Steam Greenlight is Going Away

You need to remember that Revenue is Units Sold * Price per Sale. The number of units sold through Steam will be greatly larger than the units sold through your own website. You cannot assume you can sell a lot of units of a game through your own website, since that approach has only been successful with a relative minority of games.

In addition to that, you need to factor in the Distribution Cost if you want to sell a game through your own site. Steam stores and distributes games and updates for games. If you release a medium to large PC game, then the distribution cost will be significant.

At 30%, Steam is a bargain for the access to players and the excellent distribution system already in place. Your proposed 3% route basically only takes into account the payment transaction cost.

 

Maybe so, but it's also in the hands of devs. It starts off with dev's trying to undercut each other to get more sales, then it becomes a baseline where customers expect that price. You can't charge less than zero so they start moving to IAP / ADS / Pay to win etc. before you know it you need a million downloads plus for it to be even semi-worth it..

This is what concerns me about this whole entire thing, if Steam / PC ends up exactly like the mobile market it's not gonna be great for dev's and gamers alike.

 

Because the $1,000 per game fee would keep the shovelware off of Steam. Whether that shoverlware ends up elsewhere is no concern to me.

 

It would also keep damn good games from small indies off of steam! Valve doesn't want that - because that would be lost revenue.

 

That's what Valve is betting on. They are hoping the lost revenue from missing out on the occasional hit will outweigh the lost revenue from lowering the overall store quality.

I genuinely think it's a smart bet. MineCraft is probably the prime example of this happening. And while a lonely indie dev like me or you can't bank on our game being a hit, Valve can bank on someone's game being a hit. If you control ten million games, one in a million odds of generating a hit don't sound that bad.

 

I don't think a $1000 per game fee would significantly reduce shovelware. Some shovelware has a good enough budget to handle that easily. The only thing a $1000 fee might help reduce would be the games made by young kids that don't have the budget, but even a $100 per game fee might accomplish some of that.

The other thing a $1000 fee would filter out would be games from countries with lower incomes. In some countries, a $1000 fee would seem like an impossible amount.

 

Would it? If they're that good then couldn't they make up the application fee - which is recoupable - by selling their "damn good" game elsewhere?

An example of this approach could be the Humble Store. Last I checked you use their widget on your own website to begin with, and if you demonstrate market traction like that then you can also get a spot on their store. No voting system, no arbitrary fees, just a demonstration of actual market performance.

 

Except all this does is outsource the Greenlight process, which was already fundamentally flawed.

 

No it doesn't. Greenlight is an arbitrary voting system about what people think they want to be on Steam, where the Humble Widget is about making actual sales.

• Where Greenlight is a barrier to income, Humble Widget is an income provider.
• A thumbs-up on Greenlight doesn't mean that user will buy it. The only thumbs-up with the Humble Widget is going ahead and making the purchase.
• Greenlight stuff doesn't have to be finished. Humble Widget stuff has to be saleable.
• Greenlight decides if you can sell your stuff through Steam. The Humble process just decides if it gets shelf space on their site.

 

This is literally Valve's own wording on the subject. By making it too high, they don't solve anything aside from driving people to their competitors, which is bad. This would literally outsource getting your game on Steam to Valve's primary competitors while keeping nobody but the likes of Digital Homicide out, the actions of which are actually incredibly rare.

 

Right, I see. I thought you were saying it's equivalent to Greenlight, where what you're really saying is that Valve doesn't want people having to sell stuff elsewhere because it means they'll sell stuff elsewhere. Gotcha.

A part of my (poorly made) point was that Humble supports you through the "sell your stuff elsewhere" part while keeping you in their ecosystem, a result of which is that you don't have to demonstrate your market performance with a competitor first.

 

I am not having this silly argument again, but apparently I am. Sigh. This is especially annoying when anytime I've had the argument, I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that one can or should rely exclusively on Steam. That it is somehow a bad idea to sell on your own website. 30% is an enormous chunk of change. To the contrary, all I have ever seen is evidence backing up the fact you should promote your game first & foremost on your own website, and then elsewhere only secondary. That games sell the most units on the first day & first week, from a pre-established fanbase. To simply give away 30% of those unit sales is just plain unintelligent business.

There is also a lot of myth that Steam will both effortlessly increase your sales and that it will be worth it as opposed to alternatives.

