Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

Given the issues with payment processors censoring legal content. I don't understand why Valve doesn't just start their own payment processor?

yes.. let valve just magically spawn a payment processing into existence. Let's forget how much resources, manpower, maintenance and upkeep just to keep stuff like that running.

not to mention how should it work? should they issue their own cards? will that require them to actually set up deals and work with banks for example.

it's a HUGE work to do it.

No. Valve should focus on their core business.

Originally posted by ChuTheMan:

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

Given the issues with payment processors censoring legal content. I don't understand why Valve doesn't just start their own payment processor?

yes.. let valve just magically spawn a payment processing into existence. Let's forget how much resources, manpower, maintenance and upkeep just to keep stuff like that running.

not to mention how should it work? should they issue their own cards? will that require them to actually set up deals and work with banks for example.

it's a HUGE work to do it.

Yes, it would a huge undertaking. I never said it would be simple. It would take a couple of years at least. But if we knew it was happening, I'm sure they would get a lot of support.

They have a framework already they can work from with the Steam Wallet. So it would be an iterative process about expanding the current functionality.

I would presume it would function something similar to ApplePay or GooglePay

It doesn't have to be a physical card per-say. You do get digital cards these days.

They have the money to back it, they have the technical capacity & they already deal with money management. So it would be more the hurdles around the legalese & government issues.

But again, just a speculative discussion to see what people's position is on this is.

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

I

Originally posted by ChuTheMan:

yes.. let valve just magically spawn a payment processing into existence. Let's forget how much resources, manpower, maintenance and upkeep just to keep stuff like that running.

not to mention how should it work? should they issue their own cards? will that require them to actually set up deals and work with banks for example.

it's a HUGE work to do it.

Yes, it would a huge undertaking. I never said it would be simple. It would take a couple of years at least. But if we knew it was happening, I'm sure they would get a lot of support.

They have a framework already they can work from with the Steam Wallet. So it would be an iterative process about expanding the current functionality.

I would presume it would function something similar to ApplePay or GooglePay

It doesn't have to be a physical card per-say. You do get digital cards these days.

They have the money to back it, they have the technical capacity & they already deal with money management. So it would be more the hurdles around the legalese & government issues.

But again, just a speculative discussion to see what people's position is on this is.

valve are not gonna go though all that just because a few gooner games can no longer be sold.

how many people are really gonna switch to a payment system that can ONLY be used on steam?

just because they have the money, doesn't mean they're willing to just throw money at kinda useless projects thats not worth it.

also how is it gonna work? how will you pay? how will you add money to your wallet? Use your visa/MC card?

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

They have the money to back it, they have the technical capacity & they already deal with money management.

The “they have the money” argument has always been exceptionally weak, especially when you can’t put a concrete number to how much it will cost and how much time and manpower it will take. Can hardly take suggestions like this seriously because the OP didn’t seriously consider the subject matter.

Originally posted by Knee:

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

They have the money to back it, they have the technical capacity & they already deal with money management.

The “they have the money” argument has always been exceptionally weak, especially when you can’t put a concrete number to how much it will cost and how much time and manpower it will take. Can hardly take suggestions like this seriously because the OP didn’t seriously consider the subject matter.

ofc another important number is also how much they will expect earning on it.

Probably not a lot to make up for all the cost, time and manpower.

Originally posted by ChuTheMan:

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

I



Yes, it would a huge undertaking. I never said it would be simple. It would take a couple of years at least. But if we knew it was happening, I'm sure they would get a lot of support.

They have a framework already they can work from with the Steam Wallet. So it would be an iterative process about expanding the current functionality.

I would presume it would function something similar to ApplePay or GooglePay

It doesn't have to be a physical card per-say. You do get digital cards these days.

They have the money to back it, they have the technical capacity & they already deal with money management. So it would be more the hurdles around the legalese & government issues.

But again, just a speculative discussion to see what people's position is on this is.

valve are not gonna go though all that just because a few gooner games can no longer be sold.

how many people are really gonna switch to a payment system that can ONLY be used on steam?

just because they have the money, doesn't mean they're willing to just throw money at kinda useless projects thats not worth it.

also how is it gonna work? how will you pay? how will you add money to your wallet? Use your visa/MC card?

