Question Is it worth it to publish on Steam?

I submitted a request to publish a game on Steam and paid the 100$ fee, but they are asking for a lot of personal information, like my citizen card, passport, etc. I'm not really sure if that's something that I want to show them.

Publishing my games to itch.io was a lot easier, and I don't remember them asking for these things?

Also, the $100 fee to publish a game seems a bit greedy.

 

Steam has way bigger audience. The fee is largely to deter asset flippers and similar actors, but it isn't one hundred percent effective.

You're entering a business relationship with a company, so of course they'll want your information.

 

You get it back once you have enough sales (so I hear).

 

Yes, but I think it gets refunded to your steam wallet, so you can only spend the money on Steam.

I'm not sure though.

 

This indicates otherwise.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/gettingstarted/appfee

 

While itch.io is excellent for early testing and community building, Steam should be your primary platform if you aim to make game development financially sustainable. Like 90+% of revenue is generated on Steam alone, not other PC store can compete.

 

I see, thanks for clarifying.

 

It's meant to be a barrier to entry for people who would spam the platform with low quality products. Without it a spammer would just release games near constantly and not worry about whether any of them made more than a few dollars, but with it in place the spammer has to guarantee it makes at least that $100.

 

Probably worthwhile worrying more about learning to make games in the first place than publishing on Steam. Don't get too ahead of yourself.

 

And, of course, it doesn't actually work.

 

Yeah, it's just that it takes 30 days for Steam to verify your information, so I thought that I would spend those 30 days finishing my game.

 

I have released games on both Steam and itch. Steam is definitely worth it. Sales on Steam vastly outperformed the sales on itch.

 

Haven't used itch before. Also the $100 isn't really that much, the larger issue is that Steam will take a 30% cut of your revenue (like most platforms). The number of sales on Steam makes up for this though.

 

Steam requires personal information for legal and security reasons, unlike the simpler process on itch.io, Steam's larger platform justifies its $100 fee.

 

With itch, epic, App Store and Google Play taking 15% or less these days (within certain limits), I don't think we can call 30% the norm any more.

 

What annoys me is Gabe doesn't need the money, he has billions in the bank, what is he going to do with all this money he hoards and each time you hear about a breakhout hit on Steam, remember he takes 30% of that...

There are no Steam grants or developer programmes they invest in, like Epic Games had...

They should make it 10% for your first million then 30% thereon.

Instead they have it back to front, 30% and then it goes down once you hit a certain threshold (which most games will never reach).

Just like how the Steam algorithm works, more money and eyeballs go to the more successful games, while lesser known indies are squeezed from all angles...

 

But what about all those great Steam features you get for that 30% that you don't get anywhere else? Like, uh...

Uhhh...

...the worst community tools ever made?

 

Instead of complaining about Steam, I am very thankful that a platform like Steam exists that welcomes all games including those from small indies. I remember long ago when games were only distributed by large, already huge companies. Prior to Steam, small indies could not easily sell their games. I am happy to let Steam take their cut in exchange for providing an open market for game developers including small indies.

 

and if you make more than $1000 as i understand they give that back.. so, not so greedy really..
Plus steam is one of the biggest game platforms you have a ready made audience really

 

Steam has one thing going for it that most of the other major platforms don't: it's the only product they have. Which means that they're unlikely to ever reach a point where it wouldn't make sense to keep it going. For that reason I'm not that upset over them taking 30%.

 

I'd say they've already been more than aptly rewarded for pioneering that service, and it's long past the time for them to be collecting their dues. Competition should long since have tilted things back in favor of developers, the same way that it works to prevent customers being taken advantage of in all markets.

 

I don't really think this is good logic. Not the part where they're unlikely to shut down, that's fine, but the part where that makes it okay they're charging what has been a pretty absurd percentage for a while now. People have been calling for that number to be lowered even since before EGS was a thing because getting 50% (let's not forget regional taxes and other factors) sliced off the sales of your game is pretty significant, but especially towards smaller dev sizes.

If it was a sliding scale up to 30% and that was based on what services you made use of? Fine. Not everyone needs multiplayer. Or workshop. Or forums. Have those take an extra few percent. Have those become services. As it stands now? Garbage.

 

Good point, all those extras should be paid for separately. All I want is a simple listing, at least for the time being.

 

Oh, I don't think that makes it okay, I'm just less upset over them doing it compared to a company like Apple. That might also be because I've always been working on projects as a programmer and not selling anything directly so I've never seen the actual numbers. Using a calculator to estimate isn't the same as seeing it first hand.

 

The big difference between Valve charging a large fee and Apple charging a large fee is forced exclusivity.

