Why is Steam Issuing Tax Breaks for the Rich?

Madmick

Zugzwang
Staff member
Senior Moderator
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
61,578
Reaction score
25,597
https://www.gamereactor.eu/articles/715363/Opinion+Why+is+Steam+Issuing+Tax+Breaks+for+the+Rich/
Game Reactor said:
There's something of a riot brewing among indie developers as Valve has decided to give bigger games lower fees on the digital Steam platform. Previously, at least from what we know, the fee Valve has taken off the top of all revenue earned via the Steam platform has been a flat 30 per cent. It's comparable to the fee that Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo charge on their platforms and most digital outlets offer a similar revenue share between the shop and the publisher.

The new model on Steam (as announced by Valve) will see that percentage drop to 25 percent once a game has earned $10 million (USD) on the platform and when it goes beyond $50 million (USD), which is a rare feat it should be said, they'll only take 20 per cent. The move is likely a direct result of several high-profile publishers opting to forego a release on Steam with their major products with Activision recently launching Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 exclusively on Battle.net and Bethesda launching Fallout 76 on Bethesda.net.

The difference of launching on those platforms is that all the revenue would stay at Activision Blizzard and Bethesda respectively. Or at least this could be seen as an attempt to convince the likes of Ubisoft not to shift exclusively to Uplay and follow in the footsteps of EA, Activision, and Bethesda. Other big publishers are likely eyeing similar moves, say if Red Dead Redemption 2 comes to PC (which is highly likely) would Take-Two want to give Valve 30 per cent? With this model at least there might be motivation to stick around on Steam with your major releases.

But the truth is that it's not just the big publishers who fail to see the value they get from giving Steam 30 per cent of their revenue. Indies have been complaining about the 30 per cent for a long time, and now that they see "tax breaks" for the wealthy they're not taking it lying down. Vlambeer's Rami Ismail is one of the more vocal members of the indie community and he took to Twitter to voice his thoughts:

"Have things really gotten so bad for Valve in the ever-more competitive storefront scene that they now have to subsidize big studios? Are they that undesirable for large titles now that the large titles tend to be able to launch their own store?"

Arguments could be made for both sides, but it is only natural that Steam looks to entice the big players a bit more than what is the case at the moment. And to be honest they're probably looking for ways to weed out the smallest fish in the Steam pond. After growing, growing, and growing for years, Steam is facing its biggest challenge at the moment, and while the loyalty of their player base is a major strength, it is a fact that they've brought the AAA exodus upon themselves. They could have taken these measures earlier and they could have stepped in with games of their own making to fill the gaps and provide exclusive content to draw new players in. But as a game developer they're not making the sort of blockbuster big features they were once known for (Half-Life, Portal, Left 4 Dead), exactly the sort of games they've been losing to publisher-owned platforms in recent years.

Steam is also under pressure from another development, the subscription model. In many ways, Steam represents the opposite of that as one of the biggest things Steam has got going for it is that people buy more than they play, be it a result of their massive sales events, humble bundles, or just the addictive nature of adding games to your library and the integrated marketplace (which gives you the illusion that you can make money back, for some it may not be an illusion, but the house always wins, that's a fact). Could Steam introduce some kind of subscription model in the future? Anything is possible, but that would likely cause a great deal of upheaval.

Do Steam need these games then? Call of Duty. Fallout. Battlefield. You could argue Steam doesn't, in some respects it is bigger than it ever was with those franchises onboard. It's hard to see why any publisher would go back to Steam when they share none of their revenue on their own launcher, even if their game is big enough that it will eventually reach the 20 per cent plateau. If you want to launch something on PC without a major brand you still need to be on Steam. That's why the next PUBG will most likely launch here, but once you're a success (like Fortnite) maybe you'll want to get away from Steam as soon as you can

The marketplace is changing and Steam needs to adapt. Content is always going to be king, and it's not without reason that Valve wants to incentivise major titles to stay with the service. The way the system works also benefits companies who employ longterm DLC strategies as that counts towards the product's overall revenue. A one-off complete experience without add-ons is not as viable with this model. With services like Xbox Game Pass, EA Access, and rivals likely to make a move to secure exclusive content in the future (Discord could potentially be a major challenger in the future), Steam needs to make sure they're not stuck with certain niches, old games, and a truckload of cheap shovelware, particularly as they don't seem intent to provide that sort of content themselves.