It's gooner games for now, but whose to say where it will end?

Remember also Steam is moving into the OS sphere which as a much larger market capacity. If the wanted, the could go fully for becoming a licensed processor, which would obviously be longest most tedious route. They could partner with a less contentious processor? Or just create a closed-loop ecosystem. There a many other approaches that can be taken, but I'm not going to speculate as I don't work for Steam nor do I know how their business operates internally & what would work most favorably for them.

Though becoming a processor would permit them to not need to pay processing fees, which would/could reduce pricing on current products for one and the increased revenue would permit reinvestment into the platform itself.

No thanks, valve openly attempts to break consumer laws in most of the countries it does business in so they aren’t a company I would trust with payment processing.

Originally posted by Knee:

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

They have the money to back it, they have the technical capacity & they already deal with money management.

The “they have the money” argument has always been exceptionally weak, especially when you can’t put a concrete number to how much it will cost and how much time and manpower it will take. Can hardly take suggestions like this seriously because the OP didn’t seriously consider the subject matter.

Overall Speculative Cost

Upfront investment (first 3 years): $60M–$100M.

Ongoing annual costs: $25M–$50M/year.

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

Originally posted by ChuTheMan:

valve are not gonna go though all that just because a few gooner games can no longer be sold.

how many people are really gonna switch to a payment system that can ONLY be used on steam?

just because they have the money, doesn't mean they're willing to just throw money at kinda useless projects thats not worth it.

also how is it gonna work? how will you pay? how will you add money to your wallet? Use your visa/MC card?

It's gooner games for now, but whose to say where it will end?

Remember also Steam is moving into the OS sphere which as a much larger market capacity. If the wanted, the could go fully for becoming a licensed processor, which would obviously be longest most tedious route. They could partner with a less contentious processor? Or just create a closed-loop ecosystem. There a many other approaches that can be taken, but I'm not going to speculate as I don't work for Steam nor do I know how their business operates internally & what would work most favorably for them.

Though becoming a processor would permit them to not need to pay processing fees, which would/could reduce pricing on current products for one and the increased revenue would permit reinvestment into the platform itself.

good old "but what if"

Until they actually do make valve take down other games.. it's just random theories and doomsaying.

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

Originally posted by Knee:

The “they have the money” argument has always been exceptionally weak, especially when you can’t put a concrete number to how much it will cost and how much time and manpower it will take. Can hardly take suggestions like this seriously because the OP didn’t seriously consider the subject matter.

Overall Speculative Cost

Upfront investment (first 3 years): $60M–$100M.

Ongoing annual costs: $25M–$50M/year.

random numbers without any knowledge.
ofc i also don't know.

but I think valve have actual people with a better degree in business than us to tell them if its worth it or not.
random Idea men on the internet are not smarter than them.

Originally posted by Knee:

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

They have the money to back it, they have the technical capacity & they already deal with money management.

The “they have the money” argument has always been exceptionally weak, especially when you can’t put a concrete number to how much it will cost and how much time and manpower it will take. Can hardly take suggestions like this seriously because the OP didn’t seriously consider the subject matter.

Or let me consider the subject matter more:

Step 1: Estimate Steam’s Transaction Volume

Valve doesn’t disclose exact figures, but analysts estimate Steam grosses ~$8–$10B/year in game sales.

Add in DLC, microtransactions, Steam Marketplace, etc. — we’ll conservatively model $12B/year total transaction volume through Steam.

Step 2: Current Processor Fees

Typical card processing fees = 2–3% (let’s use 2.5% average).

On $12B, fees = $300M/year paid to processors.

Step 3: Valve’s Potential Savings

If Valve builds SteamPay and routes transactions internally:

They’d still have costs (compliance, banking, ops).

But if they save 1.5% net per transaction (after internal costs), that’s:

$12B × 1.5% = $180M/year in savings.

Step 4: Compare to Build Costs

Upfront build cost: ~$60M–$100M.

