on the most used storefront and that's it, now that's very valuable by itself, but they don't really do anything actively for your game, unlike a publisher would, unless you're a AA or AAA developer, in which case there's always a spot on the front page for you. I think they should improve the visibility for indie/upcoming games to make it easier to stand out in the crowd of AA/AAA games that usually fill the front page. Perhaps by tidying up the UI and adding separate categories for Recommended (personalized), Featured (best selling, promos), Up And Coming (recently released, selling well), Indie (hand-picked? not sure) etc. games, kind of like how Netflix does it, showing movies/shows for different genres.

[@PathForger_]

If I go to a grocery store I am unlikely to find that the products on the shelves were required to pay for the privilege of taking up shelf space. Sure, certain brands will pay for premium spots to encourage people to pay the prices that they want for their products - but otherwise it is not typical. That aside, commitments on Steam's part to help ensure things like video game preservation, including seed/post-life-support-scale multiplayer hosting would result in video game companies having even less of an excuse to not ensure that their games don't succumb to abandonment - while developers cultivating and proof-of-concept-ing their games would have a less steep bar of entry.

[@Hietakissa]

@@PathForger_ I don't get how the first paragraph relates to what I said. I'm also not 100% sure what you're trying to say or what your point is in the 2nd paragraph due to the way you worded it. I'm saying to justify a 30% cut (+ the initial app credit fee, which not all devs, even the ones making actual games might recoup) Steam should at least promote visibility for a larger variety of games, instead of mostly having AA and AAA games on the front page that don't need the visibility in the first place. I'm not saying the AAA devs/publishers are paying Steam to have their games on the front page (though that might be the case, I don't know), but either way those games are the ones that mostly get promoted on the front page, which leaves very little visibility for smaller devs and indies.

[@PathForger_]

@@Hietakissa Ah. The first paragraph 'doesn't' is more of a tangential conjecture* stemming from your reply but not in direct response to your reply. Apologies for any confusion that that may have caused. (* if that which is considered normal on Steam is considered abnormal in any equivalent context in other industries (where it is normal to buy stocks at a wholesalers price, and sell them at an intended profit - this is all but a twist on the conversation so feel free to disregard) . Your point on bigger producers being afforded disproportionately greater exposure (and at a lower take, at that) is well-received. In truth a part of the problem is the old-hat nature of the user interface that Steam adopts for their Store - but that point is neither here nor there. I also am not entirely sure if what you describe is more a matter of big studios tending to be the ones whom win the numbers games that determine what end up with exposure on Steam. Perhaps ways forward with that would be to craft indie- aimed-but -not-exclusive categories, like sections for games based on price brackets, or the like. It sounds like you've given that more thought than I have.

[@NameNotAChannel]

As a hobbyist game dev, working on my own games, and writing my own books, to self publish, I dislike Steam mostly because it functions as DRM. I want my games to be available without people using Steam, and having their games in fear of being locked out due to being banned from Steam or other shady shenannigans. Buying a game should be owning a game. As to the percentages and being worth it to be on Steam... for the reasons above, and more, I just can't be convinced that Steam is worth it.

[@lizkimber]

It was a sad day when the software market worked out that instead of people buying something and owning it, they could in effect, rent, or hold hostage all your items. TBH the unity asset store has a similar vibe, but at least you can in argument download them all.. If you read most of the EULA of MMOs and stuff, you dont own your character.. you arent entitled to anything, but by paying the sub cost you maybe permitted to login and use their stuff.. long gone are the days when you buy MSSQL enterprise, say 200 seats, and jobs good. now, its a yearly fee based on cpu, and inside leg measurement, office, adobe (who do still offer a buy option) all their products you can rent to get the latest, but as you say, steam, ive a bunch of games i bought, most of them after a few hours you're done with them either from boredom or you finished the game and have no interest in repeating it. But I paid my hard earned $ for that. but should steam say decide to can my account.. i'd lose all access to all of them. As a dev, there are fees to every body, apple want their fee so you can compile for apple, steam want a fee to sell on steam - and in part, i dont begrudge it specifically, but, like the man pointed out, by the time you add taxes, fees, advertising, needing to have kit to run on, costs of servers, software, etc.. it does seem like the indy/hobby devs gonna end up with selling 20k copies and being able to afford 1 pizza. But if your game is not on steam, chances are it will be seen by your gran and your best mate only