If you don't like Valve's large fee, you don't think their massively wide player base and many annual promotional events are worth it, you don't like them spending money on making a device-bridging API and supporting the Proton layer, or you don't like them making a portable device or making an OS that is dedicated to spreading trouble-free emulation and Proton encapsulation, great, that's fine. Don't publish through the Steamworks to the Steam customer base. Your game will work just fine on Itch or Epic or GOG or any number of other outlets, or you can directly retail it yourself. If you work really really hard, and it's less than 30% of your budget to ship a game, you might even reach an equivalent sized market and make that money back. Knock yourself out.

If you don't like Apple's large fee, but you want to run on Apple's hardware, too bad so sad, they have a monopoly on that, and are fighting all attempts to protect consumer choice in countries where they actually protect consumer choice. Plus, they want to extract a toll/tax on every IAP transaction inspired by your game, regardless of how you communicate those other products and services, not just the publishing platform fees that delivered your product through their compost chute into their walled garden.

 

Steam is 80-99% of sales on PC platform for indies, therefore any discussion about 30% is moot. Yes, it's a lot. Yes, it would be nice if they lowered it, but they have no reason to. Nothing threatens them. All big publisher endeavors have failed. And some of them are even taking your games away like Ubisoft. Epic Store, or whatever it's called, has failed to compete as well. All they attracted with bought exclusivity promos are non-paying users looking for free games and per Google vs Epic lawsuit late last year, Epic Store isn't even profitable. itch.io, GOG and others are tiny compared to Steam.

If you're publishing on PC, Steam should really be your only focus. All other options are not viable if you want to stay in business.

 

Good old monopolist power...
I'd recommend indies to put their Game at least in the Epic store as well for that reason.

 

Hey, In my POV, the 30% cut cost of Steam is getting more & more -- less, justifiable; and, for all the good things they do; you are wondering, maybe I could do most of them myself (or seek help besides them), but at lower cost; 30% cut is nearly - a Third...of what you earned, 'gone', not small; yes, the services are great, and save you lots of heartache...
but, not money; in the end, you make (quite) less; and yes, if 50,000 people like your game/buy it on Steam; vs 5000...on direct or itch.io; obviously, Steam's biggest asset...is its (paying) audience count; the biggest; and you, do end up making more money -- only if it sells a lot on Steam. But, this/these audiences (on Steam)...do not always pay; and, less and less..with time. Selection in the making. Select the Best (at near 0$); it is why (I said, earlier), F2P games are the rage; free stuff. I think now, there is closer parity (if your game is wanted/desired...willing to buy it) between, audiences on Steam...and outside/off of Steam; I mean, it's still the same people...just not on Steam; so, direct approach, though harder and more chances of making nothing (obscure website/people don't want to come on your website they want 'Steam--or nothing'); if they do come/make them; and they want your game;
you could end up doing better than on Steam; I don't know; normally, it would be better to release to Steam, to get a wide-audience, immediately; thus, more chance of making.. 'something' (better, than nothing).
Except, we are reading/seeing more and more indie devs...
who make nothing, also, on Steam....or, pratically, near-nothing; not only itch.io, etc...then, you think to yourself, it's not even worth spending 100$ US for (unless you can 'gauge' the 'pulse/interest' of people about your game --like wishlist count or such). I may end up not even 'making 1000$' as base min. for them to repay it. I think, also, that there is an 'obscure/obscurity' effect..when you come out of the blue to sell your game on your (obscure/unknown/outthere) website direct 'as new/unknown'; but, not only that, a sort of 'Exclusivity' effect; because your game is not available elsewhere. It gives some more reason/incentive to care..because otherwise, people won't care (niche/obscure/unknown); but, if they do/like your game/want it ..they Need to get in your website (not Steam). Later...you can (re) release on Steam; like : 1. Direct. 2. Steam... 3. Epic...something like that. It should not be (necessarily & always, in order of): 1. Steam....2. Epic......3. Direct... oftenly people are like :''Please please...release on Steam.''...you can do that...or not; not at the Start........Later. As halley said, consider, direct....it could be an option (even if most people make even less...than Steam..when doing direct approach; it, thus, becomes, clear...stellar great games...sell anywhere, everywhere.,.if wanted. even on obscure website/direct one -- and in this case, you are (time) 'Exclusive'...not on steam, epic, nowhere, but, your, website; Later, you become inclusive/not exclusive anymore; and release on Steam; thus, a backward approach, could work (it did for some indie devs; like Escape from Tarkov and One Hour one Life; but did not sell on Steam, for a long while....their games were wanted...and sold. well. steam, or not. (obviously, they needed marketing, making people know/come to their game/website)); 2 c.