> Their 30% cut is absolutely justified

That is debatable. For one thing, Steam is partly (mostly?) built off the backs of games marketing their games and providing a Steam link (marketing costs money for the devs). Steam kick started this chicken/egg problem by creating their own great games first.

Second, Steam does not provide your game any marketing (algorithmic visibility) unless it's already successfully marketed outside of Steam (marketing is not free), and again later once it hits a certain number of sales.

Third, per Tim Sweeney, games during the retail era had a bigger margin for the the studios than they do today [1]

[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/19_NC1ZskeN47LHaYJziotbA0sqL...

edit: So I do feel a little upset that Steam gets free marketing for every game put on the site (important note you can (and should in most cases) place your game up on the site long before its ready to purchase, and steam will advertise other games on your page), doesnt provide any marketing in return (via the discovery queue) unless you bring in tens or hundreds of thousands of clicks, and then turns around and skims 30% of all my work which they are greatly benefiting from (e.g. what if the customer goes to my page, wish lists my game, then purchased a different game in the mean time? At least e.g. amazon has referral links)

▲

vintermann 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Second, Steam does not provide your game any marketing (algorithmic visibility) unless it's already successfully marketed outside of Steam (marketing is not free), and again later once it hits a certain number of sales.

Oh, it's safe to say Steam acts as a big multiplier on whatever attention you manage to scrounge up. Not that this is ideal.

	▲	YesBox 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Unfortunately this isn’t true. Elaborating my point above, they only multiply the attention if the tens-hundreds of thousands of storefront views happen in a day or two. If you get a ten million views evenly spread out through the year, they won’t promote. (Speaking for games not for purchase yet) I’m speaking from experience and it’s explained somewhere on howtomarketagame.com

▲

keyringlight 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think there's a lot of weirdness if you try to answer "what is the PC gaming platform?" and how Valve or anyone else fits into it, and because it's PC a lot of answers can be true simultaneously, and many different users want/expect different things.

Is it processor architecture? Is it the OS? Is it the store and whatever facilities they provide? Is it the mode of physical interaction with the device (desk, couch+TV, etc)? Is it being able to assemble any random collection of hardware and expecting it to work? Does that discount set builds? Is it mandatory that the user is free to screw around with the software any way they please or can you lock stuff down?

At least on the commerce side, it's been the case since steam was opened up to third parties that they were the gatekeeper for success unless you were already huge (and now very few companies want to go it alone). Going back to Introversion's Darwinia they were just scraping by until they got on steam, developers have long been complaining that the varied methods Valve has used to get on the store (manual review, greenlight, etc) showed the vast majority of gamers only purchase through it or that you'll get a large wave of new business when you release on it. Now it seems like a 'tragedy of the commons' situation unless you've got your own marketing or it's a hobby project.

It seems like you've now got to do mental gymnastics to say Valve doesn't own the PC gaming platform

▲

pjmlp 4 days ago | parent [-]

PC gaming is what has been since the MS-DOS days and lame beeps, versus the Amiga.

I always find interesting the mention of "rise of PC gaming".

Those of my generation have been playing PC games, and 8 bit home computers before that, since the 1980's.

Game consoles were almost inexistent in most European households for us.

The exception being the Game and Watch from Nintendo series, like Manhole.

▲

keyringlight 4 days ago | parent [-]

Trying to define "Personal Computer" is another rabbit-hole, it's such a broad concept. I'd argue someone could be right if they called an iPhone a PC as for many that is their computing device, at the same time as someone else's PC being a monstrous workstation that you'd need to load onto a trolley to move.

	▲	pjmlp 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		On this one, I would say it was quite clear for my generation, a PC ran either an IBM, Digital Research or Microsoft OS and that was it. That is why those old Mac vs PC ads from Apple were the way they were, back when Apple was relaunching themselves. Everything else is trying to give new meaning to something that during 1980-2000's was quite clear what it stand for.