[@trk1b28varianrhesa4]

but, it protect your product from being pirated(technically, but you will find your game in torrent websites if it get popular enough)

[@ahm4642]

i think you are misinformed, you do not need to put DRM in steam games if you do not want to

[@NameNotAChannel]

@@ahm4642 It is my understanding, that If someone gets banned from Steam, they lose access to games in their Steam library. This is unacceptable, to me. This is a form of Digital Rights Management. If it is possible to not include such a function, I haven't seen many (any) games disable or not include it. I have not made extensive use of Steam (my Library is very tiny), nor have I looked for this specific feature (I highly doubt one can filter for it in the search engine), but I dislike the power this gives Steam... revoking access to a thing someone has bought. That's stealing, in my book... and the prices given on Steam should be rental/lease prices, not purchase prices, if people aren't actually purchasing the game in full.

[@pruttisman]

I agree that from a market perspective, Steam’s cut is justifiable. However, I think that misses the point. From a moral perspective, Steam sitting on so much money and having such low operating costs makes it completely unjustifiable for them to take so much, especially from smaller devs. Steam should show solidarity with the games industry and indie devs in particular, and all the market-oriented arguments in the world won’t change the fact that it’s simply immoral to take so much money when you don’t need to. Steam could take 20 or 15 percent and still comfortably rule the world.

[@alexs2195]

Would be nice Steam reducing the cut, but the thing is, people join steam because they want, nobody is forced. Many famous games like factorio where a thing outside steam and become a famous games on steam. Steam is expensive, but steam make games more profitable, making it worthed. So Steam is not just the best plataform to the user, but also the best marketing system existing. You guys realize nobody needs to spend thousand of dolar with propaganda now, why? If you game starts to sell he is going to appear to users searching games, and most people do search games on steam. If you game is good and you manage to have a start playerbase after a point it increases alone in steam. "But my game is in middle of thausand of games". Yeah, now imagine you game website in the middle of thausand of game websites, or you game in the middle of thausand of games on epic? I dont think is better propaganda for a game that being recomended on steam

[@BluesInSeattle]

Valve is really greedy. Indy developers have been getting the shaft from them for a long time. It is the very reason I will not purchase a AAA game and will purchase a game from Epic instead whenever possible.

[@Onyhh]

people is giving too much power to Steam and it usually this doesnt end well. The 30% fee is fair imo taking into count all the things that steam provides.

[@Nhexturtle]

they've sweeten the deal for the big publishers so they would not move to epic or create their own launcher. Xbox, Activision, EA were out of steam for a long time. Epic was a real menace when it was announced. Remember people installed steam for Counter Strike. The same would happen for Fortnite. But even GOG is a better tool than Epic IMO.

[@prototype21]

I'm downloading Unit to make The Game. Then I will make Steam 2, 100/0 cut, the service will include customer support landline, free jpeg and gifs, a daily joke, daily reminder for things you need to be doing. And top 3 reasons why? yes, because when The Game launches, on Steam 2, everyone will be playing it, all conflicts will stop, all wars will end. The Game will bring peace and there will be music and dance.

[@theplaymakerno1]

I don't think a 30% share is a bad thing, if you consider the fact that you may have to manage everything yourself, including promoting the game. I know that Steam doesn't market newer games as much as they should, but that's alright.

[@Churdington]

Valve, in the past, justified the 30% fee by saying that you get space on their front page of new releases, which ensures that millions of people will see your game. But, that's not the case now, because 50 games are released every day. You don't even get very good visibility from searches, unless your game is already popular, because there's over 70,000 games on the store. Valve is getting 30% of the earnings from all 70,000 games.

[@mrfivegold]

Its Steams platform, they can do what they want. If other storefronts want to compete, try making a better product.

[@VastavPansuriya]

UI Toolkit?

[@joeman123964]

I'd like to toss in advertisement though. steam can advertise your game to the masses FAR CHEAPER than traditional methods. no indie dev can afford advertisements on TV and other platforms. we need to keep in mind of things like this. steam has all gamers' attention. so trying to publish without steam is nearly impossible. blizzard pays hundreds of thousands per year just to advertise themselves for example.

