Support us on Patreon
PayPalAiming their sights at bigger developers, Valve have adjusted how much of a cut they will take for bigger titles.
Once a game makes $10 million on Steam, the new revenue split will be 75% for developers and 25% for Valve. If developers manage to hit $50 million, they will get to keep an even bigger share at 80% for them and 20% for Valve. When talking about revenue, this encompasses everything like DLC, in-game transactions and so on.
It's a smart move, one I expected Valve to do at some point given how bigger studios and publishers have been leaving Steam for their own launchers. On top of that, I was sent a screenshot of Epic Game's new beta of their launcher and it looks a lot more like a store itself now too. Considering Epic's launcher is the only place on Windows to get Fortnite, they could have a pretty huge pull and I'm sure that and more has worried Valve to make a move like this.
This doesn't directly help smaller developers though, since their share will remain the same which is apparently 70% for the developer and 30% for Steam. The argument there though, is the network effect of keeping larger titles on Steam and attracting more might help smaller developers find more users too.
The other change is a good one for developers. Before, developers were quite scared to share detailed sales data from how their games sold on Steam. Valve seem to understand that developers want to share this information, so they're now allowing it. The important bit from that:
We've heard you, and we're updating the confidentiality provisions to make it clear that the partner can share sales data about their game as they see fit.
That's really nice to see, I always felt like any attempt to hide sales data would be Valve covering up issues developers might be facing on Steam. Pleased to see that be opened up too. So now, if any developer wants to share how their games sold on Linux, reaching out to us shouldn't be an issue at all.
You can see the full post on Steam here.
You could argue for other stores like itch.io, which allow you to set the share you wish to give back which is rather nice. However, itch has a dramatically smaller user base and so sales are likely to be lower anyway. The same story for likely any other store that takes a lower cut.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Nevertheless Dec 1, 2018
Quoting: liamdaweQuoting: TermyI know for a fact a few people at Valve do read stuff here now and then :)Quoting: MayeulCWhat would be interesting for them is to take a (slightly) lesser cut if the game is cross-platform. Everyone would be happy about this, I think, especially bean counters :)
now that is one of the best ideas i've heard in a while to boost Linux-acceptance among the devs...too bad valve is not looking into this comments xD
If they did not think about it themselves, they should know the idea for some time, at least if they read their own Steam forum.. ;-)
0 Likes
Quoting: ElectricPrismThe best way to survive is not to charge less money but to make people NEED you, and know that you are the only one they can get what they want from.
Bill Gates knows this well.
Their cut adjustment strategy seems fair but they should really push hard on developing their console that way they can own their own mountain of gamers giving their store even more value than it currently has as the major PC platform.
STEAM MACHINES 2.0 - LET IT COME.
How is that supposed to make sense? What would be different then?
0 Likes
Quoting: liamdaweQuoting: TermyI know for a fact a few people at Valve do read stuff here now and then :)Quoting: MayeulCWhat would be interesting for them is to take a (slightly) lesser cut if the game is cross-platform. Everyone would be happy about this, I think, especially bean counters :)
now that is one of the best ideas i've heard in a while to boost Linux-acceptance among the devs...too bad valve is not looking into this comments xD
i am pretty sure they already thought about that. it would help steamOS, but they also would lose money
0 Likes
Quoting: TermyQuoting: MayeulCWhat would be interesting for them is to take a (slightly) lesser cut if the game is cross-platform. Everyone would be happy about this, I think, especially bean counters :)
now that is one of the best ideas i've heard in a while to boost Linux-acceptance among the devs...too bad valve is not looking into this comments xD
I guaranty you that the conversation that we're having now is just a replay of the ones that already happened before this announcement.
Quoting: ageresSo, big AAA publishers will pay a lesser share than indie developers? Nice move, Volksvagen, very fair. Epic Games lowered their cut for selling UE4 assets from 30% to 12%.
Why, YES. If you can deliver a larger payday, you get to keep a greater percentage, because 25% of a much bigger pie is a much bigger payday than 30% of a smaller one. Not all game devs are equal, so they get paid accordingly. If you want a bigger share you have to EARN IT. You make a game that enough people actually WANT and then deliver it in a playable state so that it's not a headache for Valve, and you get a bigger cut.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: kuhpunktIt's true they didn't abandon it completely - maybe I should have said new game development - but Portal 2 is almost eight years old, and Left 4 Dead 2 is nine. Dota2 was effectively bought in, and TF2 hasn't seen a major update in a long while. It's pretty obvious that Steam has been the priority for the best part of a decade.Quoting: DuncThat's why abandoning game development to concentrate on Steam was a mistake.
What are you talking about?
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: DuncQuoting: kuhpunktIt's true they didn't abandon it completely - maybe I should have said new game development - but Portal 2 is almost eight years old, and Left 4 Dead 2 is nine. Dota2 was effectively bought in, and TF2 hasn't seen a major update in a long while. It's pretty obvious that Steam has been the priority for the best part of a decade.Quoting: DuncThat's why abandoning game development to concentrate on Steam was a mistake.
What are you talking about?
They LITERALLY just released a game this week. Dota 2 wasn't bought in. And just because you don't know what happens behind closed doors doesn't mean they aren't working on games. What else do you think those developers are doing?