And once again, we have evidence to the contrary. The math doesn't lie.

Let's take a pretty negatively reviewed, pretty simple PC game: The Castle Doctrine.

Source: http://thecastledoctrine.net/news.php​

Math
$66,573 (Website) > $54,993 (Steam)
Steam's Take: $23,569
​

This proves that it is irrefutable: Sell on your own website first, and then later sell on Steam. There is no reason to give Steam 30% of your largest Day 1 fanbase. There is no reason you cannot sell on Steam after your sales have dipped on your own website, or simply the day before the release date on your own site (if you're afraid of losing that free marketing & hype).

​

Now, it isn't simply over there. Far from it.

The first argument would be "You need to sell on both your website & Steam." However, this is also something everyone should be skeptical of for the following reasons:

• These numbers were long before the Indiepocalypse & end of greenlight. Visibility was better than it is today.
  3 years better.
• This game lost $23,569 to Steam, but did sell 6546 units.
• Steam's "Free Visiblity" is in direct competition with other companies (ex. GoG, Origin, etc.) but more importantly paid marketing / ads.

The argument then becomes
"Can you get 6546 units for $23,569 in paid ads?"
​

I will be the first to admit that I do not know how much $23,569 is for a marketing budget. However, I do know that is far from a small chunk of change. I have read gamedevs who spent a few thousand dollars & saw a return on investment. 6546 is not a lot of units.

So I feel very safe in predicting that you could gain 6546 unit sales with far less than a $23,569 advertising budget.
Furthermore, if you have a great game that people love (but are simply unaware it exists) then advertising may prove to be extremely lucrative. More than if it were just a mediocre game being pushed on people.

Which would make Steam a bad choice. It could also be a third option. Use it after you have first exhausted your own website sales (91-97% profit) and thousands of dollars in advertising. Then place it on Steam to scoop up the remaining users who are Steam-exclusive types who didn't already see your ads. However, I for one am very skeptical if Steam is even worth it in any regard if you have done an effective strategy in building your fanbase prior to release.

There is a reason Steam doesn't hold a complete 100% monopoly on PC gaming. The reason is because you can save a lot of money by not choosing Steam (20% if being lazy by using FastSpring; somewhere closer to <27% if you are trendy enough.)

On consoles, you have no choice. On the PC, you do. Not every successful game is on Steam.

This is actually false. There are loads of examples of people who make their living from their own (unknown) website. Do you really think that MaidMarian.com is a popular website? I can guarantee 99% of users have no heard of it in their life. Yet this gamedev releases these small games alongside his solo MMORPG, and earns a healthy living from it. Many gamedevs do this, and never touch Steam.

So unless you can show us some numbers. Some evidence. We have no choice but to write this off as total baloney.

Yea, and the distribution cost range from 2.7% to <10%. That is 20% less, at worst, than 30%. And FastSpring is a pretty great service according to what I have heard from gamedevs with experience using it. HumbleBundle is also used. Itch.io as well. You can also sell Steam Keys, without actually selling through Steam. That means Steam pays all bandwidth costs, even if you sell through your own website. They are very generous in this way.

It boggles my mind that people competent enough to develop complex computer applications believe that setting up a website, distributing software, and updating said software is all that difficult. And IMO those who assume 30% is a fair number for "someone who does everything for you", are very ignorant & naïve people. Not only do other services provide the same features & support, such as FastSpring, but they do so for much cheaper. And in the end it is bad business to just automatically assume you should give away a large percent of your unit sales when you could either do it all yourself (being well worth the money, as Castle Doctrine would have saved thousands to tens of thousands if they could manage to get those unit sales on their own website. The extra profit would be Revenue - Marketing Budget. A requirement of less sales than you'd need if you sold on Steam. It just depends on how far those ads can take you.)

The distribution cost is also not at all significant. I assume many gamedevs automatically assume things like server hosting & bandwidth cost are really expensive because they don't actually do the math, research other dev's numbers, etc.

Remember, competition like FastSpring handles everything for you. You just pay them <10%. That means they pocket bandwidth costs, just like Steam. They handle billing. VAT. Support. CC. Paypal. Website Widgets. For 20% less than Steam. Itch.io is potentially $0 for all of that. Do not pretend Steam is the only option other than doing everything yourself.

