8 ms·

Did you read the article? There's a non-zero cost for devs dealing with all the chargebacks and finding out if a user bought a legit key. That's not a low touch

Did you read the article? There's a non-zero cost for devs dealing with all the chargebacks and finding out if a user bought a legit key. That's not a low touch interaction. Plenty of proof and devs talking about it in the article and on Twitter. Rami Ismail is well known and has been pretty clear about how much overhead these types of a abusive companies cost them. It's hard enough to be an indie without having to deal with this.

Ajedi32 7y ago
Why is that something the devs have to deal with? Shouldn't that be Steam's job, or G2As?
- tadzik_ 7y ago
  Devs are the ones selling the keys that Steam issues to them when they ask. So they are the actual seller who needs to deal with the problem, not Steam. G2A doesn't care because they're not the ones hit with the fraud report.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    You mean like if the keys were being bought off the developer's own website? G2A claims they're offering a 10x refund to the developer in such cases: > The site said it would also start offering developers refunds worth 10 times the sum lost if they could prove keys had been sold on G2A after being bought with stolen credit card details. The developer interviewed in the original article claims that doesn't matter because the stolen keys are being bought on Steam, not on the developer's own sites: > Mr Rose responded saying most developers relied on sales via Steam and other third-party stores rather than their own sites, so G2A's refund offer was a "red herring". But again, shouldn't Steam be the one dealing with the problem in that case? Why do the developers care?
    - kabwj 7y ago
      What do the developers lose if their keys are purchased with stolen credit cards? If it’s about chargebacks, can’t they just disable the keys involved?
      - klodolph 7y ago
        Money? Chargebacks aren’t free.
      - ElatedOwl 7y ago
        Chargebacks are a costly process. The processor will charge a fee ($15-$25 is a fair guess) and you lose the money from the transaction.
        klez 7y ago
        One thing I don't understand is why the CC does charge a fee to the defrauded party. I mean, I'm not doubting this is what happens, but I don't understand why.
        klodolph 7y ago
        The merchant is in the best position to prevent fraud, so it makes sense that they bear the cost of fraud. You can't charge person who committed the fraud, because you don't know who they are (unless the merchant has video footage or something). Charging the cardholder is illegal. If the merchant bank bears the cost then they would just be redistributing the costs back to some other party and we would be back to square one.
        klez 7y ago
        That makes sense. But in the case of online transactions (where you can't ask for id), how can the seller prevent the fraud? It's there any due diligence expected? Or how can they send themselves? Is this just an example of "the cost of doing business"?
        cwkoss 7y ago
- IggleSniggle 7y ago
  Yes? But they don’t. So until they do, tiny 2-person studios plead with their fans.
  - Ajedi32 7y ago
    They don't? I was under the impression Steam would simply revoke keys when they receive a CC charge-back for them. What is it, specifically, that devs are having to do when a fraudulent key gets used? The article doesn't make that very clear.
    - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
      Steam keys for a game can be generated at no cost to the developer. If you sell your game outside of Steam on another store or your own store, you can then attach a Steam key to that sale so that players can activate the game on Steam (because everyone likes having their games on Steam). Valve has no control over chargebacks for sales that happened outside their store since it's not their store. Once a chargeback is received the developer can then go and deactivate the key attached to it, which will disable the game on the user's Steam library.
adnzzzzZ 7y ago
It's not that hard at all, actually. The reason why stores like Steam charge a 30% fee for their services is so they deal with issues like this for you. I released my game only on Steam and had to deal with zero chargebacks because Valve handles it for me. What these indie developers complaining do is release their games on their own store, attach a Steam key to it (which you can generate for free), and then sell their game + Steam key externally. This means they get to circumvent Valve's 30% fee at the cost of having to deal with things like chargebacks.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >It's not that hard at all, actually. The reason why stores like Steam charge a 30% fee for their services is so they deal with issues like this for you. A problem that costs 30% of revenue is something that I would consider a hard problem to deal with.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - cloakandswagger 7y ago
    Which is why I'm having trouble finding sympathy for the devs. They're complaining that they can't have the best of both worlds: They want to sell their game through their own storefront to avoid the platform fees, but they don't want to deal with chargebacks or fraud. They want to give away hundreds or thousands of free keys, but don't want the keys to be resold and don't want to exercise due diligence when giving the keys away. They want to recoup their losses when fraud does occur, but don't want to expend the effort of sending G2A evidence of the chargeback to get the 10x refund. This is called being a business--each dev needs to decide whether avoiding Steam's cut is worth the headache of being your own seller. Trying to fight the entire concept of reselling itself is a much more time-consuming and futile effort than just choosing one option or another.
- vvanders 7y ago
  Except that since indies are pretty visible you can't just hide behind Steam, your fans know how to reach out to you and will hound you when they feel like they've been wronged. The fact that indies are saying they'd prefer the game to be pirated than bought through G2A should tell you all you need.