We don't think giving "tax breaks" for the big earners is going to get anyone back who has already transitioned over to their own platform. Instead, what Valve has succeeded in doing is to create more unrest among indies. The platform is already under fire from indies as discoverability is a very real problem for many smaller serious game developers. The good news here is that the once non-negotiable 30 per cent wall has been breached, and we expect many other platforms to loosen this too, and perhaps the changes will trickle down to the indies in the end, but regardless the market is opening up and there will be more choice moving forward. That's the good news, the bad news is that as a consumer it's probably going to be even more confusing with launchers and storefronts coming to PC than there are today.
This is not a "tax break". This is a distribution/licensing fee. Clickbait headline in that respect, but go with it.

Steam isn't the problem. The issue is that the major game developers have grown so large now that they no longer need Steam. They are marketplaces unto themselves. Many anticipated this when EA's Origin arrived. They have a million ways to advertise their games, they can afford their own servers, negotiate their own corollary licensing contracts (as with Windows via Microsoft), and they have the technical means to deliver their own content and support in-house.

From a certain point of view Steam has something of a monopoly, so one could choose to perceive this as another form of competition to join GoG, for example, but one wonders what will become of Valve if they become another glorified platform to sell indie games. That's why I find the musing in red the most intriguing despite that I am disheartened by the prospect.

If Steam begins to charge a subscription fee, and provide perks only to subscribers, similar to the Xbox Live marketplace for Gold members, or the Playstation Network, then perhaps that could be one way of fighting back. Of course, the only truly effective way I see this working is if they prohibit online play for games they sell without a subscription.

This means PC gamers will end up paying for something that previously was a free service; an especially bitter pill considering the community has long mocked console players for this very burden.
 
https://www.gamereactor.eu/articles/715363/Opinion+Why+is+Steam+Issuing+Tax+Breaks+for+the+Rich/

This is not a "tax break". This is a distribution/licensing fee. Clickbait headline in that respect, but go with it.

Steam isn't the problem. The issue is that the major game developers have grown so large now that they no longer need Steam. They are marketplaces unto themselves. Many anticipated this when EA's Origin arrived. They have a million ways to advertise their games, they can afford their own servers, negotiate their own corollary licensing contracts (as with Windows via Microsoft), and they have the technical means to deliver their own content and support in-house.

From a certain point of view Steam has something of a monopoly, so one could choose to perceive this as another form of competition to join GoG, for example, but one wonders what will become of Valve if they become another glorified platform to sell indie games. That's why I find the musing in red the most intriguing despite that I am disheartened by the prospect.

If Steam begins to charge a subscription fee, and provide perks only to subscribers, similar to the Xbox Live marketplace for Gold members, or the Playstation Network, then perhaps that could be one way of fighting back. Of course, the only truly effective way I see this working is if they prohibit online play for games they sell without a subscription.

This means PC gamers will end up paying for something that previously was a free service; an especially bitter pill considering the community has long mocked console players for this very burden.
This is getting similar to all the networks and thier “premium” stream services.

I won’t pay for two, much like new move of Disney for thier new stream service, I won’t get it I already have Netflix.

If I had to pay a sub to stream it would lose out to my Xbox sub, and I’d be off steam.

Too many sub services coming up from every direction.

Too much is well, too much.
 
Interesting move just as epic games is getting ready to lunch their service.

Steam better be careful. When you have a monopoly like they do, the only thing that can bring them down is themselves. This subscription idea and the tiered revenue for game developers, could be the start of a perfect storm of bad decisions.

I'm with you. I am not going to be paying for multiple gaming subscriptions at once.
 
