Knowing Steam players are hoarders explains why you give Valve that 30% | Hacker News Reader

Knowing Steam players are hoarders explains why you give Valve that 30%

pcgamer.com

33 pointsmusha68k46 comments

Also, in my limited experience the 30% also goes towards lots of other valuable features like access to the automatic marketing/recommendation engine. By launching your title on Steam, people will see your title in the "More like this" recommendation bars that appear at the bottom of each page. And if you like certain genres of games, Steam will just directly recommend you more titles of that genre on the home page.

I launched a steam demo of my programming game last month (you can find it in my HN profile if you are curious), and without having to do any marketing of my own built up about 1000 wishlists in a month just thanks to getting traffic from similar but more well known titles like Exapunks.

A big part of the 30% is that people generally believe steam will not fuck them over. While everyone HATES literally all other launchers and walled gardens because they know EA et al want to fuck them over as hard as they possibly can, at every opportunity.

It also helps that the other launchers are terrible. There must be some hidden complexity of which I am unaware, because I do not understand. As a rule, slow to launch, memory hogs, unresponsive, etc.

This for a local application that has a library of…10k items in the entire store? The inventory could comfortably be processed inside Excel and yet the launchers struggle.

This is a crazy reductionist view of databases.

You are free to correct it

I don't know how absolute terrible the database must be, that you are talking about, but I think that managing 10k entries of whatever shouldn't be any problem at all for anything with a CPU and like 640KB of RAM.

Not wrong though. Almost like a embedded sqlite would be overkill.

It's extremely telling that nobody (developer or consumer) takes the Epic Games store seriously, in spite of their effort to undercut Steam on this front (0% on the first mil, and 12% after that - to say nothing of the free game promos.)

As far as I'm aware, Epic is still invite only. I don't think just anybody can launch an indie game on Epic.

I could be wrong, I don't keep up with Epic because the store itself has such bad UI design.

Epic has offered self-publishing tools for a while. They do involve a human review step, but one look at the piles of NFT shovelware available shows that the bar is in Hell.

(Granted, Steam isn't too picky either, but at least they draw the line at unregulated speculative assets.)

I think you may even be missing a lot of things we completely take for granted today. I saw a talk by a long time RPG indie dev a few years ago. Said 30 years ago, he needed a full time employee to do all the things he gets for using steam. Things like distribution, customer support, returns. Said he was more than happy to pay 30% at his volumes to not have to have that head count.

edit: Oh, and payment... I think it was Jeff Vogal's talk I'm thinking of.

https://www.gdcvault.com/play/1024944/Failing-to-Fail-The-Sp...

Except economy of scale should have lowered that cost dramatically. The Steam of today is incredibly profitable compared to the Steam of 1994, that means costs have gone down, but their commissions haven't followed, and this is why others want their own store. If their commissions were fair, it wouldn't make business sense to compete with them.

Planting and processing my own wheat for bread would be very resource-intensive, that doesn't mean commercial bread is a luxury article.

I fail to understand the analogy, what’s the Steam of 1994 ?

I mixed up the dates. The video the parent comment linked is from 1994, but Valve's Steam was released until 2003.

Please do me a great favor and imagine that I said "The Steam of 2003" in my initial comment.

What you say is true if "online game stores" were fungible commodities. The reality is that Steam has a long-running reputation of generally (but not entirely) pretty good for gamers. Buying games on Amazon, Epic, EA, Microsoft, or most any other storefront is risky because they don't have ~20 years of good pricing and good-enough governance. The only storefront that meets or exceeds Steam's reputation is GOG, mainly because they sell DRM-free games that work with or without GOG's continued existence.

Maybe if the other big-monied game stores were to have a similar show of goodwill towards players would Steam feel some real competition.

> Amazon, Epic, EA, Microsoft

The combined reputation of all four wouldn’t reach Valve levels. If not net negative. Difference is too large between Steam and any of its high-profile competitors.

A big contributor to this, to me, is that this metric is skewed. People buying 7 games for 15 bucks as some humble bundle or other package deal isn't the same as buying 7 AAA games that all cost 60-70 bucks.

Big boon of the gaming backlog- I never need to buy AAA games at full price. I have more than enough entertainment, I can ignore new games for a year where they will suddenly be half the price, possibly fixed some bugs, etc.

