From Steam Next Fest in October: Why Raising Steam’s Publishing Fee Has Become an Urgent Priority @Steam #indiegame #indiedev #IndieGameDev #ゲ一開発 #SteamNextFest by Vennol This is an article written by Vennol, a Chinese player, originally posted on the Heybox community. I believe it offers highly constructive discussion value. Since Vennol does not have an X account, I am reposting this on his behalf. During the October 2026 Steam Next Fest, the media preview page for the event featured 8,011 submissions, representing an over 60% year-on-year increase from the previous Next Fest. The event is flooded with low-quality games largely created with AI generation tools. Advances in AI tools and low publishing barriers have made it easier than ever to launch titles on the platform, yet players find it increasingly difficult to discover games worth playing. Steam must confront a critical question: does its game publishing policy formulated fifteen years ago remain fit for today’s rapidly transforming industry landscape? I. The History of the $100 Publishing Fee Steam’s $100 submission threshold was originally designed to curb invalid submissions. In 2012, Valve introduced a one-time $100 submission fee per developer for Greenlight, with proceeds donated to Child’s Play, to reduce low-quality entries. Payment only granted eligibility to participate and did not guarantee publication of the title. On June 13, 2017, Steam Direct officially launched. The new system offered developers a more direct publishing route via document submission, identity verification and release review, while setting the fee at $100 per new application. Products could qualify for a full refund of this fee once they hit the $1,000 revenue threshold. When Valve discussed the fee amount in 2017, it balanced two objectives: lowering barriers for new creators while preventing abuse caused by an overly low price. The company considered a range from $100 to $5,000, and internally leaned toward $500 at one point, before settling on $100. It planned to rely on recommendation algorithms and human moderation to improve discovery systems. This history shows that the $100 fee was a policy choice tailored to the market conditions of that era, not an immutable rule. The low fee was reasonably justified at the time. When the policy was formalized in 2017, VS Code had not yet launched Copilot code completion, image generation models were non-existent, and Google researchers had not published Attention Is All You Need. Independent game developers had to spend extensive time learning coding and creating art and audio assets. Game development was inherently costly. The low fee reduced upfront global publishing expenses for developers and prevented the platform from only accepting well-funded, well-connected teams. Still, the viability of any system hinges on the production methods it governs. If the cost of mass-producing and packaging games keeps falling, the deterrent effect of a per-title publishing fee against abuse must be re-evaluated. II. Industry Chaos Brought by AI Tools AI-assisted programming and content generation tools bring tangible benefits to game creation. Small teams can cut repetitive labor, and solo creators can pursue creative expression beyond their original skill limits. However, these tools also attract many untrained amateur creators who rapidly churn out games through wishful, superficial development workflows and release them without polish. Worse still, some actors exploit AI reverse engineering and automated pipelines to steal other developers’ work at scale. They treat the $100 publishing fee as a fixed development cost; as long as revenue exceeds $100, they turn a profit. The flood of low-effort releases forces players to shift their focus from finding games they enjoy to sifting through piles of shovelware to locate genuinely playable titles. The platform’s recommendation systems bear an increasingly heavy filtering burden and have hit their operational limits. Steam Next Fest has gradually lost its original purpose. III. Why Raising the Publishing Fee Is a Rational and Feasible Measure Low publishing costs shift filtering burdens onto others. A title’s release costs extend beyond the fee paid by developers. Players must assess whether marketing claims and gameplay match expectations; developers must compete for visibility amid similar store pages; the platform must process submissions, complaints and violation reports. When publishers bear minimal trial-and-error costs while most verification work falls on other parties, the low barrier transfers part of the burden to the entire ecosystem. A higher publishing fee can effectively curb mass-release practices. Consider this calculation: Developer A is a focused creator releasing one game per year. Developer B is an AI-driven creator releasing 100 games annually. At a $100 fee, Developer B only pays an extra $9,900 compared to Developer A. If the fee rises to $1,000: Developer A would pay an additional $900 versus the original policy. Developer B would face an extra $90,000 in costs. This drastically raises the operating cost for mass-release business models. A higher publishing fee pushes developers to take greater accountability for their products. Profit for a Steam game can be expressed as: Sales × Unit Price × Revenue Share − Publishing Fee. The fee is automatically refunded once Sales × Unit Price ≥ $1,000. With a $100 fee and a $5 price tag, a game only needs 27 sales to turn a profit. If the fee increases to $1,000, 200 sales are required for profitability. Sales volume generally correlates positively with game