next »

[PompiPompi]

Well one of my reasoning was that steam is so important because developers made it so important.
Currently it's a monopoly on the PC and I don't think that is good for developers.

[Evan Balster]

Re:  Steam being bad for developers in the long run -- if I achieve the kind of market saturation where I would have made more hypothetical money selling direct, I have far more money than I need to keep doing the things I do.


Re:  Portals being bad for the indie game community -- NO.  Portals like Steam and the spread of digital distribution are why indie game development has exploded in the last five years.  They free us from publishers and give us an arena where we can go toe-to-toe with big-budget developers based on the merits of our work.  The older members of our profession will remember the years between the early 90s and mid-2000s where we were called "shareware developers".  What kinds of feelings does the word shareware give you?

Furthermore, indie can't die.  (Barring something on the order of a nuclear war.)  Big companies are the trees of this forest; we're the grass.  The wind might level a forest; we would simply spring from the wreckage.


Re:  Big indies not caring -- I'm disturbed by the notion that successful independent game developers should be expected to take responsibility for the rest.  Our methods are capitalistic, are they not?  I think it's great when activism does emerge from our community, which is frequently the case.  But our free agency is the principle we found ourselves on; leave people to their methods.  (Note that I say this as someone who has never shipped a game, is not earning royalties of any kind from games, and is generally bohemian.)


My feeling on the topic of this thread, to be frank, is a great big so what?  Nothing personal -- Steam, in present perception, is simply the most reliable way to make a living from PC game development.  Developers are free to use it or not use it as they see fit -- and in my opinion indies should look out for their own interests; pursue their own separate visions.

[eld]

Well one of my reasoning was that steam is so important because developers made it so important.
Currently it's a monopoly on the PC and I don't think that is good for developers.

They're not abusing any kind of monopoly they might have, they're pretty open about letting people sell their game wherever they want even if they sell it on steam, and their success is directly related to providing a centralized and easy to use platform to sell games on. Many other platforms popped up during that same time with many great games being sold on those, but none provided the same easy to use platform that steam did, and that hurt everyone.

Looking at the indie-industry it has been a major contributing factor to its growth and important in every way.

But again, your choice:

If you want to keep that 30% to yourself you'll end up spending that 30% (and possibly more) on distribution, a stable platform and community, marketing and getting the contacts you don't have.

This while still not getting the same revenue as you would've gotten from steam as you most likely don't have a background or experience with these things.

[Moczan]

It's another thread by PompiPompi, you guys really expected anything meaningful? How is making 20-50 times more a 'good enough' syndrome, settling for less?

[Destral]

Well one of my reasoning was that steam is so important because developers made it so important.
Currently it's a monopoly on the PC and I don't think that is good for developers.

You're wrong, actually.

Steam started off as a distribution platform for Valve's own games. Then they started selling other people's games, and that made them enough money that they shifted to focusing on that and releasing games less often. But enough developers found that Steam brought value to their games that word spread, and it became the defacto distribution platform for digital download PC games.

Steam adds a ton of value to your game, for the simple reason that during their sales older games that are long past their peak selling periods suddenly come into the spotlight again, and make their developers substantial amounts of money again. There's a really good piece on Gamasutra from the Bastion developers explaining just how good Steam has been for them, sales wise.

Not only that, but it gives you the peace of mind that you can make your game and when it gets picked up by Steam, you can have your marketing/PR blitz, and that will generate you sales. Then everytime there's a Steam sale, chances are your game might get featured, and make you more sales, and so forth. And you don't have to worry about having a secure website to deal with people's credit cards - or contracting separately for someone to do that.

Of course, I have no personal experience, but the reason people release their games on Steam and such is because the 30% you have to pay them compensates for all the stuff they take care of for you that you no longer need to worry about, allowing you to collect money for your work, and focus on working on your next game.

As for wether 30% is too much or not, it might be, but it's become the de facto standard for most digital download platforms. If you don't like it, no one is forcing your hand. You could always release your first game on Steam (if they pick you) to help get you an audience, and then release your subsequent games on your own website, and promote it to the fans you have acquired from Steam.

As a developer, you have options. It's part of your job to weigh those options, find what works for you, and if nothing does, figure out an alternate route that does.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think steam having a monopoly is bad, but *not* because they take 30%. it's bad because they are often random in deciding which games get on it and which don't, and don't give the devs any feedback about why their game didn't get on it. maybe this will change with greenlight, but right now, it *is* a bad thing when a) most PC games that are sold are sold via steam and b) getting on steam feels arbitrary / random

if steam were less strict / less of a gatekeeper, and let any moderately good, playable, bug-free game on steam, then the monopoly aspect of it wouldn't be a problem. but right now they reject even some really great games and let some really bad games on there

[Moczan]

if steam were less strict / less of a gatekeeper, and let any moderately good, playable, bug-free game on steam, then the monopoly aspect of it wouldn't be a problem. but right now they reject even some really great games and let some really bad games on there

Any kind of moderation will spawn developers saying it's to strict, while lack of moderation will led to crap fest and race to the bottom AppStore-style.

[PompiPompi]

if steam were less strict / less of a gatekeeper, and let any moderately good, playable, bug-free game on steam, then the monopoly aspect of it wouldn't be a problem. but right now they reject even some really great games and let some really bad games on there

Any kind of moderation will spawn developers saying it's to strict, while lack of moderation will led to crap fest and race to the bottom AppStore-style.

Dichomety, you assume there are only two extremes.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think moderation for quality is fine. what's not fine, however, is not making clear *why* they chose the way they did

also, from what i gather, steam primarily decides which games to carry not based on quality, but on how many units they expect it to sell. that's a different kind of moderation entirely. i feel that it'd be better if they would let niche games of high quality on there even if they don't think they'll sell that many copies

[tesselode]

I have a variety of things to say the OP's points:

1. Steam isn't taking away from your brand. Just put a logo screen in your game and other stuff to let people know you actually exist. There, you have your brand back.

2. You made a good point about Steam deciding not to accept your game, but if you even got one game onto Steam and then they rejected the next one, you're still better off than you would have been without Steam.

3. If Valve got really greedy and took a 70% cut of the profits or something ridiculous like that, then developers would move away from Steam, and people would start looking for games elsewhere.

[TeeGee]

1. Steam isn't taking away from your brand. Just put a logo screen in your game and other stuff to let people know you actually exist. There, you have your brand back.

This isn't really true. There's a huge difference between clicking through someone's logo at the start of the game, and being an actual fan who went to the dev's website (probably read the news/blog there) and purchased the game directly. The former is unlikely to buy your next game on brand recognition alone, the later will most likely do it. I know that I don't remember who made most of my Steam games, except the big ones that I've heard about before. I just got them because they were in a sale and looked nice.

There's a huge value in building a direct fan base. Especially with indie games -- supporting your favorite developers is a big factor here.

As for Steam's dominance (I've heard it stands for around 90% PC downloads these days, not counting casual games) -- one bad outcome are all those people who refuse to buy your game unless it's on Steam. It's annoying. But then again, it's hard to tell if it really affects sales in the big picture. It might be that thanks to Steam the audience of potential indie game buyers is bigger to begin with.

[tametick]

Also, you have to note that Minecraft did have a guy dedicated to business development long before they made any money.

Erm, no? If you are referring to Daniel Kaplan he was only hired long after minecraft was already bringing in loads of money (not that it didn't go on to bring even bigger loads afterward).

Mojang as an actual business with office and employees didn't even exist long after Notch was making a handsome living off of minecraft sales. For a long while he was working alone at home.