Steam

shikun · Post by **shikun** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:15 pm

will overgrowth be available on steam?

zamzx zik · Post by **zamzx zik** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:48 pm

loving the avatar.

Ozymandias · Post by **Ozymandias** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:59 pm

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes, it will be. But buying off of the official Wolfire site means all of the money goes to them as opposed to the majority to Valve.

Zhukov · Post by **Zhukov** » Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:03 pm

See that search button up there near the top of the page?

Under no circumstances are you to use that button. It may cause you to find something.
Same goes for the search function on the blog. Do not use it. I repeat, do not use it.

Untadaike · Post by **Untadaike** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:56 am

Nice

Assaultman67 · Post by **Assaultman67** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:06 pm

Ozymandias wrote:Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Yes, it will be. But buying off of the official Wolfire site means all of the money goes to them as opposed to the majority to Valve.

Really? Now im curious as to how much steam skims for distribution ...

I honestly have no idea how they could justify pocket over 50% of the money for each purchase ...

Untadaike · Post by **Untadaike** » Wed Oct 14, 2009 12:09 pm

Yeah, it sucks. Of course, the publicity is valuable. Overgrowth gets a place within the steam community. (Community?? Yeah... bathhouse, rome, naked people, steam...)

Endoperez · Post by **Endoperez** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:01 pm

Assaultman67 wrote:I honestly have no idea how they could justify pocket over 50% of the money for each purchase ...

Steam has lots of people using it. Less profit per sale but increased amount of sales, still makes more profit, depending on the numbers.
Digital distribution is big, these days, and making your own distribution channel would be A) expensive and B) pointless since it has no userbase. Steam's rates probably aren't worse than those of its competitors, plus it can do automatic updates and other fancy stuff (that might cost extra, though).
Also, how much do you think publishers and retail take from non-digital games? I'd be surprised if those two didn't take 50%.

Assaultman67 · Post by **Assaultman67** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:16 pm

It's different for non-digital games though ... they actually have production and distribution costs (making boxes, packaging, CD's/DVD's, employee wages and distribution) which probably adds up to a couple bucks per game

digital distribution however reduces production and distribution costs ... by a lot ... one server with a net connection could upload 100 of thousands (if not millions) of different games to different PC's ...

I just don't understand how a handful of people could work for a couple years on a project, then give it to another group of people who spends like a day (tops) uploading it to a server for it to be distributed ... then demand more than 50% of the profit ... LOL

BlackHole · Post by **BlackHole** » Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:41 pm

Okay, running a distribution network is a bit more complicated then that, but yeah, I agree that the percentages some distribution networks want of the profit is exorbitant.

- Black
Science is always wrong. It never solves a problem without creating ten more.

The Odd One · Post by **The Odd One** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:26 am

Probably, but in my opinion programs like steam run like advertisement hosting sites, if you want to host the game though there program you have to pay a fee but all the money that the game sell for goes to the people who made the game, but I don't know if this is true or not.

Count Roland · Post by **Count Roland** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 12:45 am

pretty sure they charge a percentage of the price for each sale. like OG is going for thirty USD they take away sixteen dollars per game which is to say a little over 50% but the developer still makes money because of the publicity added by it's being hosted on steam, and steam makes more money than it would if it charged a flat monthly rate and they can justify removing the game if it gets low sales, because that would mean they wouldn't be losing any money whereas the other way they'll be wasting space on a game no one's buying just because the developer's paying them a small amount, plus this way people with less money can afford to get on and steam gets more money that way as well, it's pretty well balanced in favour of steam. or w.e. distributor.

Eagle0600 · Post by **Eagle0600** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 2:42 am

The reason for this is simple: Because they can.

That's the way capitalism works. It doesn't cost Valve much to run, but it still earns the game companies more in sales than they lose. So the game companies will go to Valve paying what Valve asks. Because there really isn't much other option.

Speaking of the disadvantages of capitalism, you guys should look up "The Tragedy of the Commons". Interesting, true, and sad.

Endoperez · Post by **Endoperez** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 11:08 am

Assaultman67 wrote:It's different for non-digital games though ... they actually have production and distribution costs (making boxes, packaging, CD's/DVD's, employee wages and distribution) which probably adds up to a couple bucks per game

digital distribution however reduces production and distribution costs ... by a lot ... one server with a net connection could upload 100 of thousands (if not millions) of different games to different PC's ...

I just don't understand how a handful of people could work for a couple years on a project, then give it to another group of people who spends like a day (tops) uploading it to a server for it to be distributed ... then demand more than 50% of the profit ... LOL

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/s ... p?t=792047
"How does Steam make profit?"

A nick Bogito wrote an excellent post, with several numbers in it. I have no way of knowing if his numbers are guesswork or if he knows what he's talking about, but he seems to think he knows what he's talking about. There are several other good posts in the thread, but his is the first good one, so I suggest everyone here read at least that. Here's one particularly interesting part:

To clarify, when you buy left for dead (a Valve game) on steam for USD 45 Valve gets every dollar (but then has to pay their bills). If you buy the same game in a normal store Valve gets something like USD 15. If you buy Fear 2 on steam for USD 50 Valve gets from 5 to 20 dollars depending on the size of their cut.

If that number is correct, retail and physical costs take 30 out of 45 $ of the sale price. IF the game is sold on full price, which is probably won't. Some of the blog posts I've read about retail game market are the most important reason in me not wanting to become a game developer any more.

Valve takes a cut. A BIG cut. Less than retail, but then they also don't have to worry about storage etc. It costs a lot of money to keep Steam running, and most probably Valve still makes a direct profit, but it's still a great way to get games sold.

Assaultman67 · Post by **Assaultman67** » Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:44 pm

Endoperez wrote:If that number is correct, retail and physical costs take 30 out of 45 $ of the sale price. IF the game is sold on full price, which is probably won't. Some of the blog posts I've read about retail game market are the most important reason in me not wanting to become a game developer any more...

Let's start a game distribution company

Wolfire Games Forums

Steam

Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re:

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam

Re: Steam