I work at an ISP. Billing is a constant influx of "interesting" requests that I would love to outsource so our software engineering team could focus on stuff specific to our business. But we never found a service that could do it better than our homegrown system.
Every week there are several one-off issues like "I overpaid because I didn't see the service credit" or "I would like to pay for the next 3 months in advance" or "my accounts payable department sent the wrong check, can you shred it and we'll pay with credit card". These things have to be handled manually. Not to mention people calling to change their payment method because they don't remember their password to the website, or just want to chat. All that is a drain on actually running the business, but unavoidable. You can't just say "nah we won't shred your check", so someone has to go find it and deal with it. While they're doing that, they're not making our product more innovative or reliable. They're running a check through a shredder. Anyone could do that, but unless you have 8 hours of check shredding to do a day, you are spending CFO salary on the task instead of check shredder salary on it. Therein lies the problem.
If this could all be outsourced, I'd pay a lot of money for it. So would any business. Billing is something you have to do if you want to collect money, but it's a time sink. Game developers don't have to worry about this, and generally seem OK with that. I don't blame them. They are lucky Steam exists.
Flexible problem solvers with attention to detail and solid communications skills are about as expensive as engineers.
Most people, including those with advanced qualifications in STEM, could not be described as flexible problem solvers with attention to detail and solid communication skills. This confluence, essential for quality customer support, is exceedingly rare, and tends to describe those whom our societies remunerate most richly.
This completely misses the value proposition of Steam. Collecting a million dollars of game sales through Stripe or PayPal is not hard, nor is dealing with payment issues a large overhead, even if you're paying the people replying to the emails programmer salaries.
Supporting the game itself is an order of magnitude greater even if it's decently written. Steam doesn't prevent that support, it just obfuscates the customer's connection to you so if you don't care you can mostly get away with ignoring them (at your peril, as it will invite bad reviews).
Steam puts you in touch with an immense audience. That's the value they're bringing to the table, and it's a big one.
Its an unfortunate system because steam isn't actually providing that much value but they have just managed to centralize everything on their platform.
I have to heavily disagree with that.
Other than as you mentioned, the huge amount of eyeballs on all of their library content which you just won't get anywhere near close to. Along with people already having credit on their steam account so they can instantly buy a product without entering payment info.
There's also the distribution and update mechanisms which are such a huge win for the customer as well as developers.
I can also guarantee you, if Steam didn't exist, there would be other 'central store/repo's' that would absolutely be trying to enter this space. Providing an easy location for gamers looking to find new content. It's a win/win/win for all of Valve, Developers & Customers.
We should have had search engines like google for games.
> Along with people already having credit on their steam account so they can instantly buy a product without entering payment info.
Browsers these days have a payment API and stores the users credit card details which can be used on any website.
>There's also the distribution and update mechanisms which are such a huge win for the customer as well as developers.
This could have been done without centralization similar to how package managers work, the games repo would just be added to your client and downloaded from that.
So I guess I could put it yes valve has added value from what there was before but its totally possible to replicate all the value easily without centralization.
Some larger publishers operate on a different scheme similar to the large DIY and big box stores in which they “rent” shelf space, pay for promotional services and share a smaller percentage of each sale revenue.
A lot of times there are other restrictions such as game stores need approval for things like unofficial bundles e.g. if they want to bundle a specific game with a console outside of officially branded promotional bundles.
I think the big problem with Steam at least as far as big publishers go isn’t that they charge 30% this is about the same as other channels but that the big publishers have their own distribution platforms atm.
If you buy an EA, Activision or Ubisoft game on Steam atm you don’t download it from Steam you’ll download it from the Publisher via their own client.
Granted they caused this problem to themselves by trying to compete with Steam but they still bare the majority of the cost these days.
Really? I thought anything less than a 100% mark-up generally meant retail wasn't profitable? (ie 30 for a 60 dollar game)?
This is why both publishers and console makers have constantly tried to get into this market, which have already been somewhat killed on the PC the moment CD keys were introduced.
More typical gross margins were in the ~40% ballpark. Some higher/some lower; the entertainment retailer I worked with was averaging around 35%. That's not to say it couldn't be dramatically higher by business or product line, one of the retailers I worked for had a popular product closer to 95% gross margin (excluding the stupid crazy 50% shrink we were experiencing on that product)... but we were also manufacturing that product and the chain wasn't doing that well across the assortment.
In retail, we think of gross margin: (retail price - cost of goods)/retail price.