The evidence I have shown, along with a lot more I could show, and in addition to the irrefutable fact visibility has gotten WORSE in the past 3 years, not better. All the evidence points to the idea that Steam is not a bargain. It is in fact a secondary path to MAYBE access players IF they see your game in a crowded market. At least if you used that 20% that Steam would take on paid advertising, you would have a head up above the competition (a bunch of $0 ad gamedevs relying on Steam algorithm.)

And in the end, you can always do Steam in ADDITION to a superior & more profitable market strategy. It just depends on how you use Steam.

10% is still significantly less than 30%. So this is a moot point.


Additional Sources:
Good isn't Good Enough
Average Steam Sales Plummiting
The Myth of The Indie Game Success Story Needs to Stop and Here’s Why
Post-Mortem: Releasing a game on Steam: "It was disastrous"

SteamSpy
Big List of Indie Game Revenue Sales

I could go on for days. The math doesn't lie. It can't. It's Math. But gamedevs seem surprisingly horrible at doing the math. Likely because they simply don't do it.
Many just automatically assume Steam is the best and only choice because "It's Steam; Duh!"

 

I'll be honest, I didn't read half of your post but 2 things stood out to me that I wanted to quickly comment on:

I've talked to a dev a while ago that spent a little over 10k $ on marketing (like a big frontpage feature on popular gaming websites) and he said it amounted to roughly cost 10$ per generated sale. Underwhelming to say the least.

In solo-indie circles I would always recommend to invest into outsourcing professional art and sound instead of dumping thousands into banner ads etc.. I think the investment into the game itself is much less risky, also in terms of ROI.

You're cherry-picking examples just like everybody else. You compare steam-sales vs. non-steam sales of a developer that only has one other commercial release and one free demo on steam, with his non-steam stales towards a target audience that he has built over many many years, making 9 games before castle doctrine, and he's famous enough that I've read about him in books, seen documentaries about him, and read articles about his games, even though I don't even have any personal interest in his games. He is not some nobody that starts from zero. You can't compare his story to how yours or mine will go down, it's not a fair comparison by any stretch. It makes the sales-data you compare largely meaningless. And if there is a bias in composition of target audience among total audience, on steam it's probably stacked against him too, since his games seem to often be a bit "out there", neither appealing to hardcore- nor casual-gamers very well at first glance. If you like the weird and interesting indie stuff, chances are you know who he is already, since he has been at it for so long.

That said though, I found reading some of his thoughts about pricing models and never going on sale very interesting. So, thanks for sharing!
I have to say I mostly agree with him on the "minecraft pricing model" with continuously rising price. I also see the appeal of releasing outside of steam first to build a following from what I would anticipate to be a much less toxic audience.

 

Well, the posted arguments are sound in their respective places so at the bare minimum they're excellent food for thought for someone looking at publishing platforms.

Thanks for sharing the info/research.

 

Even though it costs a few grand to buy a developer kit for PS4 you still see junk on the store. Then someone like me could afford to throw my game on the store anyway since Im working a part time job and have some disposable income whereas maybe some guy whos working on his game full time couldnt.

 

[Update]
the fee is confirmed to be 100$ and will be return to you if you reach over 1000$ in sales.

http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-reveals-steam-direct-fee-upcoming-changes-to-the-store/

 

Valve offers 2 things- the potential for distribution and exposure on the global scale. (Okay, Steam offers more things if you count their achievements system, trading cards system, and analytics. BUT those things are definitely secondary to the big 2.)

Most indies don't need large capability in the former, since there aren't thousands of people all trying to get their game all at once.

Most indies struggle with exposure, Steam or no- either they need more of it because people don't know about their game, or they got more of it than their game/services can handle- with more exposure comes scrutiny.

While I don't know if self-distribution would mean better performance in the market, I do wonder if indies don't actually end up needing very much of what valve offers.

 

Cherry picking would be me taking one example of many, and using it to prove my case.
What I did was picked one of the better examples of many which support my argument.

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest I am wrong. So what would be the worse cherries? For me to pick the better evidence, there would need to be enough evidence to back up an argument against mine. That evidence doesn't seem to exist, as no one seems to be able to show it.

However I could show many examples of successful indie games which don't even have a Steam store page.

