-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
GamesIndustry: Google has no plans to lower its 30% cut on Google Play, "It's been the industry standard"
- Thread starter texhnolyze
- Start date
That's kinda what I meant... Fortnite isn't on the Play store (because of the 30% Google cut apparently) and they still don't seem to care enough to lower it. It'd have wider reaching implications that just games for Google, I guess. Its their standard cut for every app, every mtx, their music store etc. Fortnite's big but Google Play and Google's wider digital stores are a big deal too.
I seriously doubt Sony/Nintendo/MS would shoot themselves in the foot with a lower rate. Things will change once publishers all launch streaming services and can opt out of console publishing.
Yeah, I totally felt the extra cost in super meat boy, subnautica and axiom Verge.
Also, timed exclusives shut down competition now?
But if bothers you too much:
#goItchIO
Somehow a storefront with a variable cut manages to be sustainable.
Of course it relates to the market for the digital store. Every single consumer on that store (be it the apple app store, or PSN or XBL or the Nintendo eShop, or whatever) was brought into these markets via vast hardware and marketing reach-out. These are extremely capital-intensive, logistics-intensive operations that those gatekeepers are taking on, on behalf of software developers who want to sell to those end users.
The profitability of those activities in and of themselves (e.g. hardware profit) is not really that relevant (and it varies across a device lifecycle). They are big-spend, risky activities conducted by those gate keepers that enables huge digital commercial activity for devs/pubs - they're activities of the scale that even the biggest publishers wouldn't do by themselves. It is a (big) service for those pubs and developers. To look at the appstore or the XBL store in isolation, as 'just' a piece of software or storefront, and ignore the rest of the chain or view the rest of the chain as irrelevant to digital store activity on those platforms, is missing the bigger picture.
Last edited:
I knew Epic Games would factor into this, which is why I added them to my recent piece. Seriously folks, the same thing that applies to Steam, applies here. There's so much more than just a storefront here. The number of services and infrastructure in place, this is crazy. I'm all for developers making more money, but the stuff that is provided cannot be undersold.
I really want to see how Epic Games store status is in a few years out. When (if) Fortnite's success drops and they finally roll out all the missing features they said are coming. They're going to need to invest heavily and I would like to see their transparency when it comes to that. Hell, working at an MSP, I see how much infrastructure costs and that shit ain't cheap in the least bit. Not to mention people top maintain it, constant updates, coding changes, etc etc.
Yep, it's going to be interesting for sure.
I really want to see how Epic Games store status is in a few years out. When (if) Fortnite's success drops and they finally roll out all the missing features they said are coming. They're going to need to invest heavily and I would like to see their transparency when it comes to that. Hell, working at an MSP, I see how much infrastructure costs and that shit ain't cheap in the least bit. Not to mention people top maintain it, constant updates, coding changes, etc etc.
Yep, it's going to be interesting for sure.
Supply chain logistics, warehousing, physical boxes/manuals, storefronts, retail space, employees, overhead.. gone. The cut remains the same in the digital distribution future though.
I would be pretty shocked if Epic manages to change anything. Maybe a few percentage points, but companies like money so I doubt it. If anything, Epic's 12 percent cut is going up.
I could see Microsoft making a play for the sake of positioning themselves as the developers' friend, with the knock-ons that might have. But we'll see indeed.
But yes, absent that kind of competition, it'll be the disruption of the 'hardware service', or 'consumer infrastructure services' that these platform holders provide for publishers - via streaming or whatever - that long run would be the biggest threat to those revenue shares.
Actually, Itch.io's owner say they barely manage to break even.
And yeah, no cost with freebies. Duh.
Right, so as I said, you're putting unrelated costs to the addition as I said.
Everyone will say that 30% can't be negotiated until they lose enough marketshare to make it negotiable.
This is going to be as painful as the SNES -> PSOne transition.
This is going to be as painful as the SNES -> PSOne transition.
Designing and building the iPhone and getting it into peoples' hands is completely unrelated to their consumption of iOS apps - to the connection of the developer to the consumer? OK...
Except they said they would keep watching the trends. They never said no, they said not right now.
For Google to change to their stance, there needs to be a super duper player in the game to challenge them and there isn't. Nor will there be. Google owns the keys to the kingdom, so they can pretty much do as they please. This isn't the PC gaming space, more like a walled garden similar to the console space is.
Yes. Because Apple dont hand them for free. It has jackshit to do with their online storefront cut.
As an Android developer I'm fine with it. Google does a shit ton of work for me. Not that I don't wish Android Studio would get another complete overhaul, but I'm cool with it.
It's more of a side gig for me beyond my regular programming day job though.
It's more of a side gig for me beyond my regular programming day job though.
So if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that if Apple is at all profitable in other parts of the chain, it's not reasonable that they should argue for credit for the creation of the whole chain in the storefront link of the chain.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. IMO the storefront and the market attracted wouldn't exist without the rest of the chain.
