635

Steam keeps on winning (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

342 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From the opinion piece:

Last year, I pointed out how many big publishers came crawlin' back to Steam after trying their own things: EA, Activision, Microsoft. This year, for the first time ever, two Blizzard games released on Steam: Overwatch and Diablo 4.

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

[-] Nommer 162 points 6 months ago

Epic bought rocket league and promptly tanked it in favor of their stupid fortniteverse. Maybe steam keeps winning because they're not actively screwing over their customers.

[-] PlzGivHugs 19 points 6 months ago

Or Pheonix Point, where Epic bought an kickstarter game that was funded under the promise of releasing on Steam, GOG and potentially other stores and promptly made it exclusive - and this was in the early days when their launcher/store was in a much worse state too.

[-] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Rocket League is such an easy slam dunk of a game. The mechanics are so good there should be a family of game modes (like Turbo Golf Racing) that surround the core game mode that have spawned entirely new genres of car games by now. Almost no other video game has a core gamefeel as locked in as Rocket League and honestly Epic should be ashamed Rocket League isnt a household name like minecraft by now.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 6 months ago

Epic bought rocket league and promptly tanked it in favor of their stupid fortniteverse.

Sadly Valve is guilty of a similar thing. Valve bought Campo Santo and (at least that's the public statement) the developers were free to work on whatever projects and chose HL Alyx instead of that new game after Firewatch. Game development gets cancelled all the time and perhaps the new game just wasn't that good.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 6 months ago

There must be more to success than that, because Valve likewise bought Campo Santo, the developer of Firewatch, and now their next game is all but canceled. These companies can't help but focus on their big money makers at the expense of all else.

[-] Nommer 33 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

All I can find about their next game is called "In the Valley of Gods" which looks like it is still being developed. What game was cancelled? Also how is that the same as buying an IP then running it into the ground so their main IP can get a mildly popular game mode that will likely be forgotten about in a couple months? I'm already bored of rocket racing and I only installed it because a friend kept begging me to play fortnite zero build which I also don't enjoy.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

It is on indefinite hold. It is still being "developed" in the same way Valve won't confirm or deny the existence or cancelation of Half-Life 2 Episode 3/Half Life 3, but articles I've read previously essentially confirm that no one has been working on it for years.

I'll happily eat my words if the game does come out because Firewatch was a beautiful game that left me wanting more, but Valve's internal development structure doesn't really encourage passion projects.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

but Valve’s internal development structure doesn’t really encourage passion projects.

Could you elaborate?

[-] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Not the person you're replying to, but from what I've read before Valve is kind of notorious for this because they do encourage people to work on what they want. The problem with this is that it also means it's hard to get support for your project. For example, in order to get Half-Life: Alyx pushed out, they had to suspend that policy of working only on things that make them happy.

Here's a quote from the wiki article about HL: Alyx's development:

Valve abandoned episodic development and made several failed attempts to develop further Half-Life projects. Walker blamed the lack of progress on Valve's flat management structure, whereby employees decide what to work on themselves. He said the team eventually decided they would be happier if they worked together on a large project, even if it was not their preferred choice.

Here's some additional info on how they work from an interview:

Robin Walker: We started in February of 2016, I think, with a small team, and we brought out a small prototype. Then people started to play that, understood what we were trying to do afterward, and started joining up. We had 80 people on the team when we were about midway through. The exact size of the team I wouldn’t be able to tell you. The way things work at Valve, people organically join once they’ve finished up what they were doing before, and if what you’re doing makes sense to them. So it was always full steam ahead, I guess, but not in the sense that all 80 people were there from day one.

Jane Ng: I joined the project last year, I think. People just sort of see that “Hey, this project’s getting pretty cool,” and then they roll their desks over when they’re done with whatever they were doing.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

Putting a product out requires 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. The reason so many people make hour long video essays is that they can regurgitate their inspiration directly to a camera while doing little substantive work.

Valve likely has other “1% inspiration” tasks people often choose over the “boring” parts of game development - the bits that don’t excite anyone, and would only be done with the direct promise of a paycheck. Who wants to write up a design document, and go through 8 drafts for feedback?

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I think the quote from Jane is pretty telling. Some people at Valve only help out when a project starts "getting pretty cool." It's probably the cause of a lot of inertia in game development over there. Also, just an interesting detail, Jane Ng is from Campo Santo and she stopped working on In the Valley of Gods to work on HL: Alyx.

[+] [email protected] -10 points 6 months ago

Maybe steam keeps winning because they’re not actively screwing over their customers

Idk, they are kinda screwing over the publishers. But that doesn't impact the users buying the game, so they don't care. Which I guess the percentage they take is worth the value they bring, given so many keep selling on steam.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 6 months ago

Genuinely curious but how are they screwing over the publishers?

I’m especially curious how that can be true along with the seemingly contradictory conclusion you came to in your last sentence.

[-] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago

Steam gets something to the tune of 30 % as their fee.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

30% is industry standard from Apple, Microsoft, Google, Sony, etc.

Steam taking 30% is nothing out of the norm

[+] [email protected] -7 points 6 months ago

It's just a pretty ridiculous cut for steam. Steam gets 30% of every transaction.

But I was saying that I suppose the extreme cut of 30% must be worth it since so many developers keep coming back to steam. But that also could just be because they have such a monopoly that users don't want to switch DRMs.

[-] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago

You people need to watch the GDC Talk by the spiderweb software indie dev from like half a decade ago. He said, loud and clear, that the 30 cut is great and worth it for what he gets. Sure, lower cut is always nice, but let's not be stupid and say that the devs don't get their money's worth.

[-] [email protected] -3 points 6 months ago

Let's not be stupid, and recommend an hour long video without a link (it's here) as an answer to why 30% is a good deal. He says it loud and clear, but also it's hidden somewhere in the hour long talk. Like I said, 30% must be worth it if so many developers are willing to take the cut for the services. But if a big part of what you're getting is the number of users that use your platform, then you're in a bit of a loop. The 30% is worth it because so many people will see your game, and users don't leave steam because it's where all their games are. The users have incentive to stay, because it's nice to keep all your games in one spot. I have over 1,500 games on steam, so for me to leave steam would mean leaving behind thousands of dollars worth of content I paid for already. So how can another service enter the arena and have any viability? 30% might be fair, but it might also be too high. What if it doesn't matter if it's too high because they get more sales on Steam? It's a complicated topic, but I'm just saying that 30% of each and every sale is a pretty big cut, even if it has become standard (a standard set by steam).

[-] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

Apple also takes 30% (or did it change to 15%? Definitely used to, tho). So does Google, Amazon app store, Samsung Galaxy store (just to name some in the mobile industry). And guess ehat, even GOG takes 30%.

I would argue that, compared to other services that also take 30%, and taking them as a baseline for what they offer on top of "buy download play" model, Steam is still very generous as it offers cloud saves, achievements, workshop, community forum, chat, streaming, offline mode, and tons of little stuff that make your life easier.