So, in your example we'd be just under 26% gross margin, not 35%. Regarding the original message I commented on, I looked at the percentages, ignored the example amounts, and presumed gross margin. So in reality, the gross margin there is 50%. Still higher than the averages I saw while I was in the industry (and I was mostly with B&M retail) and higher than the break even point for reasonably well run and conceived retail businesses. That's not to say those more common margins are comfortable for the retailer... more often than not they are cutting it pretty close to the edge much of the time.
Also game stores hope that you’ll buy other items and also sell your older games back to them so they can resell them while giving you back arguable worthless store credit.
All of my Ubisoft titles have been downloaded via Steam and not the UPlay client.
And the main reason for pushing their own clients is because all of these publishers would love to a) avoid some of the cost of Steam in the future b) have a sufficiently big customer base to be an attractive platform for third parties to sell their games on, so that EA/Activision/Ubisoft/Blizzard can become the next Steam and squeeze others for 30% of their revenue.
Because 30% of everyone's game sales is a lot more (and more easily earned) than 70% of your game's sales, especially since in the latter case you actually have to develop (and market etc.) a game...
Yep. Me too. I’ve long thought that Steam charges way too much considering the platform. There would seem to be tons of room for a competitor to undercut Steam. I’m excited about Discord’s new store.
Revenue share is a killer for a business, especially as one as volatile as computer games. Any game needs to be 25% better than it otherwise would have been because of Steam’s revenue share. Does it really bring that much to the table? In 2018? Enough to justify their absolutely enormous cost?
The tldr is that valve apparently knows exactly how much it costs you to run this apparatus yourself, and the rev share reflects that reality. The numbers are apparently really close.
The catch is that as you sell more units, the cost of the apparatus starts to diminish as a percentage of revenue, so running your own marketplace starrs to make sense when you get into the blockbuster territory.
This pricing update apparently takes that fact into account, which means that when companies start running the numbers on their new game launch, the justification for building their own marketplace starts to go away.
They were able to stop paying a third employee when they went to Steam. That's a lot of value to the business.
They were able to stop paying? Doesn't that mean they make less money?
People are expensive. (Hence the whole "oncoming economic doom" thing.)
But I feel like the margins for Steam are so wide that it’s wide open for undercutting; for others to offer a cheaper, probably better product. I’d hope that game hosting quickly becomes commoditized due to lots of competitors vying for the cheapest possible price.
That’s good for developers, and really good for gamers.
Actually, 42.86% better with the 30% cut, and 33.33% better with the 25% cut, and 25% better with the 20% cut.
Not that I am against Steam opening its doors .. the curation was very subjective which was problematic since it could mean life or death for a studio.
Right now .. I guess it is still better than nothing if you have an unknown game to sell .. but I would not have my game only sold on steam.
A local game company I knew had a game on the humble bundle, their website, and a few other platform for months - they made a few thousand. Then it got greenlight on steam and they pulled 1m over 4 months.
Steam is not merely a payment processing system, it's an audience.
In the age before Steam you had to approach a publisher to get your product out there. And in those days getting a 70% deal would have been amazing. Except back then 70% meant something rather different. The publisher was getting 70% and you received 30% in "royalties" (and generally substantially less than 30%). Oh and you received $0 in "royalties" until the publisher cleared 100% of their costs. And finally of course you had to relinquish nearly every right to your IP as well.
I wouldn't underestimate the value that Steam adds. They take care of all financial related issues including trust, facilitate 'advertising', provide a captive audience upwards of 125 million, take care of data hosting (which can be a very significant issue in large-size products), and more. I'm sure they could get by with a smaller margin, but at the same time I think 30% is a pretty reasonable rate for the value they add.
Which is significant, and missing from most of the discussions about Steam's revenue share. Game creators can generate as many keys to activate their game on Steam as they want at no cost, and sell them however they want. If you buy a game from Humble, Amazon, or any other website and receive a Steam game key, Valve doesn't receive any money from that purchase.
People are surprised that the entity that controls distribution and maintains the relationship with the customer can command whatever premium they want?
I don't know how to say this any in any non-snarky way, but this is business 101. Control distribution = control the market.
What makes you think that they have high margin? It's not like each game creators could run a worldwide distribution and payment operation with just a few percent more of revenues.
You mean like a website? I think it's more fruitful to imagine multiple merchants competing to sell devs wares and lessor commissions as a result of competition.
You can try to run your own website, to save 10% fees on a minuscule userbase, it simply doesn't cover the costs.
It's better than nothing but it's in no way comparable to what steam offers.
Stripe gives you a basic solution to accept payments in some locations and under some circumstances. Once a company reaches in the tens of millions in yearly turnaround or expand internationally, it has to move on and run multiple payment providers.
Steam helps you with that. You could try to do better yourself but the effort is not worth saving a few percent of fees (on a lot less sales).