Ongoing annual ops cost: ~$25M–$50M.

Net savings after ops:

$180M savings – $40M ops (avg) = $140M/year net.

Step 5: Break-Even Timeline

If Valve invests $80M upfront and nets $140M/year in savings:

Break-even in ~7 months.

Even at the high end ($100M upfront + $50M/year ops):

$180M – $50M = $130M net/year.

Break-even in <1 year.

Step 6: Strategic Upside

After break-even, Valve effectively generates $130M–$150M/year extra profit.

Plus: no censorship risk, faster refunds, developer goodwill, and platform lock-in if developers prefer Steam for payment reliability.

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

Originally posted by Knee:

The “they have the money” argument has always been exceptionally weak, especially when you can’t put a concrete number to how much it will cost and how much time and manpower it will take. Can hardly take suggestions like this seriously because the OP didn’t seriously consider the subject matter.

Or let me consider the subject matter more:

Step 1: Estimate Steam’s Transaction Volume

Valve doesn’t disclose exact figures, but analysts estimate Steam grosses ~$8–$10B/year in game sales.

Add in DLC, microtransactions, Steam Marketplace, etc. — we’ll conservatively model $12B/year total transaction volume through Steam.

Step 2: Current Processor Fees

Typical card processing fees = 2–3% (let’s use 2.5% average).

On $12B, fees = $300M/year paid to processors.

Step 3: Valve’s Potential Savings

If Valve builds SteamPay and routes transactions internally:

They’d still have costs (compliance, banking, ops).

But if they save 1.5% net per transaction (after internal costs), that’s:

$12B × 1.5% = $180M/year in savings.

Step 4: Compare to Build Costs

Upfront build cost: ~$60M–$100M.

Ongoing annual ops cost: ~$25M–$50M.

Net savings after ops:

$180M savings – $40M ops (avg) = $140M/year net.

Step 5: Break-Even Timeline

If Valve invests $80M upfront and nets $140M/year in savings:

Break-even in ~7 months.

Even at the high end ($100M upfront + $50M/year ops):

$180M – $50M = $130M net/year.

Break-even in <1 year.

Step 6: Strategic Upside

After break-even, Valve effectively generates $130M–$150M/year extra profit.

Plus: no censorship risk, faster refunds, developer goodwill, and platform lock-in if developers prefer Steam for payment reliability.

again, random numbers.

valve have the numbers, they have people hired for business stuff who are smarter than you and me.
If it really was that profitable, they will or would have made it. There is nothing we can say that can change what they wanna do/make.

Originally posted by ChuTheMan:

again, random numbers.

valve have the numbers, they have people hired for business stuff who are smarter than you and me.
If it really was that profitable, they will or would have made it. There is nothing we can say that can change what they wanna do/make.

It's not random, it's speculative.

Anyway, you are correct that they will do what they will. This was just meant to be a "friendly" discussion to gauge interest, opinions & share thoughts.

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

Originally posted by ChuTheMan:

again, random numbers.

valve have the numbers, they have people hired for business stuff who are smarter than you and me.
If it really was that profitable, they will or would have made it. There is nothing we can say that can change what they wanna do/make.

It's not random, it's speculative.

Anyway, you are correct that they will do what they will. This was just meant to be a "friendly" discussion to gauge interest, opinions & share thoughts.

I do get you. But its a topic thats already been posted like a million times.

And my thoughts is that it's probably not worth it for valve. They just had to remove a few gooner games (which didnt add much anyways)

Originally posted by ChuTheMan:

Originally posted by d.a.t.a:

It's not random, it's speculative.

Anyway, you are correct that they will do what they will. This was just meant to be a "friendly" discussion to gauge interest, opinions & share thoughts.

I do get you. But its a topic thats already been posted like a million times.

And my thoughts is that it's probably not worth it for valve. They just had to remove a few gooner games (which didnt add much anyways)

Not only not worth it but entire system also has additional rules, regulations etc. Let's say Valve spend money to create payment processor and suddenly banks decide that they don't want particular genre of games to be associated with them.

Then what? Valve let's create your own bank?