Yea I'm not paying anything that was a big part of why I moved to PC to avoid the online cost because I think it's stupid. I also hate every dev coming out with their own service to buy games. This might work for some but not everyone will be able to pull this off. I personally am done buying games not on steam. You better be releasing something really fucking special otherwise I don't care.
 
I've recently made the decision to not buy any game that isn't on steam. I hate having all this shit load up on my computer. There is zero point from a consumer perspective. Play nice with valve you dumb fucks. Remember when you had to pay like 50% to print a CD/box.
 
I've recently made the decision to not buy any game that isn't on steam. I hate having all this shit load up on my computer. There is zero point from a consumer perspective. Play nice with valve you dumb fucks. Remember when you had to pay like 50% to print a CD/box.
You can quickly bloat your pc full of bullshit at this rate.

Nvidia
Steam
Bethesda.net
Origin
Etc etc etc.

Stop the madness!!
 
I've recently made the decision to not buy any game that isn't on steam. I hate having all this shit load up on my computer. There is zero point from a consumer perspective. Play nice with valve you dumb fucks. Remember when you had to pay like 50% to print a CD/box.

Yep I've done the same. I will step out of steam for basically 1 or 2 games and that's it.
 
You can quickly bloat your pc full of bullshit at this rate.

Nvidia
Steam
Bethesda.net
Origin
Etc etc etc.

Stop the madness!!
Exactly. It would be different if it was just downloading the file from their website and it runs by itself, I wouldn't care. But you have to download a desktop launcher to run your game, it always has to be online, always needs to be updated.. I ain't got time for that shit.
 
Exactly. It would be different if it was just downloading the file from their website and it runs by itself, I wouldn't care. But you have to download a desktop launcher to run your game, it always has to be online, always needs to be updated.. I ain't got time for that shit.

I don't even want a system like this. My main issue is it becomes a pain in the ass to know what games you have and where you got them from. If my system crashes no way I'm going to remember the 30 different websites I bought games from. With Steam it's all on steam and that's that.

I bought the Witcher 2 from somewhere and I literally have no idea where. I tried to find it and just gave up.
 
I don't even want a system like this. My main issue is it becomes a pain in the ass to know what games you have and where you got them from. If my system crashes no way I'm going to remember the 30 different websites I bought games from. With Steam it's all on steam and that's that.

I bought the Witcher 2 from somewhere and I literally have no idea where. I tried to find it and just gave up.
what I am saying is you could download them and you just access them via your files. Just like how it was before steam.

I could organize all my downloaded games into one location if I desire and play them without opening anything else like a launcher or website.

I could live with that....

But every company having it's own cumbersome launcher, fuck that.
 
what I am saying is you could download them and you just access them via your files. Just like how it was before steam.

I could organize all my downloaded games into one location if I desire and play them without opening anything else like a launcher or website.

I could live with that....

But every company having it's own cumbersome launcher, fuck that.

Yea I get what your saying. The thing is during those days you actually got a disc so I knew all the games I had. If we tried to go back to that system I would end up losing games eventually cause it's all digital. So if my system crashed all my games would be lost and I'm sure I would remember a lot of what I had but no way I could remember everything.

I agree though all the launcher shit it's annoying. Ubi has this thing where if you buy it on steam it launches the UBI program and then the game. So you have two launchers open for 1 fucking game. Honestly though I prefer this over UBI no selling their games at all on Steam. I waited like 2 months for AC origins to go on sale because I refused to buy any version that was ubisoft launcher only.
 
True that, didn't think about switching comps or hard drive crashes
 
I've recently made the decision to not buy any game that isn't on steam. I hate having all this shit load up on my computer. There is zero point from a consumer perspective. Play nice with valve you dumb fucks. Remember when you had to pay like 50% to print a CD/box.
I feel you. At the same time, while it's probably superfluous, if all the added processes are really annoying, I would suggest going into msconfig to stop all of these additional programs from loading when you startup. Every goddamn app alive today seems to think it's so important it needs to be automatically initiated when you boot the drive.

