Damn, that’s kinda a holy grail of game storefronts
But but but the 30% cut is too high it’s not justified and the epic game store takes only 12%!!!111
I agree. We need more kids being exposed to gambling. Steam earning money from ruining children is very important for those neat features. :3 Steam FTW. Amirite g*mers? <333
For real though. This is just long term business strategy. They are not your friend. They can do things things that are good and things that are very bad. Stop defending big corporation that doesn’t know or care about your existence. I can’t even discribe how sad it is to be a person that needs to get defensive about a corporation because their service is alright for the most part.
We need more kids being exposed to gambling
I’m honestly tired of debating that point again and again. However, to summarize my stance on this: If parents are unable or unwilling to monitor what their child is playing or spending money on, that is not the problem of steam - or any platform for that matter. It’s also not EAs fault if a child is spending thousands of bucks in ultimate team. If my child stole my credit card and did that, I would refund the money immediately and get his account locked. It’s honestly tiring of hearing people demanding companies to “protect the children” when many parents do fuck all to protect or educate THEIR children.
I can’t even discribe how sad it is to be a person that needs to get defensive about a corporation because their service is alright for the most part.
Saying that a 30% cut is justified for everything steam offers isn’t “defending” steam, it’s just stating my opinion, but yeah whatever, you do you.
It’s honestly tiring of hearing people demanding companies to “protect the children” when many parents do fuck all to protect or educate THEIR children.
That’s exactly why they need to do more… Children shouldn’t suffer because corporations exploit them and their shitty parents.
Disagree. Not because I don’t want corporations to do something, but because the ways they’d need to implement are a net-negative overall.
There’s a huge discussion going on right now about age verification on OS level. That’s exactly the kind of shitty results we get when we have other entities being responsible for child safety than the parents. And that’s not a world I want to live in. I don’t want to have to upload my government ID to any service I want to use and live in a borderline surveillance state because parents aren’t able to pay attention to their children.
Ager verification is absolutely not a necessity to curtail gambling, obviously.
It is. There is no other way to “protect the children” if you don’t want parents to do their job.
You can agree that this is great without being stupid. 12% would be great for developers. This is great for consumers. They’re different things. It’d be nice for Steam to take less of the developer’s money. I hope you can agree with that.
As long as Steam can give at least 25.8 percent more sales than Epic (or other place that offers 12%), it’s a better deal for developers as well.
(math: (1-0.12)/(1-0.30)=1.2571=1+25.71%)
Only if we assume a sale not made on Steam is a sale lost. If Steam didn’t get the sale and the purchase was made somewhere with a higher return instead, the dev would make more from the sale. Odds are, if Valve didn’t have almost full market control, people would still buy games, they’d just buy them somewhere else.
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable, a lower cut would be nice for smaller devs but I don’t see why Valve would when every other platform of Steam’s size also takes 30%.
Ultimately the EGS has shown 12% is not profitable…
Citation needed. They’re still operating, while paying games for exclusivity, and giving away games for free (at their own cost). Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite, but to say it isn’t profitable when they’re giving away this much money is a big claim. Also, Valve would be significantly more profitable at the same rate, because they have almost total market capture. Even if Epic isn’t profitable (I’ve seen no evidence of this) we can’t extrapolate to say Vlave wouldn’t be.
Sure, a lot of this is likely funded by Fortnite
If it needs to be subsidized by Fortnite then it’s by definition not profitable
Them giving away a ton of money does not mean the distribution alone isn’t profitable.
You seem to not understand what “profit” means.
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
I’ve had a long-winded discussion about that a few days ago. Yes, 12% would be great for devs, but guess what, 0% would be even better.
Yes, 0% would be better. What’s your point? Valve is charging 30%. That’s worse than 12%, correct? It’s better. Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
Steam takes care of the entire e-commerce and distribution side, which is very expensive. Just look up what publishers used to take back in the day for taking over game distribution, that was like 70%. Not exactly a time you want to go back to as indie dev.
No one is saying we want to go back to that. Them being better than that does not make them good. Hitler killed a smaller percentage of the population than Genghis Khan, but that doesn’t make Hitler not evil, right?