So that is far from cherry picking. I used a very good example from an extremely limited pool of resources. However, it isn't the only game that sells on both its own website & steam. I added a lot of game revenue data in that final link, some of which sell off-steam.

The data is there, and the data is in my favor. So your accusation of cherry picking is simply ludicrous. Maybe you'd know that if you actually read what you're responding to.

Usually when the evidence either backs up one side (my argument) or is inconclusive, then the scientific conclusion is either to lean towards the evidence-backed argument or to decide more evidence is needed. Not for people to do what they do, which is double-down on their idiotic Steam fandom.

 

Just because game developers could develop their own distribution systems does not mean they should. In most cases, it is time that would have been better spent developing games.

And honestly, the Steam distribution system works really well. It can handle differencing updates really well, both when pushing the update from the game dev to Steam and from Steam to the gamers. For example, my current game is 5GB in size and it is set to release this month on Steam. I had already synced a build of my game to Steam a few days ago using the SteamPipe tools. I made some minor updates to my game today, and updated my game through SteamPipe. The tools saw that my game was 5GB and only 400KB had changed, so the SteamPipe tools only uploaded the 400KB of changes to Steam. Then in the Steam client, only the 400KB of changes were downloaded to users/gamers. It works very slick.

Theoretically, I could build my own distribution system that could handle differencing updates the same way. But why spend that time building that when it would be difficult to convince users to install yet another platform for handling updates? Steam already works very well for users.

 

Hello,
...the fee will be 100$
Originally they wanted 500$, but they changed their minds
because for many talented solo developers it could be very
also will be increased oversight of the new games coming from indie developers
....comedy Green light ends

 

I'm not even sure you're wrong about steam not being the end-all-be-all, so I'm not very motivated to dig out stats myself. I don't think anything can be proven one way or another, the data just isn't there in sufficient quantity and quality.

But I am saying your Jason Rohrer example is a terrible one, because it is just as biased as taking Tim Schafer or Chris Roberts as examples for how easy crowdfunding is (I'm assuming you're aware of their success), or Miracle of Sound or Simone Giertz for how quickly the money rolls in once you start a Patreon (both had a living wage from Patreon in less than 2 months after launching it). These people all are already very well known, they could make anything work. Not to mention that just not everyone is equally adept at talking to audiences and winning them over.

All I see you argue over and over is that 90% is more than 70% (I did read the rest of your post now), which no one disagrees with, except that's not the metric any person should base business decisions on. It's not possible to (dis)prove you could translate the 20% difference into higher revenue through smart marketing investments. You can try, I'd expect you to fail, but no matter which way you go you won't know how the other way would have went.

This article is something you should read carefully if you plan to sell (steam keys) on your own website:

https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-171

Do your math on those numbers. They also talk about their solution by the way, could be useful info for you.

Doesn't that say something in and of itself about the perceived value of owning a game on steam vs owning a DRM free copy bought directly from a dev?

And also super anecdotal and statistically meaningless, but it reflects what at least a part of people think:

And regarding Factorios success on steam:

I can't find the source links anymore because I have 100+ browser tabs open (feel free to dig through their blog if you don't believe me), but they said:
- their steam launch-week sales exceeded the sales of the prior 12 months
- they released on steam in Q1 2016 and 2016 totaled 85% of their all-time sales at the end of 2016
- they have recently reached over 1 million sales total, and that's without ever participating in steam sales


My personal theory about their massive steam success is, that it is because, they sold on their website first. They sold and improved their game for years, and then gave steam keys to their relatively large existing fanbase, they reviewed the game on steam, and it had a 98% (or even 99% for a while?) positive review rate with hundreds of reviews. That's a massive statement that instills trust in buyers. And the relatively high price for a 2D indie game keeps impulse buyers out that might not have liked the game that much.
If I were to pick a launch & sales strategy, I'd say theirs is among the better choices.

You need to pick what you think is best for your game. Whatever that may be I wish you best of luck for it and would be very interested to hear how it goes.

I've refused to accept steam by boycotting Half-Life 2 and all other steam-only games at that time for years after their release, because I didn't want steam to become what it is now. So please don't think I'm just another "steam fanboy" as you call them. But that ship has long sailed, steam is here to stay, and of all the companies that could hold massive monopoly power in this market, I'd rather it's valve than any of the other big companies that I can think of.