[@EnderElohim]

i don't like the idea of taking more from less and less from more. Cut from indies and games that make small sales is huge. 5:10 also it make no sense, they need to take more from big companies, it make more for valve and what they gonna do sell on epic XD

[@noiJadisCailleach]

Is it just me or the audio is ahead by about 200 millisecs?

[@manannaik1341]

It’s just you

[@Volt-Eye.]

I wish, there were an Indie store like steam where you would be charged 20-15% from the price.

[@TheRibbonRed]

There's itchio. It's 10% by default and devs can set it to 0%. Guess why it's not popular [to gamers]?

[@Volt-Eye.]

@@TheRibbonRed because it was never promoted that way. People have a different perception on itch than Steam. Like Jams, free assets, Demo, hobby projects. And I believe it misses many features that are present in Steam. If there would be a store only for Indie quality games then It would be more impactful than a Store that is trying to be swiss knife. These are my thoughts not universal facts. So i might be wrong as well. But I would like to hear other's thought as well as It would help to know more.

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@Volt-Eye. I'd agree that Valve should lower the cut to 20%. 15% seems a bit asking too much to me, and 10% (what Code Monkey said out of the blue) would definitely kill Steam as a platform. Steam is still bringing newer features on game discovery & ownership, and that (on top of their quality CDN partner & everything else they've done for the PC gaming community) definitely warrants Valve the 20%. Epic v. Valve has shown that EGS is not profitable with its 12% cut; being essentially subsidized by Fortnite & UE profits. Itchio is obviously not looking to bring up new features on their platform, so that 10% or less is just charity for the CDN upkeep.

[@Xfushion2]

I never got why Tim was trying to get Valve involved in their Apple drama, maybe I'm wrong but Valve not only does not had any direct dealings with Apple but Tim also complains about Valve giving preferential treatment to big publishers which they do, but Epic Games also gives preferential treatment to developers if they use their engine (Unreal) like grants and lowering the revenue cost, that they won't give you if you use any other one and they even pay a large sum of money to keep some game exclusive to their store either timed or perpetual. He came out as a massive hypocrite.

[@TheRibbonRed]

The recent tantrums Tim threw ever since EGS launched has outed his character as that kind of guy; the one that tries to round up near-unrelated parties to bully whomever he currently doesn't like. He did it with Apple, then he immediately did it with Google. If Valve bowed down to Tim's request (essentially giving the appearance that Apple & Google are "the only ones doing the 30%), he'd have won against Apple...when actually, he does deals with Sony that still do 30% on top of their SDK & QA fees + strict California-based time support & laws.

[@flagshipbowtie]

Swiney is pretty dum6 socially and business wise. You have no idea.

[@DraakjeYoblama]

Looking at Tim over the past few years it becomes very clear that he's just jealous. He's only against the 30% cut because his own store isn't popular enough to ask for 30%.

[@kostariev_vadim]

It's so strange to come to a company where you can get your customers for a pre-agreed price and then be told it's expensive

[@oleksandrbrahynets9595]

Yeah, it is a common thing, there could be a lot of examples. But this is not that simple, different examples should be considered separetely

[@watercat1248]

In my opinion all those companies are guilty The epic games remove the server's for all unreal tournament game and leave unreal tournament 4 on the dust with not real reason and only care about Fortnite. And valve take forever to make game and it's likely I will never release half life 3 and the also have bot isuouse on team fortress 2 for what I have heard and don't have plan to fix those those.

[@TheRibbonRed]

It helps to stop seeing Valve as a "game developer" and more as a "platform developer". Their current priority is clearly Steam as a platform, then the Deck as the physical one & everything else second. Props on you realizing none are blameless though.

[@watercat1248]

@@TheRibbonRed I know that but both epic and valve start as game developer's And the do very little too keep those older games active. Epic now days focus only on Fortnite all those lawsuit and epic store and unreal engine And valve care's only about steam and steam deck and Linux support. I don't saying that that's bad think but don't bat both company's Care very little about making game's now days. Also I agree that epic do very little too improve the own store. Wail it's one off the way it makes profits

[@juaecheverria0]

Are you kidding, the losses wouldve been the same if you self produced. Atleast THEN could you be free from steams terms of services.