If you think a 12% cut would be viable, idk. However, epic just recently laid off 1000 people so idk how financially successful that company currently is.
They make an incredible amount of money. Their employees are extremely generously rewarded. This means the 30% is well over what is required. I can’t give a number of what they need, and neither can you. Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team. It has nothing to do with distribution or engine development. Even still, Fortnite was profitable. It was just less profitable.
Why do we have to defend every action Valve takes? Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day? That was a fairy tale that I thought people here were over.
I’m a Linux gamer. I appreciate what they’ve done. I’ve been on Steam for I don’t even know how long at this point. That sure as hell doesn’t mean I’m not going to point out what they do that’s wrong. If anything, it should be the opposite. I don’t want them to become bad, so I need to call out when they’re doing the wrong thing.
Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
Because it’s pretty fucking obvious that the 12% cut was just Tim Swiney trying to grab market share for EGS without actually putting in the work to develop it.
Remember how it took over 2 years for them to add a cart? Remember how they just laid off 1000 employees? Using Fortnite money to pay for exclusive deals and game givaways instead of actually developing the store hasn’t turned out profitable.
Also, ever notice how nobody was complaining about Steam’s cut before that? And let’s not forget that Steam Greenlight and subsequent opening up of allowing nearly any game onto their platform is what made the indie market more than an extremely small niche. Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem, which benefits everyone, including indie studioa
Remember how they just laid off 1000 employees?
Again, that was from the Fortnite team. It’s like if Valve laid off people working on DOTA, it doesn’t mean the storefront is doing poorly.
Also, ever notice how nobody was complaining about Steam’s cut before that?
Yeah… you weren’t paying attention then. People have been complaining about it before their storefront existed. This has been discussed a lot. Steam actually doesn’t take 30%. That’s the default. Big games, despite making more money, actually pay less, as dumb as that sounds.
Or the fact that much of the 30% cut is getting reinvested into Linux and FOSS to keep PC gaming an open ecosystem…
Citation needed. Some is. How much is going towards Gaben’s several yachts?
Why do people like you always have to defend what a company does all the time?
I’m not defending them. I’m saying that a service has to be financially successful, something that many people on lemmy seemingly forgot after reading too much Marx. Are they making more than they need? Absolutely. But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don’t think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution. I’ve worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.
So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don’t really see why. The service they provide is just worth that much. I think it’s a fantasy that companies can suddenly start to charge less just because they already have a lot of money.
Notably, the Epic layoff was for Fortnite, because of a reduction in players, not the Epic store team.
Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.
Why can’t we criticize them? Why does anyone still have loyalty to any corporation in the modern day?
You can. I just don’t agree with that criticism. Valve does shitty things at times. The fact that they are really opaque when it comes to algorithms and support decisions is shit, the price parity rule, while being standard in the industry, is shit and the lack of control for early access games is pretty shit - we can criticize all that and more.
And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That’s your right. However, I’m just not agreeing with that stance. That isn’t defending a company, even tho you’re trying to frame it as such. That’s just me having a different opinion. And you trying to frame disagreement as “being loyal to a company” is a great way to completely stifle a discussion. Why even argue at that point, just insult me and move on lmao.
I’m not defending them. I’m saying that a service has to be financially successful…
No, the comment above brought up the stupid argument to defend them. You implying they need to to remain solvent is defending them too. How many yachts does Gaben have? How generously are the employees paid? Clearly they’re making more than enough money with 30%. Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it’s certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?
But the value they are providing is just worth a great deal to devs and I just don’t think that giving up 30% of your sales is a bad deal for handling the entire distribution.
I said this already, but this is assuming the sales wouldn’t happen if Steam didn’t exist. I doubt it. The sales numbers would be approximately the same, provided by someone else. They just have almost full market domination, so you don’t have a choice but to sell on Steam. It isn’t because it’s so great for the developers. It’s because they don’t have a choice.
I’ve worked in E-Commerce for over 10 years now and 30% is like the standard fee for this kind of stuff - in many industries, the fees are way higher.