 

That reminds me. I should go figure out how to convert my factorio installation to a steam one. Factorios own auto updated sucks, to the point that I'm a fair ways behind in updates.

 

Thanks for the link. Chargebacks are just part of doing business. They happen with Steam just the same. And if you notice, Factorio sells off Steam in addition to Steam.

No matter how you cut it, no matter how many arguments you make about chargebacks, fraud, etc. the fact remains that companies who provide a service profit from said service.

With the exception of those who own manufacturing or have bulk deals, doing it yourself will always he cheaper because you cut out the profit of others.

I have seen people blast me or argue against me for giving the advice that you should sell on your own website first, and then sell on Steam after, for saying 91 is greater than 70, and for saying you should hist your own server rather than pay a premium for one.

So yes, people do argue that 91 isnt greater than 70. I see it alot.

And no, Jason isnt a cherry pick. First off, the most common advise in gamedev is to build a following prior to release. Second, if this is done, then there is no reason whatsoever to give 30% of that following away. If you didnt do this, then sure, maybe it wont matter much. But that is Gamedev 101 advice to build an audience.

That is my main point, and the one people seem to disagree with the most. And I see it every day, when you try to purchase a game and see it is only on Steam. No other options. Talking to those devs, and they love it that way.l because it is easy.

That is the equivalent of paying some carpenter $3000 for them to build you a table for your restaurant, because you (a talented carpenter) doesnt want to make one, doesnt want to drive a mile away to buy one at IKEA for $300, or doesnt want to simply make a few calls in the phonebook to find out the competition only charge $1000. All while the expensive middleman will send you all his friends to you FOR FREE, regardless if you have him do the job or not.

The evidence is only inconclusive on avoiding Steam entirely.

The evidence is very strong that you should sell your product on your own website AND Steam. There is no reasoning to not do both.

 

First off, that is not really how life works in the real world. Gamedevs dont just replace time spent working with gamedev work. After release, alot just sit back & relax while doing some update work. It is a huge relief after the majority of work is done (release). This moment would come after setting up distribution on your own website.

i.e. Real Life doesnt allow you to simply trade time in exchange for "more development". Games take a finite amount of development, contrary to what some claim with their updates or DLC.

Marketing & Business is a part of Gamedev. Skimping on these skills is just sad, IMO. It doesnt take much but the payout for doing the work is extremely high for the time invested.

For everything else? Silly argument.

"Steam has features!"
"You shouldnt create your own [everything] from scratch!"

These arguments pretend like competitive services like FastSpring dont exist.

My biggest problem arguing in the past is this logical fallacy that it is either All or Nothing. Steam or everything from scratch.

Pretending like FastSpring, Itch.io, & HumbleBundle dont exist or dont have the same features is really convenient when defending Steam's 30% cut.

 

I am done with this thread.

There is no argument to be had. Defending Steam is needless, and people like to cherry pick unimportant segments of my posts or reject all the data.

There are PLENTY of games with numbers reported just like Jason, who really isnt much of a celebrity & his game was pretty awfully reviewed. Any game that is actually good, and many that arent like his, have similar reports.

And since no one will argue the actual point: All evidence & reason shows you should sell on your own website, there is nothing left to be said.

Because I have learned that no matter how many times you tell people that competitors like FastSpring also have features to support game dostribution, they will pretend like Steam is justified to charge 3x more. They never can explain why, unless they ignore the fact the competition also has these features.

 

And for the love of God people...Stop acting like this is difficult to do. Game Development is complex & highly technical. If you can make a game, you are intelligent enough to do a little work to make sure you get the percent you deserve for all your hard work. Some lazy automated asshole shouldnt be leeching a third of every sale for no reason whatsoever.

It is just Internet Distribution...Honestly not that complicated...

 

I think nobody considers this thread an argument - rather a discussion with multiple points of view.
@CarterG81 I know you gather facts and links to reinforce your opinion all the time - and I find nearly all of the research you provide very informative and educational about your views.
However I have read several accounts from blogs and articles about developers desperately awaiting greenlight approval so they can start to see real sales results on there games. I would look for references - but I think it is a real waste of time looking for articles I've already read for someone else just to 'prove' they exist. If you don't believe me - that's your choice, but I don't BS. I'm just not that motivated to perform research for other people unless it is really helpful - like solving a problem, which I also benefit from.

