Valve's 30 percent revenue cut was 'killing PC gaming,' says former employee

"Despite the Epic Store's faults, Epic's mere 12 percent revenue cut theoretically allows for developers to invest more resources into their projects or pass the savings on to consumers (if not both)."

I absolutely cannot stand it when people are trying to twist this.

In what way is any of what is going on benefiting the customer? Are we seeing games offered at a reduced price? Are we seeing cheaper or free DLC?

The consumers are getting funneled into a box. I'm sure the Epic Game Store will get better with time like most things but to say this is good for the consumer is bonkers. Steam also needs to get their head out of the ground and offer better cuts. Both of these companies have the tools to crush one another but both aren't doing anything to help. Epic could offer cheaper games to the consumer since the Devs/Pubs are taking a better cut. Steam could throw down the hammer and closely match the the split.

Right now the only ones that are suffering are the consumers. It's already created a rift between gamers which sucks.
 
I think its about time somebody did this to Valve. They were a monopoly and seeing a 30% charge to distribute a game online is insane! What happened to "it'll be cheaper to buy games online because there's no shipping or physical discs!" those savings never got passed on to consumers and just went into Valve's pockets. Maybe some competition is indeed needed.

Everyone can agree with competition, especially for Valve and Steam. Epic exclusivity deals howeverare a deathwish for gaming
 
"Alternatively, Valve may start throwing its own money around to secure Steam exclusives. That could backfire, though, given the major negative public sentiment that Epic is currently dealing with."

Steam already has a TON of exclusives because some developers chose Steam as their only distribution platform. And how exactly would Steam even attempt to get big-name exclusives? Their not going to offer a better revenue split on a case-by-case basis because that would be like throwing a Molotov into their business model. Everyone else would demand the same deal or they would pull their stuff from Steam en masse. Valve's only option is to reduce their take to 20% or less, and that would probably be enough to halt Epic's developer-rustling rampage.

No, that's not the same. Developers choosing one platform ( the biggest one that pays, GoG is a money pit for devs) isn't the same as a legally binding contract that forbids sale on another. They chose to put their gamegthere because that's the only place that made sense. To suggest that a developer wouldn't choose to put it on Epic, despite the smaller cut, simply because Steam exists, is unfounded. Secondly, we don't need to pretend like exclusivity deals are an unknown topic. They did it on consoles, and it sucked and people didn't want it. Or on your phone, with iOS and Android apps.

Epic is relying on strong arm practices rather than the merits of their platform. Their cut is smaller and is good, but their platofrm lacks major and important features. There's no lack of money in Epics pockets, they can develop them without shitting on the PC gaming industry. I want competition. I want Valve to get their heads smacked in.

But not at the cost of starting a trend of exclusivity which will lead to more strong arm business practices. Let's not forget micro-transactions started because people wanted their horses in Oblivion to look cool.
 
Last edited:
That's funny, because I don't see big publishers removing microtransactions, or releasing finished games, or doing free DLC. It seems like that money was never a problem in the first place, but their excuses for having all of the above do seem to be a complete load of bull.
 
"Epic's mere 12 percent revenue cut theoretically allows for developers to invest more resources into their projects or pass the savings on to consumers (if not both)."

Emphasis on theoretically. I don't think there's a person reading this who believes that extra money is going to go anywhere but in the developer's pocket.
 
I simply cannot fathom the reason why this is a problem for the consumer. I don't see the option to buy a game from other portal as a problem and I have used Steam for many years, I just open another program to play a different game, consoles have been dealing with this since forever.

People need to stop this nonsense of brand loyalty that just ends in monopolies and instead of whining for everything, wait and see how this could ultimately benefit the consumer at the end of the day, I mean, probably making life easier for developers can be rewarding, nowadays making a game is extremely complex and costly.
 
I simply cannot fathom the reason why this is a problem for the consumer. I don't see the option to buy a game from other portal as a problem and I have used Steam for many years, I just open another program to play a different game, consoles have been dealing with this since forever.