[@jollyvoqar195]

30% sounds high and I'm sure most indies/solos would prefer it was lower, but most I've ever listened to were like Code Monkey in that they realize they are getting value out of the equation, not just robbed. I can't fault Tim for arguing for more profits for himself, but everything he argues, and everything EGS does,, does NOTHING positive for players - the opposite since the exclusives deny players choice and pushes them towards a grossly inferior platform in EGS. Tim tries to across as someone doing something noble - but it's mostly for himself and again, it does zero or worse for players. Love or hate Steam, it is objectively by far and away the best gaming platform. Nothing else has the features or comes close and it's very comfortable to players. The others are so horribly inferior, the Ubi whatever, the EA whatever, EGS is pure trash, Windows Store and/or any gaming experience whatever they do makes you wonder how MS is ever successful. You almost wish Valve would go full capitalist and try to buy/absorb/crush all competition - it would spare we, the gamers, from having to endure so many crappy platforms like EGS and worse.

[@nicholasallen9035]

I worked for a company many years ago doing games for cell phones pre iPhone. We were charged 40% from what I recall for AT&T. Between that and high retail costs I’ve never felt 30% is all that egregious. Just like he says it would be nice if the deals favored smaller games and teams, and the deals with large corporations feel shitty, it could be a lot worse too.

[@phutureproof]

Doesn't epic have it's own platform? What?

[@liviuemanuel82]

loool. epic CEO is just angry that they still don't make profit... basically all take 30% except epic. Of course less is better for devs, but what steam store offers and what epic store offers and you will see the difference is not that big. also you can generate keys on steam for free..... also epic does whatever it can in terms of unfair competition when is the leader. in case of game market it's not and they are angry :) they trey so hard to appear good, when actually the are not ....

[@devinmcgee5130]

10/10

[@catluvr8875]

how is this not collusion?

[@TheRibbonRed]

Epic v. Apple outed that Epic offered to [publicly] praise Sony to high-heavens, so Sony would allow Fortnite cross-platform on the PS4. At the time, that wasn't decided as collusion either. It should have, though. And whomever legalized the MFN clause too.

[@MoonGameDev]

I feel like steam has a logical approach. I admire Epic for trying to create something special for developers. I wholeheartedly agree that an open market creates the best environment for developers. I feel like Apple are the only assholes here lol

[@ovrava]

Steam 30% is just abusing their monopoly. Epic should really focus on making a good launcher so that there will be a viable competitor.

[@TheRibbonRed]

There's itchio with 10%. Why haven't devs & gamers flock there yet? It's even a better cut than EGS. And since itchio exists, is Steam really a monopoly?

[@flagshipbowtie]

If you saw what kind mrns Tim boy hires you would realise it's not happening

[@marcomoutinho7611]

Itch has a really small max size upload... Like 1gb or 5gb​@@TheRibbonRed

[@vegitoblue2187]

Exactly. Instead of trying to get his own act together he has been bashing others like a child.

[@shreyas908]

I say learn marketing when you put your game out they are makong monopoly out pf your hardwork

[@TheRibbonRed]

I say learn what "monopoly" really means. And go to itchio if you're still screaming about the percentage cut.

[@Injabsful]

valve dont care lol, dont like it dont use it :D simple as that they're not here to please users they're here to earn money

[@i.sebastian.c6563]

Song:"Greed is all around us, I feel it on my wallet..."

[@Majd4012]

if u focus in the beginning u can hear jumped up from my bed befote it starts playing

[@BlazeMakesGames]

The thing about Sweeny and Epic is that they're still ultimately just in it for selfish reasons. Sure they try to act like they're in it for the little guy, but ultimately the only reason they're so invested in trying to reduce these cuts and launch their games on their own proprietary store, is because they have games like Fortnite that are a massive cash cow and they want to get a bigger cut of the profits from other platforms. And like that's the other thing, the actual customer themselves never sees much of a benefit from all this. The reduced cuts never translate to lower prices, and the Epic Games store is still woefully behind Steam in terms of basic features that improve the user experience. So it's a benefit from developers, and the actual customers themselves can I guess go screw themselves. Sure, it'd be nice if Steam included an Indie tier, like you said maybe the first 10k/50k/100k of sales or whatever only has like a 5-10% cut before the full 70/30 kicks in. But I would still rather deal with Steam's 30% cut and get to use their far more advanced and consumer friendly storefront, than put my game on Epic's incredibly basic and awful storefront just to get that 12% cut.

