PC Gaming

he just realized there's profit to be made by not pissing people off

It's weird that I'm nostalgic for the good old days when the ultra rich understood that

he just realized there's profit to be made by not pissing people off

I'm okay with this. Same deal with Costco's founders and CEOs. It'd be nice if billionaires didn't exist, but they do, and most of them made their profits while pissing everyone off.

I'll praise the ones that at least try to do some "good" for people. Even if their "good" is "Let's make obscene amounts of money by charging affordable prices and being the 'good guy' in the industry".

Holy shit Gabe Newell is a billionaire (it's just at the second paragraph). This does change my view of him and steam. So uncool.

They tried that first, it didn't go so well.

It seems to me that Valve despite all the criticism it receives for the high fee on the sales of copies is doing a terrific job on resolving that problem.

The only issue I have with this is that Valve seems to be the only company that gets this critique, yet they seem to provide way more services for said 30% fee.

Apple started charging 30% on everything over two decades ago with iTunes, which continued into their app store in 2008. They only recently started a "small business program" that is application based, reportedly unresponsive to the users, and by default still charges 30% to app developers making under $1m in revenue. So, instead of making it based on how much you earn, they force you to apply and ignore you, effectively still making it a 30% base rate. IMO, sort of predatory since they don't really advertise the program. I feel like if it mattered to them, they would automatically apply the rate to >$1m revenue, instead of making it per-app (or dev account) application based and letting users sit in limbo wondering if they were accepted or not.

Google takes 30% as well, also having introduced a 15% on the first million of revenue for subscription based payments, so if I understand correctly, it's not even individual sales getting that lowered rate. Oh, but don't worry, in case you were worried music streaming services can go as low as 10% rates, so if you have a datacenter that you can stream licensed music to app users over well hey, you're in luck little guy!

Microsoft actually moved down from 30% entirely to 12%, it looks like. They don't really offer much, so good on them for that. Know your worth, am I right? But it's only for PC sales, which seems kind of odd considering the hassle it can be to apply and develop for the Xbox. So, not as good, but still alright. Meanwhile, Sony and Nintendo... (30%). Hm, odd that it never seems to be raised as an issue for the consoles, oh well.

All of these were pushed by Epic who was mad they couldn't make more money off their mobile game, except Microsoft which I think just followed suit. But from the backend when you look at what each of these services offer for their costs... It's a bit laughable that Valve is the one getting critiqued for this point when they offer at least double the amount of services to the publisher/developer. In short, these fees cover the cost of a bunch of background junk as well as to generate some revenue for the store selling it, but don't offer much else in terms of support for the users or the developers. Meanwhile the Steam Overlay can completely change your controller scheme, use community templates, access to per-game notes, all of which can be transparently overlaid on your game if you want, and the Steam Workshop for internal modding/community content, in addition to whatever other peripheral things like cloud saving, in-home/remote streaming and remote play together, the recently added recording feature, and generating as many Steam keys as the dev wants for certain purposes.

I just do a double take everytime I see it not being directed at the companies that actually do seem to be abusing their fees and don't offer nearly as much feature presence. Like Valve seems to be attempting to innovate, even if they are just taking ideas from things like Moonlight, and Parsec. They didn't lock it down either, you can jank it up by playing Non-Steam games or emulated games via Remote Play Together with your friends. Ever wanted to relive the days of DoubleDash? Did Slippi not exist in this timeline and you wanted to play Smash Melee with a friend?

Like, there's things to complain about for Valve. But is the 30% for what they offer really unreasonable, especially when compared to current competitors? I personally don't think so. If Epic wants to start making their launcher as fully fledged as Steam is then we can talk. Until then, when I see this argument presented I have a hard time reading it as anything but "big Valve bad" with the subtle implication that Epic is the saving grace of the gaming industry. Otherwise, Epic is able to offer 12% because they don't host nearly as much for the user, and have had to actively rely on Valve for things like community support, VR support, and don't have basic things like repair game installations, or re-installing a game in its folder (you know, to prevent having to redownload 90+gb every time their launcher breaks the game). It's also hard to see them as a good guy when they also have had shady practices, such as not paying out devs per claim during the "Free Claim" giveaways, but rather only upon when the user actually downloads the game. In addition to that, they just throw tons of money at you to make it exclusive, then they ghost you and good luck getting any actual support from them if you need something.

Tl;Dr hypocrisy of picking what 30% fees are okay and which are screwing over game developers, I look at it from the perspective of received services for said fee.

P.S. to OP of comment, I am merely responding to you, I know your comment isn't saying that Valve or any of these companies are at fault for it. Franky, I don't think 30% is an issue if the fee that's taken has fair returns for it, and I think this whole fandango is only an "issue" at all because of mad old Tim Sweeny.