PC Gaming

8392 readers

474 users here now

For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki

Rules:

Be Respectful.
No Spam or Porn.
No Advertising.
No Memes.
No Tech Support.
No questions about buying/building computers.
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

In 2018 a group of Valve staff tried to figure out just how efficient they were being—and found they were making more money per head than Apple, Facebook, and nearly every tech giant out there (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (36 children)

What's the efficiency in taking 30% of almost all game sales on a platform? I know we all love valve, but the efficiency here is having a store that everyone has to use if they want to make sales at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (13 children)

Valve's 30% is high, sure. But you're not seeing the total cost of selling a game.

And yes, I've done this before.

Besides the user count, besides all other factors. Digital sales are kinda hard.

You need to offer the actual game. If you're selling an indie game that's a few hundred megs, well you get to go sign up for a service to deliver it. Could be as simple as a google drive link, but because this is business use you get to pay business prices.

Are they charging a flat rate per month, per gig? Per download? Some combinations?

Now there's updates and patches that need to be delivered. Same deal as before, but also now you need to handle the actual patching. Do you ship one big patch that checks for previous patches? Small individual patches that your users have to figure out what one they need?

Does your game have multiplayer? Well damn have fun with that.

What about support and refunds and GDPR stuff? Gotta factor all of that in too.

Now we get to do payment processing. You get to pay a company to accept payments on your behalf because you are NOT doing that yourself you WILL get stuck on inane and silly laws.

That's part of it. Paying steam 3 bucks on my 10 dollar game to handle ALL of that? Yeah that's fair. Could it be cheaper? Sure. a lot of things could. I don't spend months on a game and then cheap out on the most important part: sales.

My time is valuable and worth 30%

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Let's not describe this as "paying valve three bucks" because that's not accurate and is misleading.

It's paying valve 30% of your revenue.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It is misleading. It is 30% of the entire revenue of the game. And it is objective whether Valve deserves 30% of that revenue. It's also true that games aren't locked to the Steam platform and can absolutely make money outside of Valve's influence. History has shown though that it is less profitable then being inside the Steam ecosystem.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

Except that Steam allow their keys to be sold on other platforms and don't take a cut on those. So it is 30% on the key sold on steam, but 0% on the other storefront.

So there is no reason to not go on steam because it doesn't restrict you to steam.

load more comments (4 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)

load more comments (32 replies)