However2 I do agree with you - selling on ones own site, and using other distribution channels in addition to steam is the best approach to maximize sales. But the comment about pretending others don't exist ignores what benefits steam DOES have over those other offerings - and the simple answer to that is mass population. More people frequent steam regularly than other offerings - and that is PART of the reason people will accept a 30% take on every sale.

Now - here is a link to show we are on the same side, but I also agree with other points of view that differs from yours.

 

If you say so, then I believe you. There is little reason for ppl to lie about articles theyve read. My skepticism is reserved for ppl who claim it is true without claiming to also have links. Theyre usually obvious bullshitters.

I am a bit naive & trusting, so anyone who claims evidence exists out there, I trust it is true. Afterall, we will know when we research. The truth will always reveal everything.

There is no doubt that Steam is the majority of salea for some games. My point isnt to boycot Steam, but to just do what is best. If the game is small, quick & easy type, then maybe exclusive Steam is fine. But I would honestly still sell suggest selling on your own site with steam keys. A basic, good looking site can be created in minutes. Distributing Steam Keys for sale is also quick with certain services. Win-Win for everyone.

Most of my advice is not for small games though. Never for mobile. I make exclusively bigger games that take a minimum of 6mo to years. Those need to build an audience before release, like many we have seen on TIG Devlogs. And I have seen way too many of those indies, on release day, be Steam exclusive, sending tens of thousands of dollars to Valve just because they couldnt take 10 minutes to setup a website or itch.io page.

It also hurts the industry. Itch.io's wonderful revenue share option wont ever become the norm if everyone scoffs at them & gleefully throws their money at Valve.

I just want the developer, not Valve, to get the money. Because it is the developer, not Valve, who did 99.999% of the hard work. Valve is a lazy, greedy, leeching service that uses basic automated systems to take a THIRD of every transaction. Even major banks, in all their hubris, dont try to charge more than 3%. And non-gamedevs absolutely hate that 3% like it is the plague. Arguably for good reason, as that is all automated too.

I guess I just think 30% for automation is ludicrous. At least Playstation & Xbox own the hardware. Much more justifiable to ask for 30%. But Valve doesnt own Windows or the PC. They just suffocated the competition until developers began pretending they do.

I care to protect the Developer, the Consumer, and the Health of the Industry. Not corporations.

 

I haven't joined in on this discussion in a long time, and come back to find it quite spicy, indeed!

@CarterG81, I have a lot of respect for your passion, your intellect, and your ability to compose data-driven posts that support your viewpoint (even if you tend to get a bit defensive in the process ). However, I lean towards the counterpoint in this case that it is a matter of opinion and preference.

I'm a full-time web developer and only work on my games as a hobby. So it should be fairly easy for me to set up a digital distribution system where I can rake in 100% of the sale price (minus whatever payment management system takes). However, if I get around to releasing a PC title, I don't think I'd have any interest in releasing it outside of Steam.

For each platform your game is available on, there is a non-negligible timecost associated with maintenance, extension, and testing. I assume there's a Steam API that gets integrated into your game to work with their platform. For builds running outside Steam, you'll either have to not include that API or test to ensure you've disabled or if/else'd your way around the calls in each case, right? And are there restrictions or security concerns in releasing that code outside Steam? I don't know. But the fact that I'd rather not worry about it is worth the cost to me. And what if you are relying on something Steam provides, like matchmaking or something? You'll have to roll your own systems in addition to utilizing their service, wouldn't you?

Additionally, if I were to add an update to the game, I have to manage that in two locations now as opposed to the one. Doesn't sound like much, but it's literally double the amount of effort on something I already have limited time for. Is it smart to do both? Sure. But if you have limited time and are trying to absolutely minimize the effort involved in maintaining a product, it's not an unwise move to limit what platforms you're using to distribute, either.

 

It would be fine to allow others to do whatevet they want, as it is their money afterall.

However, the health of the industry is hurt whenever a monopoly tightens its grip. So by other developers willfully deciding to donate a third of theor revenue to Steam, it indirectly harms all devs, consumers, etc.

And until I have enough wealth to build my own distribution platform to compete with Steam, I have little else besides my vocal passion, extremely limited public statistics, and a strong defense.