Ajedi32 7y ago

Why is that something the devs have to deal with? Shouldn't that be Steam's job, or G2As?

tadzik_ 7y ago
Devs are the ones selling the keys that Steam issues to them when they ask. So they are the actual seller who needs to deal with the problem, not Steam. G2A doesn't care because they're not the ones hit with the fraud report.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  You mean like if the keys were being bought off the developer's own website? G2A claims they're offering a 10x refund to the developer in such cases: > The site said it would also start offering developers refunds worth 10 times the sum lost if they could prove keys had been sold on G2A after being bought with stolen credit card details. The developer interviewed in the original article claims that doesn't matter because the stolen keys are being bought on Steam, not on the developer's own sites: > Mr Rose responded saying most developers relied on sales via Steam and other third-party stores rather than their own sites, so G2A's refund offer was a "red herring". But again, shouldn't Steam be the one dealing with the problem in that case? Why do the developers care?
  - kabwj 7y ago
    What do the developers lose if their keys are purchased with stolen credit cards? If it’s about chargebacks, can’t they just disable the keys involved?
    - klodolph 7y ago
      Money? Chargebacks aren’t free.
    - ElatedOwl 7y ago
      Chargebacks are a costly process. The processor will charge a fee ($15-$25 is a fair guess) and you lose the money from the transaction.
      - klez 7y ago
        One thing I don't understand is why the CC does charge a fee to the defrauded party. I mean, I'm not doubting this is what happens, but I don't understand why.
        klodolph 7y ago
        The merchant is in the best position to prevent fraud, so it makes sense that they bear the cost of fraud. You can't charge person who committed the fraud, because you don't know who they are (unless the merchant has video footage or something). Charging the cardholder is illegal. If the merchant bank bears the cost then they would just be redistributing the costs back to some other party and we would be back to square one.
        klez 7y ago
        That makes sense. But in the case of online transactions (where you can't ask for id), how can the seller prevent the fraud? It's there any due diligence expected? Or how can they send themselves? Is this just an example of "the cost of doing business"?
        cwkoss 7y ago
IggleSniggle 7y ago
Yes? But they don’t. So until they do, tiny 2-person studios plead with their fans.
- Ajedi32 7y ago
  They don't? I was under the impression Steam would simply revoke keys when they receive a CC charge-back for them. What is it, specifically, that devs are having to do when a fraudulent key gets used? The article doesn't make that very clear.
  - adnzzzzZ 7y ago
    Steam keys for a game can be generated at no cost to the developer. If you sell your game outside of Steam on another store or your own store, you can then attach a Steam key to that sale so that players can activate the game on Steam (because everyone likes having their games on Steam). Valve has no control over chargebacks for sales that happened outside their store since it's not their store. Once a chargeback is received the developer can then go and deactivate the key attached to it, which will disable the game on the user's Steam library.

adnzzzzZ 7y ago

It's not that hard at all, actually. The reason why stores like Steam charge a 30% fee for their services is so they deal with issues like this for you. I released my game only on Steam and had to deal with zero chargebacks because Valve handles it for me. What these indie developers complaining do is release their games on their own store, attach a Steam key to it (which you can generate for free), and then sell their game + Steam key externally. This means they get to circumvent Valve's 30% fee at the cost of having to deal with things like chargebacks.

SkyBelow 7y ago
>It's not that hard at all, actually. The reason why stores like Steam charge a 30% fee for their services is so they deal with issues like this for you. A problem that costs 30% of revenue is something that I would consider a hard problem to deal with.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- cloakandswagger 7y ago
  Which is why I'm having trouble finding sympathy for the devs. They're complaining that they can't have the best of both worlds: They want to sell their game through their own storefront to avoid the platform fees, but they don't want to deal with chargebacks or fraud. They want to give away hundreds or thousands of free keys, but don't want the keys to be resold and don't want to exercise due diligence when giving the keys away. They want to recoup their losses when fraud does occur, but don't want to expend the effort of sending G2A evidence of the chargeback to get the 10x refund. This is called being a business--each dev needs to decide whether avoiding Steam's cut is worth the headache of being your own seller. Trying to fight the entire concept of reselling itself is a much more time-consuming and futile effort than just choosing one option or another.
vvanders 7y ago
Except that since indies are pretty visible you can't just hide behind Steam, your fans know how to reach out to you and will hound you when they feel like they've been wronged. The fact that indies are saying they'd prefer the game to be pirated than bought through G2A should tell you all you need.