“Thats just the way things are” isn’t an argument. “Slavery is just the way we do things! You can’t say it’s bad! We wouldn’t make a profit otherwise!” Not a good argument, right?
So, COULD they charge less? Very likely. But I don’t really see why.
To help developers. It seems like you’re purely capitalism brained. My argument was that it’d be better for developers. I didn’t say they’d make more profit. There’s a lot of bad things you can do to make more money. It doesn’t mean you should. It’d be good for the industry if they charged less. It’d allow smaller studios to make a profit for more niche games.
The service they provide is just worth that much.
Again, there isn’t a choice (for developers). It makes it worth it in the same way it’s worth it to hand over my wallet when someone points a gun to my head. It doesn’t mean it’s the best outcome for the developer if other options were equally viable.
Afaik, theyl aid off people across the entire company. The reason was a reduction in fortnite money, but the layoffs were even across the UE development teams.
IIRC, no. It was Fortnite specific.
And yes, you can also criticize the 30% cut. That’s your right. However, I’m just not agreeing with that stance. That isn’t defending a company, even tho you’re trying to frame it as such.
What do you define “defending” as? You’re making arguments supporting the behavior. Who in the world wouldn’t define that as defence? I’m not framing it as defence. It just is.
Where that number would need to be to not make a profit is unknown, but it’s certainly far lower. You can understand this, right?
Yes. But nobody knows. It certainly is lower. But again, and this is the last time I say this: A service needs to be finanically successful. This business is more than just it’s operating cost. On top of that, I’ll say this one again: The service is just worth it. Nobody in the world offers such an easy handling of the entire distribution chain combined with such a massive audience.
“Thats just the way things are” isn’t an argument.
While that’s true, that wasn’t my argument. My argument is that 30% is usually a fairly decent sweet spot for a platform when it comes to running a distribution system. I’ve build quite a few marketplaces in my time, and the standard fees were between 20% and 40%, all depending on how much work the platform had to do.
Again, there isn’t a choice (for developers).
There’s plenty of choice. You can choose not to sell your game on steam, put it on the EGS exclusively and accept that you’re never going to reach the audience you’d do with steam. Now you just gotta figure out if the lesser sales at 12% are more profitable than the more sales at 30%.
What do you define “defending” as?
You make defending sound like I’m a company white-knight that’ll defend a company from any wrongdoing ever, which simply isn’t the case. Valve does some shitty things and I have called them out for it. I just don’t think the 30% cut is bad in any capacity.
Yeah, and it makes a ton of sense for Steam Deck/Machine/Frame
I remember seeing someone play a Steam Deck in an airport awhile ago and the 3D game had a HORRIBLE frame rate.
To the person playing to their credit they didn’t seem bothered but I couldn’t look away for a couple of seconds it was so shockingly bad. It made me think that a lot of people may have not really had the importance of framerate explained to them and what the relevant numbers are (film is 25, 30 is generally minimum for games and 60 is best).
Almost by definition we aren’t going to know those people but that is because if you are here you are probably a nerd, so this is good for all those blindspots. No one deserves a poor framerate if they don’t have to, unless you are Mitch McConnell.
in my case, i would play on potato graphics to get good fps, 60 is the minimum, 30 is an exception. i can FEEL it in my play if its below 100. like not only see it but it feels progressively bad the lower it is
I grew up playing RuneScape at 15 frames per second on the crappy school computers, so I’m used to it.
I don’t have a PC. My only way to play PC games is through a Deck. I’m at the point where I’m just happy to be able to play these games, period, let alone on the go.
Any game with motion needs 60fps at a bare minimum, with a consistent frametime. Although 90+ is preferable for an actual pleasant experience. 30fps is just abysmal for anything that isn’t FTL, Balatro or the like.
Idk man, I’ve enjoyed many a game at 30 fps. 60 is my general target but acting like it’s a minimum to have a fun time is ridiculous.
Its an opinion, I am used to a smooth experience, I play some fast paced games at 60 on my Steam Deck, its passable, but I’d obviously rather be having it run silky smooth on my PC.
If you have never really played games at higher than 30/60, then it’s impossible to understand.
If it’s an opinion, write it like it’s an opinion. You’re clearly not an idiot. Just say what you mean.
