Some interesting industry news for you here. Epic Games have announced a change to the revenue model of the Epic Games Store, as they try to pull in more developers and more gamers to actually purchase things.
Epic Games is the same Source Developers behind Unreal Engine 5. UE5 is arguably the best game engine right now for modern graphics.
Epic Games Unreal Engine 5 is Free to start developing and only kicks in commission after X% of sales.
Both Steam and GoG take a ~30% commission on all game sales.
Steam games aren’t DRM-free (neither is EGS, but 0% + the driving force behind UE5?)
The Steam Source 2 Engine is proprietary; only their team can develop Source games.
It sucks that EGS is looking to suck up games, customers, data, etc. Their App / Interface also kinda sucks. UE5 on the other hand kinda rules, and Steam has been quietly collecting cheques while their Source Engine has collected dust. Almost all my games are on Steam but the ones I want to keep I’ve been getting through GoG. Steam is going to have to make some tough decisions I think to compete as time goes on. GoG on the other hand has a solid business model of old DRM free games.
Could you point to these games or any documentation on how a developer may reach out to Valve regarding developing in the Source 2 Engine?
I was able to find sources for the Source engine, but not Source 2 which Valve has been primarily making games on in the last 10 years. In any case, neither are as widely supported or available as UE5.
I would argue UE5 enables and encourages bad development practices that lead to the unoptimized mess that “modern graphics” games are right now. Their work is cool, but so many games rely on temporal aliasing for in-game effects now, and UE5 is the common denominator.
Steam and GOG have a strong history and userbase. 0% commission is nice, but Steam in particular offers a world of more value than Epic Games Store, including but not limited to a usable fucking user interface (I use Rare to play my EGS library because it’s so bad).
Steam games are DRM free unless you consider Steam itself a form of DRM. DRM is implemented by the developers of the game, not by the marketplace it’s sold on.
And I find it strange that you think GOG has a better business model than Steam and will be more competitive long-term. Why do you think so?
I find it strange that you think GOG has a better business model than Steam and will be more competitive long-term. Why do you think so?
Steam is it’s own DRM system. Control (2020) is a perfect example. You can’t run that from your steamapps folder due to Steams DRM to verify a purchase license. GoG on the other hand has the same game, usually cheaper, an runs entirely independent of any platform. Not every Steam game is like this, but most major releases are.
The nice thing about a “Free” Engine is that anyone can pick it up. This means the more people pick it up, the more tutorials, the more docs, the most common issues are found, the more common solutions, etc. So while you believe that performance is an issue, it really is one of the better available engines out there and it can only get better. Again, Steam does not let other people use their Engine - what’s the next best free thing - Unity?
Yet Steam has a history that proves they will not fuck customers over, and if they try new features people hate they’ll not pushing it through no matter what for the purpose of maximizing profits (also not through dark patterns). This is something phenomenally rare and which you can’t buy with any amount of money.
So yeah, not sure what will happen in the future. But competing with Steam always will be just painful unless you got your own niche (like GOG) by the mere fact that Valve isn’t “just another company that will screw you over” <-- the default expectation these days.
You do realize the market share of GOG is about 0.5%, right? That’s despite Projekt Red being a beloved developer, the great launcher features, the fairest DRM practices, many years in the business, and so on. It only proves the point that Steam is a monopoly that cannot be disrupted whether you do it nicely like GOG or aggressively like Epic.
I’m not aware of any evidence of Valve’s cut ever adapting to a dev’s circumstances. It’s 30% until they’ve made $10M, which drops it to 25%, and to 20% after $50M. I’d call that scalability available only to the most successful few, not flexibility.
A lot of Steam Stans here.
Here’s some neat facts:
It sucks that EGS is looking to suck up games, customers, data, etc. Their App / Interface also kinda sucks. UE5 on the other hand kinda rules, and Steam has been quietly collecting cheques while their Source Engine has collected dust. Almost all my games are on Steam but the ones I want to keep I’ve been getting through GoG. Steam is going to have to make some tough decisions I think to compete as time goes on. GoG on the other hand has a solid business model of old DRM free games.
Source 2 is closed source, however it’s absolutely available to third parties. There are a couple non-Valve Source 2 games in development right now.
Could you point to these games or any documentation on how a developer may reach out to Valve regarding developing in the Source 2 Engine?
I was able to find sources for the Source engine, but not Source 2 which Valve has been primarily making games on in the last 10 years. In any case, neither are as widely supported or available as UE5.
I would argue UE5 enables and encourages bad development practices that lead to the unoptimized mess that “modern graphics” games are right now. Their work is cool, but so many games rely on temporal aliasing for in-game effects now, and UE5 is the common denominator.
Steam and GOG have a strong history and userbase. 0% commission is nice, but Steam in particular offers a world of more value than Epic Games Store, including but not limited to a usable fucking user interface (I use Rare to play my EGS library because it’s so bad).
Steam games are DRM free unless you consider Steam itself a form of DRM. DRM is implemented by the developers of the game, not by the marketplace it’s sold on.
And I find it strange that you think GOG has a better business model than Steam and will be more competitive long-term. Why do you think so?
Steam is it’s own DRM system. Control (2020) is a perfect example. You can’t run that from your steamapps folder due to Steams DRM to verify a purchase license. GoG on the other hand has the same game, usually cheaper, an runs entirely independent of any platform. Not every Steam game is like this, but most major releases are.
The nice thing about a “Free” Engine is that anyone can pick it up. This means the more people pick it up, the more tutorials, the more docs, the most common issues are found, the more common solutions, etc. So while you believe that performance is an issue, it really is one of the better available engines out there and it can only get better. Again, Steam does not let other people use their Engine - what’s the next best free thing - Unity?
Yet Steam has a history that proves they will not fuck customers over, and if they try new features people hate they’ll not pushing it through no matter what for the purpose of maximizing profits (also not through dark patterns). This is something phenomenally rare and which you can’t buy with any amount of money.
So yeah, not sure what will happen in the future. But competing with Steam always will be just painful unless you got your own niche (like GOG) by the mere fact that Valve isn’t “just another company that will screw you over” <-- the default expectation these days.
You do realize the market share of GOG is about 0.5%, right? That’s despite Projekt Red being a beloved developer, the great launcher features, the fairest DRM practices, many years in the business, and so on. It only proves the point that Steam is a monopoly that cannot be disrupted whether you do it nicely like GOG or aggressively like Epic.
Gog doesnt support linux or id look at them. But they also charge 30%
From what I’ve been hearing, their fee is flexible. 30% is uncommon on PC.
So is valves. Shrug. Simply using the publicly available information.
I’m not aware of any evidence of Valve’s cut ever adapting to a dev’s circumstances. It’s 30% until they’ve made $10M, which drops it to 25%, and to 20% after $50M. I’d call that scalability available only to the most successful few, not flexibility.
That is a dynamic rate by definition, not saying its perfect. But its available to any dev whos game hits those numbers.