People need to stop this nonsense of brand loyalty that just ends in monopolies and instead of whining for everything, wait and see how this could ultimately benefit the consumer at the end of the day, I mean, probably making life easier for developers can be rewarding, nowadays making a game is extremely complex and costly.

I wouldn't consider it a brand loyalty thing. People prefer Steam because of the wide-variety of choices that client offers including friends options (which in Borderlands you definitely want), community forums, developer input, the workshop for user created content, the market for resales, the overlay for capturing screenshots and other options, stats, wishlists - you name it. It's not just a game launcher filled with spam ads like Epic has.

Best case scenario for all of us, was if the game were launched across multiple platforms. And I guarantee you if that were the case, 95%+ would more than likely go the Steam route over Epic.
 
Last edited:
So glad, Epic is fixing it, so no microtransactions in games, lots of content for free, no expensive dlcs, cheaper games, no expensive season passes with nearly no content, no unfinished games, Epic store version games are already cheaper. Oh wait, nothing of that will happen.

Steam took 30% of the copies which were sold directly on steam, retail copies unaffacted even whilst using steamworks as their main DRM. Cdkeys generated for free and if sold and activated, Valve didn't get any money.

So yeah, nice story, bro. If you sell a copy on steam, even after the 30% cut, the publisher still gets more money from it than from a retail copy so blah blah blah.

Yeah, steam was killing pc gaming, tell that to all those successful indie developers there who got snubbed by big publishers. Sure I am going to buy games on a platform, which showed a middle finger to pc and then colaborated with MS.
 
Last edited:
I have been a STEAM user since almost day one and I have not used EPIC. STEAM would do itself a favor for old farts like me if they would quit being so coy about HALF-LIFE and PORTAL continuation. The whole situation smacks of smug arrogance. I say **** or get off the pot.
 
One had nothing to do with the other. No PC gamer cared about the cut. We all know the publishers and developers aren't going to pass along whatever savings they have to the customer. Nothing killed PC gaming anyway. What has hurt it most is forcing people who bought boxed games to use a digital platform anyway, and then ignoring concerns they had about the various issues that arose from it.
 
PC gaming isn't dead so nobody killed it.
Steam stuck with PC gamers - we all used Steam because we wanted to. Other game stores dropped PC games. And nobody wanted to buy from the Microsoft store. And those Steam sales keep pulling us back in.
Ok, Steam charge the devs 30%. That might seem high but Steam does offer the game owners a lot in return, including an excellent customer service which should be just as important to gamers as lower prices.
Also remember that Steam changed the revenue structure last October so games earning over $10m are 25% and over $50m are 20%.
And is 30% a lot? I pay more than that in taxes. Apple and Google also take a full 30% on apps sold on their stores.
For now, I'm backing Steam because they save me money (in the form of regular sales) and have built a platform for gamers. Epic has built a platform for sellers. Epic's reduced developer tax has not transferred to reduced prices for gamers, only the vague promise that the developers can continue to make future games.
I'll return to this debate when Epic starts showing the gamers some love. For now, Steam wins.
 
30% is a lot, times move, times change, industry has to adapt and so do people. I love Steam, I love Valve but there is a line. This line is crossed and is now taking the piss.

30% is a lot and too much IMO but the facts do not support his statement. If 30% was too much, why are the Apple Apps store and Google Play doing so well?

Retail takes an even bigger cut FYI. Microsoft and Sony don't even publicly disclose their commission fee but I'd be willing to be it ain't good (especially given that Sony used to charge you a fee to refill your playstation wallet).

30% cut is not hyperbole.

:facepalm:

Whoosh'

You missed the hyperbole part so I'll give you the answer. Saying PC gaming is dying because of steam is 100% hyperbole. PC gaming has seen massive expansion and steam deserves some of the credit for that.

What Epic is doing is fantastic. Steam have needed some kind of a kick up the bum for a while. Their complacency drove this.
No, I do not want games to be exclusive forever but you think anyone is going to use EGS if they have the choice of steam as well? No, of course not. This forces the issue and allows EGS to get some traction so we can finally get some bloody competition for steam.

