2 ms·

Steam milks developers instead of users, so that does indeed tend to generate value for the customer. The situation isn't ideal, but Valve is certainly the leas

Steam milks developers instead of users, so that does indeed tend to generate value for the customer. The situation isn't ideal, but Valve is certainly the least bad option for computer games. Alternative platforms were mostly implemented by larger studios. The incentive was probably to cut out the middle man of course. Ironic if you look at the state of the IT industry. Also, Steam has a long term strategy in the interest of customers and I believe gaming in general. Supporting other platforms as Windows for example. They are smart enough to look beyond the horizon and can make predictions for possible developments in the market. I highly appreciate that as a customer.

jabbany 4y ago
Does it really "milk" developers though... The "customers" of Steam are the developers not the people buying games. They make money not by selling games (well okay, Valve does sell first party games via Steam too) but by selling the ability to sell games to developers. App stores like Steam, for all their problems, provide real tangible value to developers. It simplifies distribution of files and updates (no need to set up your own CDN/P2P network and write server/client code to handle game updates), provides integration of payment (no need to negotiate your own deals with payment processors), and in Steam's case also provides extra gaming specific value-adds like cloud saves and DRM that would also be costly to build/integrate in-house. If you think about all this, the cut they take could be justified for the right customer. The difference between Steam and something like the Apple App Store is that Steam does not have have monopoly power over PC game/software distribution. As a developer you get to decide whether Steam's cut justifies their value to you individually. If you don't like Steam or it doesn't make sense for you, you don't need to use it. And many indie developers do exactly this -- they sell at conventions, release physical media, offer direct downloads/sales from their own site, use competing platforms like itch.io, Patreon, Dlsite etc. Steam is good because the platform they are on is competitive and thus to succeed you have to justify your value.

jabbany 4y ago

Does it really "milk" developers though... The "customers" of Steam are the developers not the people buying games. They make money not by selling games (well okay, Valve does sell first party games via Steam too) but by selling the ability to sell games to developers. App stores like Steam, for all their problems, provide real tangible value to developers. It simplifies distribution of files and updates (no need to set up your own CDN/P2P network and write server/client code to handle game updates), provides integration of payment (no need to negotiate your own deals with payment processors), and in Steam's case also provides extra gaming specific value-adds like cloud saves and DRM that would also be costly to build/integrate in-house. If you think about all this, the cut they take could be justified for the right customer. The difference between Steam and something like the Apple App Store is that Steam does not have have monopoly power over PC game/software distribution. As a developer you get to decide whether Steam's cut justifies their value to you individually. If you don't like Steam or it doesn't make sense for you, you don't need to use it. And many indie developers do exactly this -- they sell at conventions, release physical media, offer direct downloads/sales from their own site, use competing platforms like itch.io, Patreon, Dlsite etc. Steam is good because the platform they are on is competitive and thus to succeed you have to justify your value.