Yea it was a bit of a preach, I’ll admit.
I just think people should want higher standards, hardware is so powerful now, there’s no excuse for every game not to be targeting 120fps.
I can’t play FTL at anything less than 240 fps. Those life bars depleting from oxygen deprivation need to be buttery smooth
UE5 slop in shambles
This is one of those things that after a few years, is going to become a heavyweight feature that every other storefront should have been working to have but for some reason haven’t started yet like Steam Input or WINE/Proton/Linux integration. I imagine in the near future retro-handhelds mostly abandoning Android for Linux and basing their specs and marketing around some analytics done on Steam games and the crowd-sourced game performance data. PS4 is in its 13th year. Blink and next thing you know you’ll be seeing cheap mini handhelds advertising playing vintage PS4 era video games on your bought from AliExpress PSP sized retro gaming handheld. It’ll be advertised like 98% of games released before 2020 have been found to run well on hardware as powerful as this gaming device (*according to Steam user data)
And Valve keeps on winning the storefront war, without doing much besides quality of life features.
So fucking tired of these chatgpt emoji every fucking where.
You are absolutely correct 🙌
Other users also mentioned this — let me explain why this works 🤫
👀So🤔fucking🤬tired🥱of🚨these🤑chatgpt🤓emoji🍑every📢fucking😵💫where.🤮
This is gonna make so many users rage 🤣
"Now, DikHamz67, before you leave your fifth negative review for the month, I want you to look here and understand that no one else is experiencing these “sloppy optimisation” problems caused by “lazy devs”.
Your rig is shit.
Go look up some sprite titles."
Steam just can’t stop winning. The competition is so far behind they never even appeared in the rear view mirror to begin with
What settings would they use for those FPS numbers? Most importantly, does it count Nvidia’s generated frames in that number?
Steam’s fps overlay can show base frames and generated frames separately, so I’m assuming they’ll be able to only show base frames.
Idk how accurate this will be. Fps isn’t stable in games.
It fluctuates pretty dramatically.
Especially with games where it runs fine in the starting area, but performance tanks once you enter The City.
I really hope they won’t completely fuck it up, though, it would be a really neat feature.
This is something gamers wish to have since inception of PC Gaming. And it was always told this cannot be done. That’s why we rely on game specs and tests. I mean we still rely on, but a storefront putting estimated FPS is something they would fear to do. And here we have VALVE (once again) doing the impossible. Very curious to see how this will workout in reality.
It’s literally been a thing for decades. Not only have games themselves had automatic configuration based on the machine its installed to, sites like “Can You Run It” have been around for a very long time.
No, this has never done before. Games configuring itself is something completely different and irrelevant to our discussion topic. It has nothing to do with gathering information from players and trying to estimate a FPS before buying the game. “Can You Run It” also does not estimate a FPS for your hardware, based on opt-in information from analyzing the FPS you are playing the game. And especially making it an official thing for a store is also spicey, because usually those stores selling the games themselves could potentially be sued for false marketing if it does not work well enough.
Neat. It’s going to be interesting how they will solve the issue of different quality settings - I don’t care about FPS at “ultra” settings, usually it’s more important how the FPS are at low settings before you have to take desperate measures like turning down the resolution, completely turning off antialiasing, using upscaling etc. that have an extremely negative effect on graphics fidelity.
Also, two games running at an average of 60FPS might give very different experiences depending on how consistent the FPS are.
They’re gonna have to take into account for programs like lsfg-vk, Decky-framegen and others that increase frame rates. Easy to do on the deck though just ignore reports from games that have the programs launch option. Cant do that with my laptop though as lsfg-vk just grabs the process by name.
They may be able say something like “50% or users run the game at 30fps, 40% at 40fps” or something like that, where you can guess about different settings people are running at.
The biggest thing is just knowing whether it’s possible to run the game on your hardware at the minimum acceptable fps. If average fps for a steam deck game is 25, you know it doesn’t run well. If a significant number of deck users are able to average a higher fps than 30 (40-60), you know the deck can run it decently and you’ll have options besides running everything on the lowest setting.