It will work out better for developers and consumers. This is just the usual brand loyalty crap that has people crowing away as if the world of gaming is about to collapse.

I'd just like to point out that the premise for going to EPIC was the world of gaming is about to collapse, as opinionated in the above article.

^ Precisely. "OMG. The X Files is on Amazon Prime and not Netflix. That's not real competition! No Netflix, no buy!", etc. Of course 3rd party exclusives are valid competition even within the same platform. Industry fragmentation may not be desirable but PC gamers have to the most stunningly naive people on the planet to believe that Steam should remain exempt for the next 10,000 years vs the same thing that's happening literally everywhere (consoles, video streaming, game streaming, music streaming, etc) and that competition 'must' only be on price & features not actual selection. Do people also expect Google's Stadia (vs future competing game streaming platforms) to never have exclusives? For uPlay, Origin, to give up on exclusives? It's the natural and obvious side-effect of locking games to store-fronts that Valve themselves ironically started back in 2004.

When you're facing a virtual monopoly with a captive audience ("No Steam, no buy because I want all my games in one place" is another way of saying "I've bought enough Steam games that upon reaching a critical mass, I'm now buying out of habituation / brand addiction rather than any real per-purchase choice"), the only market response to "Even if you offer the same games everywhere else, I'll still only buy the Steam ones" is from the point-of-view of competing store, to obviously offer different games...

People don't have to like what Epic are doing to understand why they're doing the equivalent of what Amazon Prime Video are doing vs Netflix - paying for 3rd party exclusives. I suspect PC gamers have simply become so habituated over the 2004-2018 period (particularly with non EA / Ubisoft AAA titles) they're starting to react in shock at the concept of competition actually meaning something more than just reading off a list of Steam key resellers "competing" with Steam...

The ironic part of this is that Steam key resellers are far cheaper then the $60 stonewall you'll get from EPIC. Yes, valve has such a "monopoly" that there are multiple other platforms on the market with significant users number and they do nothing to harm of influence devs who do decide to move. They are such a monopoly that they've continued to reduce the prices of games and make their cheap and accessible for PC gamers. Please, steam doesn't fit a single definition of the word.

And again, fragmentation isn't the issue here. It's the ethics. Do you honestly believe that a company that's coercing customers into their platform won't continue to do that at the minimum or worse?

So glad, Epic is fixing it, so no microtransactions in games, lots of content for free, no expensive dlcs, cheaper games, no expensive season passes with nearly no content, no unfinished games, Epic store version games are already cheaper. Oh wait, nothing of that will happen.

Steam took 30% of the copies which were sold directly on steam, retail copies unaffacted even whilst using steamworks as their main DRM. Cdkeys generated for free and if sold and activated, Valve didn't get any money.

So yeah, nice story, bro. If you sell a copy on steam, even after the 30% cut, the publisher still gets more money from it than from a retail copy so blah blah blah.

Yeah, steam was killing pc gaming, tell that to all those successful indie developers there who got snubbed by big publishers. Sure I am going to buy games on a platform, which showed a middle finger to pc and then colaborated with MS.

You raise a good point I forgot about. EPIC has already stated it will only allow quality games on it's platform but who is the judge of that? I'm going to take a guess and say that many potential hit indie games won't quality.
 
"Despite the Epic Store's faults, Epic's mere 12 percent revenue cut theoretically allows for developers to invest more resources into their projects or pass the savings on to consumers (if not both)."

I absolutely cannot stand it when people are trying to twist this.

In what way is any of what is going on benefiting the customer? Are we seeing games offered at a reduced price? Are we seeing cheaper or free DLC?

The consumers are getting funneled into a box. I'm sure the Epic Game Store will get better with time like most things but to say this is good for the consumer is bonkers. Steam also needs to get their head out of the ground and offer better cuts. Both of these companies have the tools to crush one another but both aren't doing anything to help. Epic could offer cheaper games to the consumer since the Devs/Pubs are taking a better cut. Steam could throw down the hammer and closely match the the split.