(Side note: in terms of the cost or profit of the rest of the chain to Apple vs others, consumers or developers, none of the rest of the chain costs devs anything (if we exclude their registration fee, or macos dev hardware requirements, which i would agree they should drop). The store is the main place they ask for value from devs for the chain they've created, and that chain is more than the store.)
This is what I'm waiting to see. As it's either going to come down to either those promised features don't come, they do come and Epic takes a lose or the uptake forces them to up the cut %. Fortnite is the only real thing they have, outside of licensing the Unreal Engine (as far as non-store income) and that's not going to last forever.
The bigger picture is profitability. You're right, looking at the endeavor in isolation is wrong. Which is why the platform holders profits from all activities is important.
These mythical gatekeepers make plenty of money from more than just digital store sales. The console holders make licensing fees. They make money from hardware sales. They make money from selling cables, controllers, and online subscription fees. Those profits are significant, as Xbox Live, PS+, and Switch Online sales success has shown.
Platform holders aren't doing this on behalf of developers. They're doing it on behalf of themselves. And in a market with numerous platforms and numerous companies who'd be happy to break into the market as a major platform, overall profitability and operating costs of digital platforms and profit margins on services are all of interest to the consumer.
Last edited:
I dont pay more in Epic , as they are the only store beside Microsoft that provided regional pricing for me , While I pay $60 in other markets , Prices in Epic for me is less than %60 than other stores
Last edited:
Epics shortcoming are because they are new and have rushed the launcher. What will the excuse be when epic has the same features as other launchers, and still only take a 12% cut?
What does Google do to justify this cut?
You've been awfully talkative lately!
We shall see that when they will actually make something beyond a very basic storefront. For now it's mostly empty promises like that about how they are testing all the game released on their store.
What will be the excuse when they dont ? Because they already said they dont plan to match Steam in term of features.
They have the monopoly of the games and prices. Is means no more sites like GreenManGaming or Humble Bundle, or even sales like Steam.
They can improve all they want, costumers will remain losing.
Access to their market, Android studio, all of their API work, payment processing etc... are stuff I use as a developer.
Like I said though. Android development is a side deal for me vs my main job.
Here are some "excuses":
- Epic has had their launcher for a few years before their store yet it rarely improved. Why should i believe their store will be treated differently?
- Epic has a lower cut yet the prices of the games are higher in epic then other steam competitors. Why should i care about the store as a costumer if i'm treated worse.
- Epic store has been live 3 months and i haven't seen a major sale yet. I wonder if there will be aggressive sales like steam.
Personally epic is just worse in every aspect for me as a costumer. Why should i care about it?
And they charge a shit ton to make a profit from selling that "facilitation". Given their margins on "facilitation", why do they deserve to charge 30% on their store?
If we wanna compare amount of 'major' stores per platform (I'm spitballing here)
Apple: 1
Sony: 1 (maybe count GMG?)
Microsoft: 1
Nintendo: 1 (you can count Humble too, I guess?)
Android: 4 (being very generous here)
PC: 10+
Devs are always gonna want more gwap, and they're gonna target those last two first because they can actually negotiate more, meanwhile with the others it's basically yes or no
Apple: 1
Sony: 1 (maybe count GMG?)
Microsoft: 1
Nintendo: 1 (you can count Humble too, I guess?)
Android: 4 (being very generous here)
PC: 10+
Devs are always gonna want more gwap, and they're gonna target those last two first because they can actually negotiate more, meanwhile with the others it's basically yes or no
Of course. But we as consumers should be winning from the latter 2. The Epic store is not adding to that "win". The Epic store seems to regard consumers as a piece of meat, not something that has any agency in this transactional chain.
What does Valve do that earns the cut anymore than Sony or MS? Is it because they do 'PC gaming'
This. Dont like it.. dont buy the platform. Plenty of choice everywhere.
"It's been the industry standard" Is just a stupid, lazy argument. Many things that were standard have eventually changed. It's more like, "we don't have to change" than anything, If the day eventually comes when they do have to change this "industry standard" shit won't mean much.
How did this Google Play Store article go all the way back to Epic/Valve anyways
OP
OP
If we really want to go full pro developers, we really should go full digital. Digital give developers more revenue than physical games.
This is something we, the customers, can actually do. Not rooting at a corporation and hope for the best.
Exactly. Frankly, I don't think there'd be nearly as many apps available on modern devices had it not been for the ease at which you can publish apps on these platforms. No need to worry about payment processing, bandwidth, etc.
I think Xcode is better than Android studio. I wish it wasn't locked to MacOS. I'm also more of a C guy so Swift is nicer (to me than Java).
They also have done a ton of work like Google in terms of APIs and giving me as a mobile developer access to a shit ton of new features each and every year. Plus they do the usual of handling payment processing and distribution.
Like I said my only gripe is Xcode being locked to Macs. I like their language, APIs, and tools though as a mobile dev.
*Shrugs*
you just gotta utter those dirty words "30% industry standard"
Here's my question, because I don't think I've ever seen an actual argument for it, but what makes it an unfair cut? Why exactly is 30% too much, besides "i don't know it seems like it could be less?"