[@kilrain_dev]

30% is insane. Is steam worth publishing on right now? Of course, but that doesn't mean people should just take it without complaints or encourage other platforms. If EGS can gain enough traction or other services than Steam will make changes. They already started.

[@RancorSnp]

I mean, 30% is the cut you pay for your game to sell the best it possibly can. If you believe you can make more money without steam - you are very welcome to use other places, though seeing as 30% is the industry standard, actually multi-industry standard, there aren't many places that will offer a better deal, and those that do will often be below industry standard in other ways. Major corporations did try to make their own launchers to circumvent the 30% cut, but in the end all of them came back to steam, because steam is where the customers are EA, Ubisoft, all the other AAA companies invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into making their own stores, they made games that sold millions of copies at 100% revenue. And they still ended up crawling back to steam. Sure, it would be great for developers to get a bigger cut, but in the end, it's been very well proven that selling on steam will give you the most revenue, so the cut doesn't really matter - and mind you for the customers, this is just a news headline. Because it doesn't matter if the store takes 30%, 10% or 80% - the game will still cost the same, and the publishers will still squeeze every penny out of everything they can

[@herpderp7114]

30% might be "insane", but EGS is losing a lot of money. If Epic did not have other business to subsidize their store, it would have already gone bankrupt. At some point Epic has to stop the bleeding and if it isn't by increasing their cut, it's gonna be through some other means which might not be any more pleasant.

[@bbrainstormer2036]

@@herpderp7114 I wonder how much money they're spending on free games and timed exclusives. I also wonder how much money they're losing on people who only use the epic games store for the free games. The free games are meant to be a loss leader, but no one is sticking around for the paid stuff, so I don't know how well it's working. If they stopped, and focused on making their store a viable alternative to steam in its own right (which it's currently not), I wonder what the result would be

[@GabrielGreedy]

You forgot to say that STEAM will favors good games and not try to sell you only big games on the front page. Being an Indie on Epic is much much worse for visibility than Steam. If you want to test this out it's pretty simple fire up your incognito and access BOTH website. The difference is absurd. I fear Tim, I fear Epic, because they are "unknowns" we don't know what they would do if they were the top dogs, but their tactics seems to indicate that Indie games would probably be much worse with them on the top.

[@DoctorMGL]

i love how Epic games are suing everyone in the gaming scene LOL truly Epic from Epic games

[@MechabitGames]

pretty much agree with you there. please Gabe, 0% cut until you hit a million revenue like unreal / unity runtime fees.

[@CodeMonkeyUnity]

That would be awesome!

[@lukassizemore8102]

Your argument of "Oh Steam gives me access to a bigger marketplace so the 30% is justified. Because when I sold my game on my website I made 20x less." No. You being unable to sell your game on your own website is a marketing issue. That is a YOU issue. Learn how to better market your own products/games/whatever and don't just make these broad claims. I've personally launched and made $80k off my own mobile games all self published and marketed. Yes its costly. Yes its hard. But if I hadn't of done it nobody else would of. Not this: "oh woe is me Apple/Steam/God/Mommy didn't push my game". Think before making these broad claims.

[@CodeMonkeyUnity]

But... that's literally exactly what I said? I'm confused. Yes what I said is literally Steam's 30% is the cost to access the audience that they have built over 20 years. Not sure what you're disagreeing with. Who on earth is saying "woe is me"? Did you comment on the wrong video or something?

[@TheDrsalvation]

I already know my game won't sell on steam so I'm getting a higher percentage cut for very low sales as well.

[@disobedientdolphin]

I totally agree with you. I also think the 30% deal isn't bad at all. I only published one game on Steam until now but even with this game being a total niche genre (Wimmelbild), by now it earned the 100$ that cost it to publish it on Steam. So everything that comes is profit. And you already mentioned good reasons to go for Steam instead of for Epic, but for me the most important one is: I really don't like the entanglement of Tencent, a really really bad and antisocial corporation, with Epic Games.