Right now the only ones that are suffering are the consumers. It's already created a rift between gamers which sucks.


Writer here. For the sake of clarification, I'm not trying to twist anything. My personal opinions on this story line up with a lot of, let's say, Epic's detractors. But I tried to present it in a fair light, and avoid "going after" either Steam or Epic.

The "theory" is that the revenue cut means better games, lower prices, or less-aggressive in-game monetization. I cannot say I've seen any of that yet (Minus Exodus' price cut, but no games have seen similar cuts since, I don't think) in practice, but I'm open to the possibility.

For now, I think Epic is utilizing anti-consumer business tactics to strongarm PC users into adopting its platform. Its defenders can and will point out how this may be good in the long run (which is the perspective I tried to draw attention to in this article), but that doesn't change the fact that the tactics are still.. well.. less than desirable in the short term.
 
Last edited:
And again, fragmentation isn't the issue here. It's the ethics. Do you honestly believe that a company that's coercing customers into their platform won't continue to do that at the minimum or worse?

I guess I'm the only one here that remembers the year of 2005 when Valve offered "cash incentives" to multiple 3rd party games to come to Steam. The same week Darwinia appeared on Steam (after pocketing their 'Valve incentive'), the publisher subsequently pulled their own self-hosted one on their own site at Valve's "request", leaving Steam the only choice (at the time). To gamers wanting the publisher version and not the Steam one, it was the same glorified "bait and switch" as Metro Exodus. Here's the original announcement:-

"We are very happy to announce the launch of Darwinia on Steam. Introversion has teamed up with Valve to release Darwinia on their online games distribution platform making it available to millions of new gamers. As part of the launch and Steam's exclusivity, we will no longer be offering Darwinia as a download option from our site, although it will still be possible to purchase shipped boxed copies. At Valve's request we will also be removing the demo from our site for about a month", 15th Nov 2005
https://forums.introversion.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40203

Just sayin'. Some fanboys here trying way too hard with the "Steam have ethics and would never do that!" argument have remarkably selective memories of 2005 when Steam did indeed do exactly the same thing Epic are doing today in order to "get the ball rolling" - bring 3rd party games to the store as "timed platform exclusives" in exchange for cash payments...
 
I guess I'm the only one here that remembers the year of 2005 when Valve offered "cash incentives" to multiple 3rd party games to come to Steam. The same week Darwinia appeared on Steam (after pocketing their 'Valve incentive'), the publisher subsequently pulled their own self-hosted one on their own site at Valve's "request", leaving Steam the only choice (at the time). To gamers wanting the publisher version and not the Steam one, it was the same glorified "bait and switch" as Metro Exodus. Here's the original announcement:-

"We are very happy to announce the launch of Darwinia on Steam. Introversion has teamed up with Valve to release Darwinia on their online games distribution platform making it available to millions of new gamers. As part of the launch and Steam's exclusivity, we will no longer be offering Darwinia as a download option from our site, although it will still be possible to purchase shipped boxed copies. At Valve's request we will also be removing the demo from our site for about a month", 15th Nov 2005
https://forums.introversion.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=40203

Just sayin'. Some fanboys here trying way too hard with the "Steam have ethics and would never do that!" argument have remarkably selective memories of 2005 when Steam did indeed do exactly the same thing Epic are doing today in order to "get the ball rolling" - bring 3rd party games to the store as "timed platform exclusives" in exchange for cash payments...

:facepalm:

Yes, exclusivity as removing it from their own website. There's nothing there about other platforms (which there weren't any other's in 2005). FYI this is standard practice for any downloadable business to make sure all the sales go through the publisher. Otherwise the publisher could be spending a bunch of money promoting the game only for the sales to go threw the dev's site, meaning the publisher doesn't get their cut. A vast majority of games are done like this: https://www.sekirothegame.com/buy. That doesn't make them exclusives, you just have no idea how the industry works.