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: mylkaQuoting: liamdaweQuoting: TermyI know for a fact a few people at Valve do read stuff here now and then :)Quoting: MayeulCWhat would be interesting for them is to take a (slightly) lesser cut if the game is cross-platform. Everyone would be happy about this, I think, especially bean counters :)
now that is one of the best ideas i've heard in a while to boost Linux-acceptance among the devs...too bad valve is not looking into this comments xD
i am pretty sure they already thought about that. it would help steamOS, but they also would lose money
Yeah, this doesn't sound like a particularly novel idea. However, now that I think more about it, this could encourage other publishers/platforms to retaliate: I imagine Microsoft could take a lower cut if an app was UWP (windows store)-exclusive. I would be surprised if that wasn't already the case, though (with exclusivity deals; but perhaps those are not that generalized yet?).
0 Likes
ElectricPrism Dec 1, 2018
Quoting: kuhpunktQuoting: ElectricPrismThe best way to survive is not to charge less money but to make people NEED you, and know that you are the only one they can get what they want from.
Bill Gates knows this well.
Their cut adjustment strategy seems fair but they should really push hard on developing their console that way they can own their own mountain of gamers giving their store even more value than it currently has as the major PC platform.
STEAM MACHINES 2.0 - LET IT COME.
How is that supposed to make sense? What would be different then?
Have you ever been to a business or timeshare vs going to a mall? The experience is completely different.
When you own the real estate, the gaming machines people go buy, and you own the store you dictate who they can buy software and games from. Controlling and funneling the buying habits of (what 400 million?) gamers is an income to be reckoned with. Companies control consumers because it's insanely profitable.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, all know the difference between being the Player and being the Man. The Man is the boss. The Player is always competing with other Players on the Man's platform or real estate.
I don't appreciate your vague response, I think you damn well knew what I meant but simple disagree and were too afraid or lazy to actually say: I disagree because of X reason, Y reason, and Z reason.
Last edited by ElectricPrism on 1 December 2018 at 10:16 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: ElectricPrismQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: ElectricPrismThe best way to survive is not to charge less money but to make people NEED you, and know that you are the only one they can get what they want from.
Bill Gates knows this well.
Their cut adjustment strategy seems fair but they should really push hard on developing their console that way they can own their own mountain of gamers giving their store even more value than it currently has as the major PC platform.
STEAM MACHINES 2.0 - LET IT COME.
How is that supposed to make sense? What would be different then?
Have you ever been to a business or timeshare vs going to a mall? The experience is completely different.
When you own the real estate, the gaming machines people go buy, and you own the store you dictate who they can buy software and games from. Companies control it because it's profitable.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, all know the difference between being the Player and being the Man.
I don't appreciate your vague response, I think you damn well knew what I meant but simple disagree and were too afraid to actually say: I disagree because of X reason, Y reason, and Z reason.
No, I don't really get what you're suggesting.
You WANT Valve to create a closed system like Xbox or Playstation? For what purpose? To lock out other developers like EA or ActivisionBlizzard?!
0 Likes
ElectricPrism Dec 1, 2018
Quoting: kuhpunktQuoting: ElectricPrismQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: ElectricPrismThe best way to survive is not to charge less money but to make people NEED you, and know that you are the only one they can get what they want from.
Bill Gates knows this well.
Their cut adjustment strategy seems fair but they should really push hard on developing their console that way they can own their own mountain of gamers giving their store even more value than it currently has as the major PC platform.
STEAM MACHINES 2.0 - LET IT COME.
How is that supposed to make sense? What would be different then?
Have you ever been to a business or timeshare vs going to a mall? The experience is completely different.
When you own the real estate, the gaming machines people go buy, and you own the store you dictate who they can buy software and games from. Companies control it because it's profitable.
Apple, Google, Microsoft, all know the difference between being the Player and being the Man.
I don't appreciate your vague response, I think you damn well knew what I meant but simple disagree and were too afraid to actually say: I disagree because of X reason, Y reason, and Z reason.
No, I don't really get what you're suggesting.
You WANT Valve to create a closed system like Xbox or Playstation? For what purpose? To lock out other developers like EA or ActivisionBlizzard?!
Are you saying you do NOT want Valve to create a closed system like Xbox or Playstation?
Edit: What's good for Valve is good for Linux. So yes I couldn't care less what Valve does because I am 100% certain that their actions will benefit SteamOS and Linux and indirectly me and us.
I'm sorry I'm so direct but I really have learned to hate passive people because passive people come off as extremely dishonest to me working motives.
In a purely sociopathic sense, Valve's income is the priority and developing a walled garden is a strategic move of intelligence. There is a major consumer market who has demonstrated that they don't mind and actually prefer walled gardens.
You and I may not be part of them, but I am smart enough to know that whatever puts money in Valve's pocket enriches MESA, AMDGPU, Nvidia, LLVM, SDLv2, Unity Game Engine, Unreal Game Engine and all gaming efforts on Linux as the platform is enriched by commercial entities donating work to our mutual benefit.
I don't care about the morality of DRM vs Closed, we have to pick our battles, and from a data perspective, sure it matters, but from a gaming perspective and entertainment perspective -- I couldn't care less. (I got places to be so I will have to check back later on this)
Last edited by ElectricPrism on 1 December 2018 at 10:24 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
See more from me