So while I respect everyone's opinion, as it is their revenue not mine, I do passionately wish the better for the industry.

 

I also appreciate everyone's comments in this thread. If I seem defensive or argumentative, it is mostly because I've had these arguments way too many times years ago, outside this forum. (And I took A LOT of heat for it in one dev community). So I appreciate everyone here, their respectful attitudes, and their disagreements/rebuttals. When I said I was done, it wasn't because of this thread, but because this topic is tiring for me to argue.

IMO it's great to have a discussion on the Pro/Con of distribution platforms, because in the end everyone will (hopefully) be doing their own research & making their own decisions, but the discussion can help us think about what is best for us as individuals.

Cheers!

 

I regret missing this part of your post & not talking about it more. I haven't heard someone say the flood gates haven't opened yet. But it makes sense.

I know very little about mobile, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Or give clarity if I'm right (I really know very little about the mobile scene. I had a flip phone for way too long, ha!)

From what I've read: Arguably even today Steam isn't even as bad as Android used to be. And the idea that it can get to as bad as Android is today? I've heard it is insane how flooded that market is. I even read people dissing the apple store (they were suppose to be harder to get into, I thought?).

If you're right though? That is pretty scary for a lot of indie developers who are already crying foul about discovery.

When TotalBiscuit did that video & basically made the claim the Steam bubble is over, it's just like how it used to be? That hit a lot of people hard. I even saw one developer with legitimate releases make a huge deal over quitting gamedev forever because of the Indiepocalypse articles. It was really sad moment for the /r/gamedev community, IMO. He had so much despair in his posts.

If it gets worse though for Steam discovery, perhaps that will be for the better. Maybe we will get more curated distributors, like GoG, or more consumer awareness of places like Itch.io. I'd love a variety of places to buy games from that don't all end up just being Steam keys.

I'd love to know what everyone thinks of what will happen if things get worse, or even IF things will get worse. I know too little about Android discovery to really give any input on the future of Steam if the flood gates haven't even opened yet. I figured it was already flooded / bad, and thus "back to the old ways of dying from lack of exposure", so I didn't contemplate that it could even get worse.

 

Well, as of today Steam Greenlight is gone, I am surprised I am the first on this thread to say anything about it. http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1265922321514182595

 

Yes, people are still debating something that seems to now be settled. The fee will be the same $100 as it was for Greenlight, but without the community vetting (read: no more trolls making false accusations) beginning a week from today. On the other hand, this also means that the same junk that has been clogging Greenlight will now clog the Steam store itself, which will create an Appstore-like problem (although at least it will limit repeat offenders since the fee is now per-title rather than per-account).

 

I would actually like some statistics on the ratio of games that are successful through this versus the ones that aren't. Basically Valve says they think that the low entry bar brings games of value, but based on what we see with greenlight that isn't really true - or at least is a wildly disproportioned claim.

I'm curious for more factual information.

 

As someone who is making a niche game, I am not at all upset over the death of Greenlight. I look forward to the future of Steam.

 

I'd wager the majority of the people crying foul over the situation are people who haven't yet and won't likely soon release anything. It's easier to criticize the industry than to finish your game! (not directed at you, @CarterG81... I know your situation!)

 

If you have a good game and you think the $1000 fee is a bad business decision, you need to hire a business manager. If you cannot afford to pay $1000 and you have a good game... put it on other sites to earn the $1000 and then put it on Steam.

 

They've announced the fee will be $100, not $1000. http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1265922321514182595

 

True, but I think the comment was in regards to the $1000 worth of sales before the $100 fee is given back to the developer.

 

Just read through. This is even better for hobbyists then I first thought. They will give me back the $100 I spent on Greenlight because the game didn't get through. I can then use that money for the Steam Direct fee. Pond Wars isn't ever going to be a hit. Its likely it will never even make back the Steam Direct fee. But distributing via Steam will still be nicer then the current alternatives.

Expect to see thousands of other hobbyist release games come up on Steam too. The change has basically opened up the market place to let anyone who has a full time job and makes games on the side participate.

I'm not sure if this change is good for gamers or the industry in general. But its certainly good for me. I haven't been this excited about an announcement since Unity 5 game out with full features for free.