No thanks. I don't need Spotify/iTunes to boot if I'm not listening to music. I don't need Twitch to boot unless I want to watch someone stream. I don't need Discord to boot unless I want to talk to someone. I don't need a million background processes that I'm not using.

I also find it irritating that if I turn off these preferences in their own settings menu they all seem to ignore what I'm explicitly telling them to do. They love to reset those settings after the next update-- whether automatic or manual. Yeezus. Okay. I get it. I will cut your balls off at the system level. Problem solved.
 
I feel you. At the same time, while it's probably superfluous, if all the added processes are really annoying, I would suggest going into msconfig to stop all of these additional programs from loading when you startup. Every goddamn app alive today seems to think it's so important it needs to be automatically initiated when you boot the drive.

No thanks. I don't need Spotify/iTunes to boot if I'm not listening to music. I don't need Twitch to boot unless I want to watch someone stream. I don't need Discord to boot unless I want to talk to someone. I don't need a million background processes that I'm not using.

I also find it irritating that if I turn off these preferences in their own settings menu they all seem to ignore what I'm explicitly telling them to do. They love to reset those settings after the next update-- whether automatic or manual. Yeezus. Okay. I get it. I will cut your balls off at the system level. Problem solved.

This is a good run through for those that aren’t sure how to shut down stuff like that at start up etc.

 
Steam isn't the problem. The issue is that the major game developers have grown so large now that they no longer need Steam.

Argument can be made that they were already large and used Steam to cut delivery costs. Now with cloud computing easily available at fluctuating small prices that self regulates on usage. Creating their own portal further cuts down on delivery costs.
 
Hers's a positive pro-developer take from The Verge on how these alternatives are evolving (keep in mind this is the website that didn't know the utmost basics to building a PC):
epic_games_launcher_screenshot_the_verge.0.jpg


Why Epic’s new PC game store is the Steam competitor the industry needed
Developer-friendly terms mean more competition for Valve, and more choice for consumers
The Verge said:
Epic Games’ new digital game marketplace, announced earlier this week and surprise launched during the Game Awards yesterday evening, has raised a lot of eyebrows in the industry. With its favorable 88 / 12 percent revenue split and Epic CEO Tim Sweeney’s pledge to better support creators, many in the industry are wondering whether this will be the game store that could truly rival Valve’s Steam, which has been the dominant platform for PC game distribution for well over a decade.

We’re not going to know how successful the store will be for quite some time. Last night, Epic announced the first batch of games that will support its store, and that list remains minuscule compared to the tens of thousands of titles available on Valve’s storefront. And although Epic has the benefit of positioning its store within the Epic Launcher, which is the software required to update and start playing its mega-hit Fortnite, there remains the distinct possibility that consumers don’t want to fragment their game libraries any further. In that scenario, Steam remains dominant, and Epic’s store becomes just another less-popular alternative, like GOG or Green Man Gaming, while smaller stores like Itch.io and Humble Bundle keep their focus on the indie game market.

Epic’s store only just launched, but its financial terms look enticing to developers
But the question of why Valve needs a competitor in the first place is still an important one worth exploring. That’s because the current state of game distribution speaks volumes about the imminent platform war that’s been brewing for years. How it turns out could change how millions of people buy and play games in the future, and how developers, in turn, make money from those sales.

As it stands, if a developer is making a game for PC, chances are they will sell it on Steam. If they’re not selling a game on Steam, it’s likely for one of two reasons: they’re a large publisher like EA or Ubisoft that operates a digital store of their own; or they’re a game console maker or a studio owned or paid by a game console maker like Microsoft or Sony. In those rare cases, a developer is taking the loss of not selling a game on Steam because some larger company is paying the bills, and there might be a strategic business reason, like console or store exclusivity, for a company like Microsoft to, say, not sell the PC port of Gears of War 4 through Steam, but on the Microsoft Store instead.

