I just discovered this article: http://www.gamesradar.com/toll-steam-trading-cards-take-indies/

It's two years old now, but it has a lot of insight into the Steam trading cards system.

9 years ago

Comment has been collapsed.

Can't believe I've read through all of that.
Anyway.. reading thro the article, it seems like only valve is taking percentage from sales of cards.. is that true? I thought devs of the game from which cards come from get at least some of the profit..

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't know, actually.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

it might be 10% for the developer, 5% for valve, & holy crap it's been 2 years of cards...

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes they do. In a brief look through my purchase emails the most expensive item I found was $0.20 for the card. On top of that the dev got 10% (0.02) and Valve took 5% (0.01)/ It appears the fees are always rounded down to the nearest full cent but are never 0. Meaning at a base cost of .19 the dev and steam both take 0.01, which is just over 5% each) and that is what the fees are all the way down (and why the lowest price anything is listed is .03)

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Bump because it is a good read!

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I find Sternbergs argument pretty strange.
What drives "whales" to trade particular cards? Profitability.
What determines profitability? Demand on cards.
What determines the demand to be for a particular game? Being interested in the game or in the art, isn't it?

So, in the end even people trading cards for profit only serve the demands of the market, which is still based on game/art appreciation.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think what drives the "whales" is a feeling that they need to collect them all or have as high of a Steam level as possible.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

the price & rarity of the game is the demand of the cards/price of cards, it has nothing to do with how good the game is

so when a game hits a bundle, the demand drops, oversupply of cards, prices drop

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Makes sense, thanks.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The article is incredibly outdated, commenting on the (perceived?) problems when trading cards were more expensive and when not every games could participate in the trading card system.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The concern that trading cards would become almost mandatory for indie games has essentially come true though.

Also, many foil cards are still expensive. Check out the foil card prices for Retrovirus (at the time of writing this, the most expensive is $36.45 USD).

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But now it's no longer an issue of "will my game be able to get trading cards?", because it will. It will get trading cards, and from what I can tell, all the things surrounding the trading card system (backgrounds, emoticons, the cards themselves) take as much effort to make as you're willing to put into it. Some games just slap a few concept art pictures into it, uses a few in-game icons and call it a day, other have long descriptions, unique art and a lot of effort put into it all.

As for card prices, it's really a different story altogether these days. Back then games sold because cards were expensive, these days cards are expensive because a game don't sell well. Retrovirus is one of those games that had the additional card-disadvantage of cards getting added long after the game was released (and bundled), so most people interested in playing the game would have already played it by the time cards got added, thus you only got a few people "creating" cards for it.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

True, but things have changes substantially nonetheless. The argument for a random card dropped from a random game selling for more than the game's price is completely moot now.

Also, the article seems to leave out the fact that cards are actually a (small, but still) source of income for the devs.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Completely moot? Retrovirus, the example I just gave, is $20 for the game. Buying games on sale and selling the cards for more than the price of the game has become common practice, too (see Despair's positive reviews if you don't know what I'm talking about).

It's true that the article is outdated, though. Part of what makes it interesting is seeing the concerns then and knowing how they played out so far.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

See my post above why the example of Retrovirus is entirely different from what the article is talking about.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How does it getting cards late make it entirely different from what the article is talking about?

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Because the article was mainly talking about games selling because of cards (thus giving those game that had cards an unfair advantage because people were buying those games for profit). That's an entirely different thing to what's going on with Retrovirus. I think this quite sums up what was going on back then pretty well

That being said, there are plenty of upsides, and Steam Trading Cards have done a lot for the success of the game. "I've definitely found more people buying it since we've added Steam Cards," says Sternberg. "Our day-to-day sales jumped to roughly double, and maintained being double what they were before, ever since we got the cards."

That's not at all why the Retrovirus cards are expensive, the cards are, as I stated above, expensive because the game did not sell well, and did not generate a whole lot of cards. The bit about it getting cards late added to the lack of cards because fewer people generated cards "naturally". Thus even lower supply->higher prices. If things worked like the article writer was saying at the point where Retrovirus got cards then we would have seen a sharp increase in sales for Retrovirus, which in the long run would have resulted in lower card prices for the game.

The closest thing that remains relevant today would be cases like Temper Tantrum. A game that, when on sale, can net you a profit from card sales, and that people bought for that very reason.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yep, completely moot. I know what you are talking about (Despair review: Bought for €0.09, sold trading cards for €0.12) and it's the result of the insanity of selling a game for 9 cents, but the sheer amounts of money involved are irrelevant. An average 10€ game will still have cards that are worth 10 cents or less, this is the key point.

But yeah, it sure was a nice read.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

ok? nvm i sell all my trading cards on community.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I thought this was a clear thing. Valve created trading cards to get people to buy more games, trade and sell, make profit from fees on the community market. People buy games just for cards and spend money on them, all for a virtual dick-measuring which will get you nothing but admiration from beggars.

9 years ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.