My maximum new game price is $20 and I would need a compelling argument to break it.

This is a big factor. I typically only play two of the games I get from Humble Choice. Probably hundreds more in all the other humble bundles/megabundles. And lastly, I have 'unplayed' games that I have played, but the time in steam doesn't reflect it

Steam sales are an important piece of this. I always buy a bunch of games from Steam sales, knowing full well that I'm not going to play all of them. The things is, I don't know which games I might feel like playing in the future, so I get several. I don't buy them when I actually want to play them, because then they won't be on sale.

99% of the time those games remain unplayed forever though. I just wishlist games I immediately want to play, and buy them and play them once they go on sale, immediately.

not all that many people buy 100 games just to play one. And if you take more realistic ratio, it actually starts making sense.

"Horders" being people who prefer to keep things they paid for as opposed to suckers who pay for the same artificially scarce resources over and over.

I used to do this in the early days, then I learned my lesson. I have an ironclad policy that has saved me so much.

Do not buy a game, (unless it is literally $0) unless you are going to install it and seriously play it at that exact instant. No FOMO about deep discounts is allowed. If a game is $1 today, it will be $1 again in the future.

True about games in general. I've got plenty of XBOX games I haven't played and my $5 a month Pro discount at Gamestop has motivated me to get some random cheap Japanese games for a PS4 that I bought to use as a Plex client.

It was a running gag in the Neptunia series (from a time and place where Steam wasn't so big) that every gamer had a big backlog. It's true about clothes. Even people who are pretty frugal buy clothes they never wind up wearing.

I must admit though that I bought a Steam Deck instead of a Nintendo Switch precisely because I had a big backlog of Steam games which I could play instead of buying new games for the Switch. I played through Persona 5 Royal and now I'm enjoying Death End Re:Quest which might be a trash game to you but it scratches my itch.

I'll never forget my first time playing Persona 5. Bought a secondhand PS3 disc for $20, I heard decently good things about the English localization, figured it was time to play a JRPG again. I knew I was being suckered-in, but my PS3 wasn't getting used for anything else.

Boy, what a mistake. Great game - but Persona 5 is one of those game that makes you understand why your backlog exists. If I spent 120 hours grinding VN scenes and RPG encounters in every $60 game I played, my backlog would never end. Finishing the game and seeing Royal announced with expanded content a few months later felt a bit like this: https://tenor.com/view/saul-goodman-trash-can-gif-25675857

My son and I talk a lot about "How can the game industry get out of its doldrums" and the Persona series is a great example of what's wrong with it when it is at its very best.

For one thing, the game does not make you make any hard choices when it comes to the VN content. It is so freakin' long that playing it on New Game Plus is unthinkable so you feel compelled to max out everyone's social rank in one run, which isn't that hard but makes a long game even longer.

I have the same complaint which I have with most turn-based games (a genre I love because I really enjoy having a big party) in that there are many mechanics, such as status effects, buffs and debuffs, that really don't matter. It doesn't have the feeling that a different resource is scarce (money, SP, items) at different times in the game or that different things make the game hard at different times. There are plenty of turn-based games that do something interesting (where you make a deck and get 3 random action cards, where you have to be careful not to cast healing spells on your enemies or attacks on your friends, where a lot of your scaling comes from customizing combos in Neptunia, where you knockback enemies and they carom like pool balls in DER:Q) but you can make an AAA game that doesn't add anything to FF7 and gamers and game reviewers will accept it.

An answer we've been chewing on is an anti-Persona answer in the sense of a much shorter (30m-12h) game where you really do need to make multiple playthroughs with or without NGP to really experience it all.

I'm frugal and I can't think of a time I bought clothes I didn't end up wearing them.

Back in the 80s when games were expensive, a backlog was unthinkable. Sure, I did but games I didn't play much because I didn't like them, but there was no such thing of an unopened, unplayed game for me

There is backlog, and then there is engaging in the four quadrants of hobby interaction[1].

[1] https://brooker.co.za/blog/2023/04/20/hobbies.html

I give valve 30% because steam will occasionally get me a good game for $4.99 but for some reason, the GameStop (read all other online and physical retailers) store near my house wouldn’t sell me a pre owned copy of a 5 year old game for anything less than $20.