That’s the old way of doing business in the game industry, and Valve has reaped the benefits for years. The company is estimated to have made $4.3 billion in Steam revenue alone last year, not including its standard 30 percent cut on purchases of in-game content and expansions. Under the current arrangement, Valve could never develop another video game and still remain one of the highest-earning companies in the industry simply by being the middleman between PC consumers and game developers and publishers. Not only does the company take 30 percent of nearly every sale on Steam, it also earns revenue from classics like Counter-Strike, Half-Life, and Team Fortress, while its e-sports juggernaut Dota 2 remains one of the most popular games on the planet.

In other words, Steam has been sitting pretty for years now as the Apple of the PC gaming market, operating an app store and getting to decide how much money it takes from each sale. The only problem is that, unlike Apple, Valve has no control over the hardware people use, and in turn, no control over what software they use. Valve can’t stop a user from downloading another game store and buying their games elsewhere, just like it can’t stop Epic or Ubisoft from creating their own game launchers and requiring players download the software to launch Fortnite or Assassin’s Creed on PC.

Up until now, that’s not really been an issue for Valve. Gamers, and PC ones especially, tend to take offense at what are seen as transparent crash grabs at the expense of the consumer. That’s turned storefronts and launchers from EA and Ubisoft — notorious for locking down games with digital rights management restrictions — into the corporate bad guys of the industry. Valve, with its loose restrictions and its generous refund policies, has always appeared to be the most consumer-friendly option.

Epic is arriving at the perfect moment to disrupt Valve’s position as market leader
That’s begun to change, and Epic happens to be arriving at the perfect moment to shake things up. Just as it made Fortnite at the perfect time to capitalize on the battle royale trend, Epic is now applying pressure to Steam at a crucial moment for game distribution. Because of the billions of dollars its earned through Fortnite, Epic now has enough in its war chest to properly do battle with Valve, and it’s doing so by offering up more developer-friendly revenue splits and wielding its Unreal Engine toolkit as a strategic weapon. If you use Unreal to make your game, Epic will now give you back the 5 percent it typically takes of all game sales, in addition to letting you keep 88 percent of all sales through the Epic store.

The timing couldn’t be worse for Valve, and Steam has begun to lose its sheen as the consumer-friendly, do-no-wrong marketplace. The company has, for years, taken a hands-off approach to moderating its storefront and the way users behave on its platform. That’s resulted in high-profile controversies around games like Hatred, a mass murder simulator that was pulled from the company’s Greenlight program only to be reinstated, and unsavory tactics from users like hateful and trollish Steam Curator pages, rampant bigotry on game community boards, and mass review bombing of indie games deemed overly progressive by alt-right communities. Valve’s philosophy around Steam was solidified over the summer, following the rare pulling of a game that centered on school shootings, with a new policy that allows “everything” onto Steam unless it’s either illegal or purposely designed to enrage people.

The result has been more developers eager to sell their games elsewhere, and more consumers interested in alternatives to Steam as the store has become overrun with subpar games and loosely moderated community boards. Meanwhile, Valve’s virtually nonexistent curation strategy makes it harder than ever to find games you may like, while developers have long bemoaned issues with Steam’s recommendation algorithm and discovery features that directly affect traffic to game listings.

This has created an opportunity not just for Epic, but other companies who see Steam’s weaknesses as pain points to exploit. Game chat platform Discord now operates its own game store because it already owns the social infrastructure around how PC gamers connect with friends and chat via voice and text. Selling games to those same consumers and giving them one destination to launch them and play them with friends could make Discord a more appealing storefront.

Valve is clearly feeling the heat. It’s begun copying Discord’s social features, and it announced in September that it would start moderating community boards. Last year, it said it would try to fix review bombing by temporarily freezing reviews. But most importantly, ahead of Epic’s store launch, Valve said last week that it would change its terms on revenue splits for game developers. That way, if you sold more than 10 million copies, you would get to keep an additional 5 percent of revenue (from 70 to 75 percent), and then another 5 percent if you’ve sold at least 50 million copies. It was a clear admission from Valve that it knows its platform is not untouchable, and that improving the financial incentives to sell a game on Steam may be the only way to keep developers from flocking elsewhere.