Good job taking a post from 2005 out of context.
 
Yes, exclusivity as removing it from their own website.
Sounds like you didn't even read what you're trying to "explain". Introvision Software were both combined dev & publisher of the game (one single company for both like Daedelic's Deponia), it's even there on the Steam game page, so your "explanation" of pretending dev & pub were two separate businesses competing for sales on two websites makes zero sense. Nothing was taken out of context. The game was required to be removed from Introvision's site by the contract signed in exchange for said Steam exclusivity payment. As mentioned this wasn't the only game and several others at the time involved the same "brown envelopes" that everyone are up in arms over with Epic, and the illusion that Steam have never paid for 3rd party exclusives has been completely shattered...

Edit: The point is every business goes through stages. During the early days growth stage new store-fronts need to offer incentives (to publishers not gamers) to get the ball rolling. That's what Epic are doing - and yes that's what Steam did too. Once they go past this into the post-growth / stability stage the need drops away. All Epic (2018) are doing is copying Steam (2005) when they were both 1 year old during that "make or break" first year. They've simply picked more "juicier" titles to do it with.
 
Last edited:
Sounds like you didn't even read what you're trying to "explain". Introvision Software were both combined dev & publisher of the game (one single company for both like Daedelic's Deponia), it's even there on the Steam game page, so your "explanation" of pretending dev & pub were two separate businesses competing for sales on two websites makes zero sense. Nothing was taken out of context. The game was required to be removed from Introvision's site by the contract signed in exchange for said Steam exclusivity payment. As mentioned this wasn't the only game and several others at the time involved the same "brown envelopes" that everyone are up in arms over with Epic, and the illusion that Steam have never paid for 3rd party exclusives has been completely shattered...

Edit: The point is every business goes through stages. During the early days growth stage new store-fronts need to offer incentives (to publishers not gamers) to get the ball rolling. That's what Epic are doing - and yes that's what Steam did too. Once they go past this into the post-growth / stability stage the need drops away. Shake your fist all you want, all Epic (2018) are doing is copying Steam (2005) when they were both 1 year old during that "make or break" first year. They've simply picked more "juicier" titles to do it with.

:facepalm:

I guess every game is "exclusive" since they all have links to steam and don't sell (bar a scant few) on their own website.

What part of that agreement prevents them from selling on other game marketplaces? No, not there? Were there even other digital game marketplaces at the time?

In 2005, retail was the dominate competitor and steam was the challenger and guess what? That agreement clearly allowed for retail sales. You can't even provide a link that even states this agreement prevented them from selling on other digital marketplaces.

No, what I'm seeing is you trying to conflate the meaning of the word exclusive from 2005 to the 2018 meaning. You ignore the fact that you don't have any proof if the contract prevented selling on other marketplaces and try to strip the word "exclusive" of context. The explanation of "exclusive" in the link you provided DOES NOT require platform exclusivity and perhaps you should explore the possibility that year plays an important role in things.

Here let me ease your confusion right now
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_distribution_in_video_games

There were zero digital distribution platforms on PC competing with steam in 2005. It's impossible that steam made "exclusive" deals like the one's EPIC is making now. Like I pointed out earlier, retail was the biggest competitor.
 
"Despite the Epic Store's faults, Epic's mere 12 percent revenue cut theoretically allows for developers to invest more resources into their projects or pass the savings on to consumers (if not both)."

I absolutely cannot stand it when people are trying to twist this.

In what way is any of what is going on benefiting the customer? Are we seeing games offered at a reduced price? Are we seeing cheaper or free DLC?

The consumers are getting funneled into a box. I'm sure the Epic Game Store will get better with time like most things but to say this is good for the consumer is bonkers. Steam also needs to get their head out of the ground and offer better cuts. Both of these companies have the tools to crush one another but both aren't doing anything to help. Epic could offer cheaper games to the consumer since the Devs/Pubs are taking a better cut. Steam could throw down the hammer and closely match the the split.