quality. Titles with low projected sales may no longer be viable to publish. The higher fee encourages creators to rigorously evaluate project positioning, content readiness and production capacity before paying the fee and finalizing release plans. It forces creators to answer earlier whether the project merits continuation and whether they can deliver on promises. Once paid, the fee becomes a sunk cost, imposing clear financial consequences for approving new projects. A moderate fee increase does not create a substantial barrier for developers. A tenfold increase to $1,000 is roughly equivalent to the price of a base-model iPhone, or about 7% of China’s annual per capita GDP. It is not a prohibitive sum for solo developers, and losses would not lead to severe financial harm. Furthermore, releasing games on Steam does not require developers to obtain special publishing qualifications such as version approvals or software copyright registrations. The requirement only asks creators to accept greater financial accountability for their releases. The 200-sale target for a $5 game remains a very low bar within the indie game industry. In short: if you lack confidence your game can sell 200 copies, you should not release an unfinished, low-quality product. IV. Why Genuine Independent Developers Are Among the Strongest Supporters of a Higher Publishing Fee For developers without famous branding who invest long hours in original design, iterative testing and ongoing maintenance, supporting a higher publishing fee follows clear self-interest: they need a marketplace that differentiates titles and encourages players to try unknown works. Lacking fame and marketing budgets, they rely heavily on this ecosystem. Carefully developing a game involves work that cannot be replaced by release volume. A puzzle must be tested for unintended solutions; combat systems require repeated tuning of feedback and stats; environments must balance artistic expression and performance. These efforts shape player experience but may not immediately show on store page artwork. When the platform incentivizes creators to grab attention by flooding the store with more entries, deep polishing becomes disproportionately disadvantaged. For these developers, the publishing fee is a predictable upfront expense. The marketing costs incurred to help their game stand out amid countless similar titles can compound endlessly. To distinguish themselves from copycat products, developers must create more showcase assets, contact more content creators and spend more time on outreach. This work is not worthless, yet if its primary goal becomes proving their existence amid repetitive content, creative resources are wasted. V. Steam’s Moderation and Recommendation Systems Should Not Be Used as an Excuse to Avoid This Policy Change A common counterargument claims that a precise recommendation algorithm will shield players from low-quality titles. Steam does allocate exposure based on player preferences, purchases and playtime signals, and official documentation outlines how new titles gain baseline and organic visibility. These systems are undeniably important, yet they require data to function — and gathering data demands real players invest their time. For new titles with no existing audience, algorithms must balance exploring unknown releases and recommending proven content. If new games receive no trial opportunities, new creators cannot build feedback; if opportunities are granted, some trial and error is inevitable. The growing volume of mass-submitted entries expands the scope of content to evaluate. Raising entry costs reduces speculative submissions, easing filtering pressure for players and the platform and improving matching between games and audiences. Moderation also has inherent limits. Steam explicitly states that build reviews for demos primarily verify functionality and promised features, not full quality assurance. Relying entirely on reviewers to judge whether each game is “fun” would substitute moderators’ personal taste for diverse player preferences, and experimental or niche titles could suffer as a result. Shifting the power to apply negative tags to community users would also likely create new governance issues. VI. Free-to-Play Games and Tiered Fee Structures Some argue non-commercial free projects cannot afford the publishing fee. The solution is straightforward: implement a tiered system, keeping the $100 fee for free games. There is no loophole risk for free titles with in-app purchases. All revenue from games published on Steam flows through Steam’s wallet system, and targeted oversight can effectively prevent exploitation. Conclusion Platform openness should connect valuable games to players. As content production grows easier, preserving this connection requires institutional adjustments to publishing scale, filtering burdens and creator livelihoods. There are ample justifications to raise the publishing fee, and Steam should push forward this reform promptly, using real-world outcomes to prove it serves both players and creators. Given current conditions, reforming the publishing fee is an urgent, indispensable priority. Let’s vote. This is only a poll; its results won’t tell us much.

Hey,#SteamNextFest , Stray Dog: nobody cares now get 70000 players cares! Thanks to everyone.

Just cherish the days when we learned about Unreal Engine and tried to create soul games. Please wishlist Stray Dog and wait silently for a while.

When a dog starts continuously pressing the deflect button. hesitation is defeat!

When a dog bite with a sword, it will find his path to its master.