That might not be enough. As pointed out by game developer Rami Ismail, who co-founded indie studio Vlambeer, Valve’s new policies are aimed at appeasing big-budget developers. “Have things really gotten so bad for Valve in the ever-more competitive storefront scene that they now have to subsidize big studios?” he wrote on Twitter last Friday. “Are they that undesirable for large titles now that the large titles tend to be able to launch their own store?”

“Steam’s new 25 percent and 20 percent tiers represent a great improvement for the top 1 percent of games, and make Steam a significantly better deal for top games than Google Play and the iOS App Store,” Sweeney quipped in an interview with The Verge this week, making clear that Steam’s new terms don’t favor all creators — just the biggest ones.
LOL@gamers giving a shit about "loosely moderated community boards", but otherwise, a piece worth reading if you're interested in this, and curious what the steering influences might be that determine where this ship is headed.
 
A subscription service would cost them so many people, i dont know if it would work out
 
and curious what the steering influences might be that determine where this ship is headed.

No where in the short term. For us veteran gamers know why Steam was created by Valve. Getting game patches was an absolute nightmare prior to Steam.

I'd be interested how many users are on Pc for FortniteBR. For i suspect its the minority to console and mobile. An with those two a 'third party game store' isnt allowed.
 
I feel you. At the same time, while it's probably superfluous, if all the added processes are really annoying, I would suggest going into msconfig to stop all of these additional programs from loading when you startup. Every goddamn app alive today seems to think it's so important it needs to be automatically initiated when you boot the drive.

No thanks. I don't need Spotify/iTunes to boot if I'm not listening to music. I don't need Twitch to boot unless I want to watch someone stream. I don't need Discord to boot unless I want to talk to someone. I don't need a million background processes that I'm not using.

I also find it irritating that if I turn off these preferences in their own settings menu they all seem to ignore what I'm explicitly telling them to do. They love to reset those settings after the next update-- whether automatic or manual. Yeezus. Okay. I get it. I will cut your balls off at the system level. Problem solved.

Couldn't agree more. Discord is such a shit show now. I remember when it was a nice minimalist program that simple had channel\usernames and that's it. It was some basic ass program and it was perfect. Now it's just filled with junk that I could care less about.

My PC does nothing but start Steam in big picture mode when it comes on. I normally play single player games on my big screen so I prefer that setting.
 
No where in the short term. For us veteran gamers know why Steam was created by Valve. Getting game patches was an absolute nightmare prior to Steam.

I'd be interested how many users are on Pc for FortniteBR. For i suspect its the minority to console and mobile. An with those two a 'third party game store' isnt allowed.
Acknowledged, but how does this factor into the AAA breakoff developing today?

Blizzard (of Activision) has long delivered their own patches via Battle.net. Part of me wonders if Activision will at some point break off and begin handling all of the games they publish the way that Blizzard always handled their own games they developed using Battle.net. Seems logical.

Riot followed Blizzard's early Diablo model. EA, of course, has Origin.

Epic's intentions appear to be a hybrid of the Blizzard/Riot model and Steam's own. Besides, even if a minority of its base is on PC Epic is still an industry monster among PC gaming that almost certainly has more total concurrent PC players than any of the Big 3 on Steam (PUBG, Dota 2, CS:GO). This is evident by the fact that as Fortnite slingshotted past PUBG it was the clear #1 leech that contributed to cut PUBG's playerbase to roughly 1/4 of what is was at its peak (and at its peak it was 5x as big as Dota or CS:GO).

Meanwhile, Microsoft is becoming increasingly hungry for the growing PC gaming revenue, willing to chase it more aggressively, and who could blame them?

This is the downside to the un-walled garden. It's...unwalled. Barbarians approach at their leisure.
 
Back
Top