Right now the only ones that are suffering are the consumers. It's already created a rift between gamers which sucks.


Writer here. For the sake of clarification, I'm not trying to twist anything. My personal opinions on this story line up with a lot of, let's say, Epic's detractors. But I tried to present it in a fair light, and avoid "going after" either Steam or Epic.

The "theory" is that the revenue cut means better games, lower prices, or less-aggressive in-game monetization. I cannot say I've seen any of that yet (Minus Exodus' price cut, but no games have seen similar cuts since, I don't think) in practice, but I'm open to the possibility.

For now, I think Epic is utilizing anti-consumer business tactics to strongarm PC users into adopting its platform. Its defenders can and will point out how this may be good in the long run (which is the perspective I tried to draw attention to in this article), but that doesn't change the fact that the tactics are still.. well.. less than desirable in the short term.

Sorry I didn't mean for it to come off as me ranting against your specific article. I agree with most of your points. I think a lot of people are venting frustration, myself included, on this shift in the market. I hope moving forward exclusives are something we remember for a time and not become the norm.
 
Sorry I didn't mean for it to come off as me ranting against your specific article. I agree with most of your points. I think a lot of people are venting frustration, myself included, on this shift in the market. I hope moving forward exclusives are something we remember for a time and not become the norm.
I didn't take it that way, really, so no worries. I just used your comment as a way to jump into the conversation and lay out my own thoughts.

I too am quite frustrated about where things are for us as consumers. I sincerely hope Steam responds to Epic sooner rather than later, if for no other reason than to take the wind out of their sails and eliminate their moral high ground ("We're dev-friendly!" which, to be fair, is true).

That's partially what I'm hoping articles like this accomplish. Valve needs to be sent a clear message: They cannot be complacent here, they have to do something for the sake of their customers. And I love Valve and Steam (and have no plans to buy stuff from Epic at the moment).
 
There is no physical disk so no cost to produce hardware, no storage costs because its digital.
This nonsense about 30% is a ploy to increase prices nothing more.
There is now more people purchasing hardware today than ever before and yet no one ever speaks about that fact. Prices should come down because of that fact.
 
There is no physical disk so no cost to produce hardware, no storage costs because its digital.
This nonsense about 30% is a ploy to increase prices nothing more.
There is now more people purchasing software today than ever before and yet no one ever speaks about that fact. Prices should come down because of that fact.
I'm not sure you understand how digital storage works. Steam has thousands of titles available to the consumer. Where do you think they keep them ? As well, more people purchasing software does not automatically equal lower pricing. The cost to make a AAA title has dramatically increased over the years as consumers expect more and more from their games.
 
What Epic is doing is fantastic. Steam have needed some kind of a kick up the bum for a while. Their complacency drove this.
No, I do not want games to be exclusive forever but you think anyone is going to use EGS if they have the choice of steam as well? No, of course not. This forces the issue and allows EGS to get some traction so we can finally get some bloody competition for steam.

It will work out better for developers and consumers. This is just the usual brand loyalty crap that has people crowing away as if the world of gaming is about to collapse.
What about predatory pricing is "fantastic"?

Also, how many people here talking about how amazing EPIC is would flip their **** at intel paying OEMs not to use AMD for years? Same argument.
 
What you guys are not thinking about, is the whole infrastructure of what steam is, it offers not only digital distribution but ENGINES for games to be played online.

Wait until Epic store fails, because sooner or latter us as consumers will start wondering, if they are only charging 12% why is the extra profit going towards developers rather than discounting it on my final product which would've costed the same if I purchased on steam? Are they able to bring the same long lasting infrastructure to the table as Steam? Is exclusivity something we want in this -not getting killed- industry?

Think of Origin Store.
 
which has all the Playstation exclusives for PC
You mean, create a store and let all PS1/2/3/4 etc games runnable on PC? Highly unlikely.
Where's XPA or xvc equivalent?
Same as Steam, Epic and other stores, only supporting Windows classics? How about WCOS?
 
Back