Despite facing increased competition in the space, not least from the Epic Games Store, Valve’s platform is synonymous with PC gaming. The service is estimated to have made $10.8 billion in revenue during 2024, a new record for the Half-Life giant. Since it entered the PC distribution space back in 2018, the rival Epic Games Store has been making headway – and $1.09 billion last year – but Steam is still undeniably dominant within the space.

Valve earns a large part of its money from taking a 20-30% cut of sales revenue from developers and publishers. Despite other storefronts opening with lower overheads, Steam has stuck with taking this slice of sales revenue, and in doing so, it has been argued that Valve is unfairly taking a decent chunk of the profits of developers and publishers.

This might change, depending on how an ongoing class-action lawsuit initiated by Wolfire Games goes, but for the time being, Valve is making money hand over fist selling games on Steam. The platform boasts over 132 million users, so it’s perfectly reasonable that developers and publishers feel they have to use Steam – and give away a slice of their revenue – in order to reach the largest audience possible.

  • Sheepy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 天前

    Oh come on, comparing Steam to telecoms is a bit of a leap. Nobody needs access to video games on a day-to-day basis. Video games are a luxury item at the end of the day.

    Their breaking up also assumes that hosting video games for downloads is a thing only Steam can do. Steam hosting the game files and Steam as a service for the customer have little to no relation to each other. Steam, or anyone else for that matter, could just as easily use AWS. Breaking up Steam into many, smaller Steams might lead to lower prices, or devs will choose one, that one will become the dominant one, and we’re back to square one.

    The best way to drive prices down is competition. It’s economics 101. Do not blame Steam for being successful, blame their competition (Epic in this case) for being inept. Epic was the VC baby everybody was banking on going toe-to-toe with Steam, but they couldn’t even get basic shit like a cart or a wishlist working for far too long.

    Steam’s 30% cut is a different problem altogether. Yeah, it’s probably excessive, and would ideally be tiered by sales. However, all the games (that I have seen) that released on Epic first, with their paid exclusivity, eventually came out on Steam. So what does that tell us about how impactful that 30% cut is. Steam’s pre-existing userbase is a factor. Userbase they have, and maintain, due to their wide array of features. And, all those features Steam provides aren’t free to maintain. They host the game on their own servers, they host all the user generated content on their servers, Steamworks matchmaking is ran by Steam. Game devs aren’t just getting their game sold through Steam, Steam does much much more than that.

    • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      23 小时前

      And this is how people will explain why upcoming technofeudalism is a good thing. Our new masters have earned it :)

      Lots of new EU regulations specifically target scenarios like this because that’s in the interest of consumers. Governments should work for the people, not winners with the most money.

      [edit] You’d think you’d get more people against big tech on Lemmy lol.

      • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 小时前

        Maybe it’s just a bad take. Just a hurdurr big tech bad sticker on an argument doesn’t win it for you if your argument is crap.

              • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                22 小时前

                Calling it a monopoly. They didn’t lobby to have the market share. They have competitors who can’t make a product as good. Just calling it a monopoly because you think it’s an easy win in an argument doesn’t just make it a monopoly.

                • misk@sopuli.xyzOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  22 小时前

                  This is not how a monopoly is defined in any civilised country.

                  • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    22 小时前

                    You are straight up just using your opinion to justify a point and i won’t have any further part of the conversation.

                  • duchess@feddit.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    22 小时前

                    If a dev loses substantial access to the market if they don‘t use a service, this service is a quasi monopoly. They are forced to use Steam, customers are then forced to use Steam if they want the game. Steam charges astronomical fees, that is their monopoly exploit.