[@sngaulin]

Valve is still the GOAT on so many aspect!

[@Shakor77]

30% is an exorbitant high fee for basically just be an online marketplace.

[@DraakjeYoblama]

Steam is way more than just an online marketplace. It's also a launcher with a huge amount of features.

[@Chief-wx1fj]

@@DraakjeYoblamalots of features that not all games need, so what if they add more features, they gonna start charging 50%, 60%, 70% etc

[@KaleSerpent]

@@Chief-wx1fj they can move to a different store. I don't think Steam is forcing the Dev to be on steam. They're choosing to do so because they benefit from it. It'd be great if Steam could lower the percentage, but clearly they don't need to.

[@manannaik1341]

Have you visited steam?

[@-Engineering01-]

You gotta first launch your game before speaking of fees. How much have you earned so far that this poses a problem for you ?

[@Braneloc]

Bad Idea: Allow the dev to disable steam features for a lower rate (Like Auth, Multiplayer, Cloud Save)

[@withaust]

How is "only pay for what you actually use in your game" a bad idea? Having a steep 30% cut for a studio-produced multiplayer game that has workshop support, screenshots, P2P relay servers, and other expensive to run services and having the same steep 30% cut for Timmy's first game that only uses Steam as a storefront, downloader and a launcher is predatory as hell.

[@TheRibbonRed]

@@withaust while I agree with you on the surface, I can see that idea leading to people creating too many alternatives of existing Steam feature, just because they don't want an increase of cut on their game. I can see AAAs forcing their own cloud saves, on top of their own mod support, with their own P2P relays, their own tightly-moderated community features, etc. Leading to a massively-disorganized mess of accounts, saves, mods, etc. They're already doing that even without the cut incentive, but right now it's more to justify their PR teams' existence.

[@totalingseven]

🎮

[@malserAI]

Lol

[@jamesderaja]

Actually if they wanna make more money they would be asking more from the big publishers. Since if they have to pay 30% instead of 20% that cost would compensate 30% of all the indie devs with less than 1,000 copies sold. What I think they are doing is to make the big developers stay rather than moving to epic or other store pages since those are big companies people won't get mad if they leave steam and were to download the same from their own website.. Because their 30% steam shate could be used as their marketing budget

[@CodeMonkeyUnity]

However by charging 30% Steam was pushing those big publishers off-Steam, because they are huge thye can afford to build their own platforms, Uplay, BattleNet, Origin, etc. By lowering the cut for the high end they got those big publishers back on Steam So it might seem counter intuitive but lowering the cut for big publishers makes them more money

[@jamesderaja]

@@CodeMonkeyUnity exactly

[@Paul-Jean]

It's true that steam's services are very exhaustive, except when you are selling a game that can be finish and refund for less than 2 hours (which is not great for the devs). However, it would be much appreciated if there were more options for lowering the percentage to 12% at best, depending on steam features that I consider useless for my game. (Like community forums or the steam workshop for example)

[@JeromeMillion]

I would say that yes it's nice making more money using a service than on your own. It could be said for a lot of services. It doesn't make it ethical, fair or right to take advantage of the situation. In the case of Steam they are definitely taking too much and when you consider that the devs make less money out of their game than Steam... It's definitely not right. I understand that you feel it would be worse without Steam so you accept the status quo... But this passivity is sometimes bad for all the people who are pushing for a change. I've seen the same kind of arguments used for abusive relationships or working in abusive companies etc. I've seen it with tattoo apprentices saying stuff like "yeah my boss is abusive and bullies me, but hey, they are still great because thanks to them I can tattoo and it would be harder for me to learn without them" or "yeah my boss is abusive but not as much as some other bosses". So yeah, Steam delivers a service, but sometimes the same way a mafia would.

[@TheRibbonRed]

there's itchio with 10% or less. You can even set it to 0%. Sorry, but the "change" you're asking for is already there. Devs just chose not to take it because Steam actually does something worthwhile with at least 20% of their cut.

[@JeromeMillion]

@@TheRibbonRed I know it's here, and clearly more devs need to take the risk and push for that change. I agree with you 100% ^^ ! I just don't think the 30% is necessary actually worthwhile. It's convenient, it's where everyone is and for now where most customers are because they don't want to spread their catalogue of games etc.