It certainly won't translate the game for you, not that translating a bunch of text files is the hardest part, but it will help with everything else.
Ask international users what they think of other platforms. Like the one they couldn't use because it didn't accept their names with an accent or couldn't enter a billing address without a state.
OTOH if the game is in Japanese and only sold on a Japanese internet platform then you have two barriers - language and payment
It takes at least 10% commission to be able to run a company of this type. It's possible to run with as low as 5% in some niches, given a very lean operation and a billion dollar scale to amortize fixed costs. Eventually most of the company will be devoted to customer support and billing related tasks.
There is really not that much that can be shaved off. Small studios could never make a platform any efficient. A small group could spend all their time working on distribution and billing, never shipping an actual game. It's a really good deal to just use steam instead.
For AAA games it's annoying to pay 30% and they're rather make their own platform, that's why steam is dropping commission to 20% for top selling hits.
Admittedly it is supposedly lower value now, with Steam Direct replacing Greenlight, but it shouldn't be overlooked -- it's the same reason that tons of products are sold on Amazon even though you can also purchase the same product directly via the brand's website...
FWIW, I'm lead dev of SimAirport[0] which is in Steam's Early Access program. The 30% has been tough to swallow, but without Steam (and given our lack of internal marketing/spend) we probably wouldn't have sold a quarter of what we have thus far. And while we wouldn't qualify for any of these tiers had they been in place previously, it's still a solid upside "just in case" your game blows expectations out of the water.
I'd love to see them add a tier around $2-5M at 27-29%, even if just as a "bone" to indie developers; it'd make developing a 'game as a service' (ie long & consistent feedback-driven dev cycle) more palatable and likely result in demonstrably better games.
Tangentially related at best, but sometimes I wonder what Steam _actually_ optimizes for -- if their algorithms always show the "best" games (ie ones that players spend hundreds++ hours playing) then I'd expect that to actually hurt their revenues short term. In theory they'd be better off marketing/optimizing to push games that satisfy users but that have low play-time/hours on average, so that they can sell the player a different game that much sooner. It's a strange set of incentives & it's hard to tell how aligned they really are (with either players or developers).
Valve's rather enthusiastic and concrete support for Linux gaming certainly doesn't hurt, either. Coupled with the discovery features above, it makes it a lot easier to figure out which developers I'd like to keep supporting.
And I mean literal limits. That game had a bug where flights were limited by an internal variable that was smaller than the capacity you could build so after a while the game would just stop and you would be unable to get any more use out of your airport. You could easily test this by cancelling one contract which would immediately make a new offer pop up.
Anyway your game looks just the thing I've been looking for since that old early 2000s game. I'll be throwing some money your way for sure.
Handling your own billing is expensive and time consuming. Setting up your own distribution and hosting is also expensive and time consuming, and then there's the bandwidth cost.
All this adds up rather quickly. Having someone else do the business end of selling games, and only for 25% is a bargain.
Game developers on steam seem to release what they want to not what the audience wants in the vast majority of cases. Couple that with amateurish quality and it's actually easy to be seen if you choose to cater to the non oversaturated categories imo.
You're wrong, but sure.
As such, Google and Apple's app store's don't really have strong competition against each other. Plus, most developers pretty much have to build apps for both anyway. Their respective markets are huge enough.
Steam, on the other hand, although it had its own monopoly of sorts in terms of "central gaming repository", it's always had high competition from game developers releasing their games outside of Steam, and more recently GOG has become a direct competitor, and EA and a few other huge gaming companies started their own central repositories and keep their games off of Steam.
This is what forced Valve to make this move now. Competition virtually always favors the consumer (the companies, too, in the long term, as they are forced to improve their products, but that's another issue and most companies are too short-sighted to see that by themselves), and we're seeing yet another example of that.
If iOS developers had a choice, many would find that Apple simoly does not do enough for them to justify their cut.
The same thing is happening with Google, except you DO have the option to bypass Google play if you have enough muscle, which is exactly what Fortnite did.
One argument I often hear is that "Becsuse they created the platform! They deserve to tax it!". This presumes that platform is doing software a great service. Funnily, just a generation ago, Mac was widely considered the losing horse because "all the software is on Windows." So the question of "who needs who more badly" was reversed.
30% is ok for small to medium developers to not have to deal with payment and distribution, but large companies like Epic, Blizzard, EA, and so on doesn't need that. 30% is way too much, Google and Apple doesn't add 30% of the value to a AAA game.
On desktop it's different, at least for a portion of users. I prefer buying outside the Mac App Store, but I know users that were first introduced to the ecosystem in iOS and had never considered you can but software outside the MAS.
Why?