It also gives me excellent Linux support.

I don't buy PC games if they aren't on Steam.

I disagree with the statement "The reason game developers are willing to give Valve 30% of their revenue is because the Steam marketplace is packed with super gamers who throw money at games they have no intention of playing."

I believe the actual reason is that Steam has a near monopoly on PC game distribution, and you'll get a lot of hate from consumers if you distribute on competing platforms (Epic) but not Steam.

Taking it a step further - 30% of revenue seems absurdly high for what Steam offers (see the app store for a similar racket), and I hope Valve faces much stiffer competition in the future so they're forced to bring down their cut.

I like Epic and GOG and have no issues using them for exclusives, but the reason I prefer to go to Steam is because of the player reviews, which the other platforms don't have. I don't know how much moderation costs and whether that justifies their higher percentage, but as a user, they gained my trust in a way that the other platforms haven't.

I think the moderation is almost all automated, Valve has was too few employees to do much manual moderation.

Totally agree Steam is a great platform, I just hope for more competition from other great platforms.

30% is outrageous, seeing how profitable app stores are. If Steam charged, say, 10%, it could be the Netflix of videogames because making your own store to get a piece of the pie wouldn't make financial sense.

Maybe 15% if you employ enough people for support or audits. At 10.8 billion profit in 2024 with less than 500 employees, it seems like a racket.

I read that the cost were higher during the physical distribution era, not idea if true or not.

Unlike most monopolies (or near monopolies), Steam and Valve have remarkable levels of goodwill in their user base. The users don’t feel ripped off.

Unlike iOS, alternatives are available, but universally are not preferred by the customer base (except maybe for GOG, which positions itself differently in the market)

> We make a brief stop by an older article from Simon Carless that analysed Steam collections and found the median player on there has 51.5% of their collection unplayed. The take-home message?

How many of those are free samples? Bundles?

How many of those are things like <Blank> Dedicated server which was inexplicably added to my account when I bought a game and I have no intention of ever running?

My steam collection is bad enough that I have like a hundred of just those, and various "modding tools" too.

> found the median player on there has 51.5% of their collection unplayed

That is nor actually all that bad for something that does not take any physical space and was frequently bought for, like, 4 euro. Or in pack of three for price of, roughly, one.

But, the moralization of the article reminds me what I dont like about gaming culture. It just needs to go out of its way to make big deal about nothing with a cringy rhetorics.

There are so few independent authors who make enough revenue to justify running a full-time studio that if I was self-publishing another game I would probably sell my game, never put it on sale, and try to publish anywhere where I didn't have to give up basically any percent outside of interchange fees to process credit cards.

I watched a talk on Steam and independent authors' revenue, and it's a tremendous tax on top of an environment where it's so difficult to build a good product, generate revenue, and grow to begin with. And your customers will happily buy and build $1,500 dollar systems to play $20-70 dollar games on sale for $10-50 dollars. And then complain about the price of games, too.

And predominantly my most vocal users are teenagers, and running communities where they want to interact with the developers is just such a tremendous liability because you almost have to parent their behavior.

It's just an awful environment.

Players don’t give 30% to Steam, they simply pay price of the game to the publisher. Even if digital storefronts took 10% or even 0%, the $80 price tag for a game wouldn’t change, EGS is proof of that.

The sales are definitely a huge draw. I don't know of any other product that can get marked down over 50% semi-regularly like video games can. It makes it feel like an incredible value, in comparison to everything else we spend money on. Not to mention, there are many games that will get marked down to less than 5 dollars that you could easily spend hundreds of hours in. Terraria is a good example.

Any (non?)digital media? I would be surprised not to see this exact dynamic on BJJ Fanatics. So easy to pick up instructionals with the constant stream of sales and discounts. Not so easy to spend the hours it takes to watch and digest one of those.

53%

Though I do tend to buy packs of cheap games to get one or two I want to play (still cheaper).

No matter if I buy it on steam, epic, etc, it's still 60$ (nominally), so why wouldn't I buy it on the platform I prefer?

30%...

not even the most socialist country on planet Earth taxes their people that much

i have lost hope on anything that society is capable of, people became literal zombies...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com