 

It will be interesting for me this summer. My game is set to go on Steam on June 12, and then Steam Direct starts up on June 13.

It will be especially interesting to see how many additional games go onto Steam all at once this summer. There are thousands of games in Greenlight. I have confidence in Valve's algorithms, but it could be a very interesting summer.

 

Yeah, this will be perfect for hobbyists. In your case, you will get your $100 back from Greenlight. Then you will pay $100 for Steam Direct. Then when you sell $1000 worth of your game, you will get that $100 back again.

 

http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1265922321514182595

:-\

 

That was my thought as well - it's Christmas in June for me, but in the long run it will probably be bad for the Steam market because it's just going to dilute things even more, making it that much harder to actually get sales. It could also create a backlash among customers.

 

Painful, but it seems like a smart decision to me. Reading further it seems like you will be required to have a coming soon page for most of that time too. It will likely do a decent job at filtering out asset flips and stolen games. Ultimately Steam is still relying on community curation of the coming soon pages. But it still provides more planning certainty then greenlight around release dates and so on.

Really depends. I'm picking that Steam's algorithms will work the same way, only games that do well get pushed to the front of the store. So it will still require the dev/publisher team to do the initial legwork to get the word out there. Steam used to have a clause saying 'we will guarantee every published game so many views', which made sense under the old regime, but would be detrimental under Steam direct.

Basically I'm hoping for something like this for Pond Wars, which would make it ideal for me

• I publish the game on Steam Direct without too much effort, and paying the small fee
• I email the link to my game to a few mates, who can effortlessly add it to their existing library
• Steam never shows the game on any recommendation lists
• I never hit the payment threshold, Steam keeps the $100 fee and I never get a pay check

Basically I'm hoping Steam goes ahead and allows my low quality game on Steam, but never shows it to anyone who isn't already looking for it.

Having garbage on the platform doesn't directly imply they need to show people garbage on the platform.

 

30 days is... rough, but it's still something you can actually plan around instead of being at the mercy of a voting system that never really worked.

 

I'd agree, Steam isn't as bad as the app stores (yet / both of them).. What I want to see happen and what I believe happen are seriously disjointed. I'm pretty much on board with what you're saying..

From a completely non-cynical standpoint, the barrier to entry should be low.. Everyone should get an opportune chance to release a PC / Console game, they should get plenty of exposure if their product has been lovingly crafted with raw skill and talent. If I earn less because dev's have made better games then me, awesome! They deserve it.

From a more realistic cynical position, there will be so many games (probably quite a few pc re-releases of their more popular gamebashing mobile markets) it's going to do the exact opposite. I understand even a $100.00 is a lot of money to a lot of people, but I'd rather people suck it up for a higher one off fee and be able to earn a living out of it than pay $100.00 for their game to sink in a ocean.

Analytics can only work by so many functions like trending, purchases, genre, reviews, time played, general interest etc. etc. so if a new piece of crap title comes onto the scene which ticks that criteria, who's the unlucky SOB's that has to take the hit of on it first before the reviews sink it into oblivion? How many gamers are going to rage?

Reading indie articles it ain't peaches and roses out there anyway (from an indie perspective).. Some are saying, it's ok because you'll get exposure?

Out of 1 million / 5 million even 10 million games.. How much exposure exactly are you going to get? So we're back in the original state where marketing (which takes real money) and viral is the only real opportunity.. So why bother doing that via Steam that takes 30% cut? Plenty of hosting high bandwidth (cheap) web spaces out there. There's patch management / mod / DLC systems built into some engines (if that's a massive concern).

I think it's a matter of we'll see, but I hope I'm wrong.. I really do.!

 

You are a blind monkey
There was so many developers that created crap games full of achievements and earned a lot of money, may it be 50 or 200 but there was a lot of developers like that
Now think about it !
If you make thousands of dollars with 1 crap game just by achievements and a price of 1$ trust me, this comedy green light didnt even started yet.
It will start soon
100$ are nothing for this developers, they will develop everyday a new game and publish it. why? because they got enough money to make risks and one of 10 games will raise enough money to get the costs back + enough money to life with.
This was the dumbest valve ever could done, greenlight was good you needed to get votes but now you pay 100 bucks and your game is on steam.

 

Greenlight WASN'T good and you'd know that if you actually talked to anyone who bothered to try and use it.