To a degree. But they've gotten much better, along with the tools, the avenues for marketing etc. Certainly the platforms help. But the number of offerings per year is ever increasing. Steam isn't coding games for people hey.
-
-
Replying to @GarethFouche @WinterwolvesG
Sure. Imho the increasing amount of releases calls for more curation, not less, though. It's certainly feasible for a industry-leading company, but they chose the hands-off approach. So the question is: if the deal changed, shouldn't the price change too? I dunno, honestly.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TomGrochowiak @WinterwolvesG
Is it more feasible? I've seen no proof of that. All big content delivery platforms, when they reach a certain size, have this problem. I've not seen an elegant solution to the problem anywhere, myself. I hope someone cracks it, but I don't think they have yet.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GarethFouche @WinterwolvesG
The consoles still do it. The Switch online store is looking a bit more like Steam these days, admittedly, but still has this minimal quality bar and manageable number of releases.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TomGrochowiak @WinterwolvesG
Consoles have higher barrier to entry though, with dev kits etc. Switch is still fairly new. Still in the early Gold Rush phase that Steam went through initially.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I just don't know if there's currently a good solution where some group doesn't feel like they're being denied a fair shot. Either not making it past the gatekeepers, or feeling like they're being screwed over by lack of gatekeeping.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @GarethFouche @WinterwolvesG
Yeah, I'm on the same page honestly. I personally would prefer more curation, but I dunno if that would really be better or even if I'd think so 10 years ago for instance.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
So it's like, there are two components to this discourse: First is if Steam's worth the 30% cut in general. To which I say I dunno. The other is should the cut change since the platform itself changed. To which I say I dunno but maybe perhaps? I'm a very decisive person!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TomGrochowiak @WinterwolvesG
The platform changing thing is a hard one. They could argue that there are more daily users on Steam than ever before, and they don't increase their cut for those numbers increasing. That it's our responsibility to convert those to sales. So yeah, dunno.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
I have a feeling that what's happened is that if you win on steam, you'll do better today than in the past. But also more likely to sink into obscurity. Wider range of outcomes.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
thing is 99% of modern indies never sold directly. Before Steam opened the floodgates, you'd make a lot more on Steam than direct. Now? Many indies who sold direct were earning more back then (before 2013-2014) than now on Steam
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Replying to @WinterwolvesG @TomGrochowiak
No doubt! But I'm not sure the existence of Steam makes any real difference to that trend. The internet seems to have gone that way for everything. Consolidation everywhere. Personal websites seem almost quaint, now.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.