• 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.

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,988
Texas
EGS at 12% is trying a new structure to see if it works for them, if t does, maybe valve was taking more then they needed for higher profits all along?
We're talking about a store than can't even get a cart set up, that leaves the question of cloud saves up in the air on a game by game basis, whose entire existence is backed by revenue from one of the most popular games of all time and most certainly is not paying for itself.
 

ArmGunar

PlayStatistician
Member
Oct 30, 2017
6,527
Can someone post the image from Ubisoft about the breakdown of a digital and physical game price please ?
 

XR.

Member
Nov 22, 2018
6,578
1 - Its funny to say something is industry standard when its the industry that sets the standard.
2 - EGS at 12% is trying a new structure to see if it works for them, if t does, maybe valve was taking more then they needed for higher profits all along? Which is ok until you have someone else that shows a different way, then you need to adapt, not try to further justify it.
A race to the bottom seems like a great way to ruin the industry.
 

Madjoki

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,230
Can someone post the image from Ubisoft about the breakdown of a digital and physical game price please ?

This?

CRimaWV.png
 

Deleted member 4346

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
8,976
We know. Epic doesn't care. They want to lower it to fuck with Valve. I say, let them fight.

The problem is that it has not benefited consumers yet, and it probably never will. It's not like EGS has resulted in lower prices. Borderlands 3 is $59.99 regardless of Epic's "smaller cut". The truth is that Epic Games isn't competing for the consumer, they are pursuing this loss-leader strat of moneyhatting publishers. And it's even been a mixed bag for publishers, I mean Control flopped, Metro Exodus saw reduced PC sales, the jury is still out on BL3...
 

Kerotan

Banned
Oct 31, 2018
3,951
The console makers cut is going to survive a lot longer than Steams. It's a very different situation because they have a captive audience.
And also the fact they produce the hardware their players play on. It can be very risky and we've seen with past consoles being very costly on the manufacturers.
 

zoltek

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,917
Everybody already knows this OP. That was one of Epic's selling points for its store (whether they are being truthful or not).
 

Deleted member 1849

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,986
And with that 30% cut what has Valve accomplished? More DOTA skins? Lol.
Proton/Steam Play, Steam Input, a huge amount of investment into VR, Steam Workshop, a huge amount of investment into a wide variety of FOSS projects ranging from SDL2 to the Mesa project, their free cross platform multiplayer API which is now allowing games like Divinity OS2 to share saves with the Switch version, etc.

They have done more for PC gaming than literally any other company, and none of that would have happened if it wasn't for that cut.
 

Falchion

Member
Oct 25, 2017
40,917
Boise
Yep it's been the standard for ages and Epic is using the lower cut to try and help them breakthrough which makes sense.
 

Komo

Info Analyst
Verified
Jan 3, 2019
7,110
Lets not forget Humble Bundles Widget which valve lets you use for free, and you get 95% of the cost.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
The whole point of competition is to undercut the other guy, not necessarily to "be better". This is doubly true in the tech industry as a whole, where even non-digital goods and services are being undercut by a reluctance to regulate companies that have online infrastructure like Uber, Airbnb, etc.

When people say the EGS problem is a problem of capitalism, they mean that this is how capitalism works, and most industries have this problem; it's just that the EGS issue doesn't affect people who are too poor to complain this loudly to being with, since gaming is a hobby for the relatively privileged in comparison. It also means that the problem that EGS's existence highlights is not one that can be fixed by EGS ending or, by the same token, Steam ending.
 
Oct 25, 2017
22,378
Yep it's been the standard for ages and Epic is using the lower cut to try and help them breakthrough which makes sense.
They are not tho.
Developers aren't putting their game on the Epic store because of the lower cut. They do it because Epic pays them.
And the one that might want to put their game on Epic's store because of the cut can't unless they are part of a chosen few.
 

Deleted member 1849

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,986
Also, I just want to remind people:

The store with the best developer cut is not Epic. It's Itch.io. They default to 10% but allow you to literally set whatever cut you want. Even 0% if you are a bit of an asshole.
 

Browser

Member
Apr 13, 2019
2,031
We're talking about a store than can't even get a cart set up, that leaves the question of cloud saves up in the air on a game by game basis, whose entire existence is backed by revenue from one of the most popular games of all time and most certainly is not paying for itself.

Sure, that is why I said "trying a new structure". These days revenue is not only through selling things, but on may other partnerships and revenue streams. If it proves to be unsustainable for a long period of time, they may drop it, increase the share to make up the difference, etc, but I dont realy see the bad in having a structure that pays more for devs. They need to fix the kinks, sure, but surely this base structure is a positive?

A race to the bottom seems like a great way to ruin the industry.

Why would more money going to devs ruin the industry?
 

XR.

Member
Nov 22, 2018
6,578
Sure, that is why I said "trying a new structure". These days revenue is not only through selling things, but on may other partnerships and revenue streams. If it proves to be unsustainable for a long period of time, they may drop it, increase the share to make up the difference, etc, but I dont realy see the bad in having a structure that pays more for devs. They need to fix the kinks, sure, but surely this base structure is a positive?



Why would more money going to devs ruin the industry?
Because you're inherently ruining the platforms they're sold and consumed through.
 

thepenguin55

Member
Oct 28, 2017
11,797
I had to do some googling to check some of the store timeline, so Uplay was released July 2012 ( and June 2011 for Origin ) .

Since, the stagnating Valve introduced :
Aug 2012 - Steam Greenlight
Dec 2012 - Steam Market
Sept 2012 - Steam Big Picture
May 2013 - Steam Trading cards
Sept 2013 - Steam Family Sharing introduced
Nov 2013 - User review system
May 2014 - Steam Home Streaming
Sep 2014 - Discovery Update introducing the Curator system
Jan(?) 2017 - Steam Input
Jun 2017 - Steam Direct
Aug(?) 2017 - OpenVR
Mai 2018 - Steam Link for Android
Aug 2018 - Proton

I didn't take time to add some smaller stuff like the second Discovery update giving users more control over what titles they want to see or ignore within the Steam Store, the updated review system, the refund policy ( europe(?) didn't give them much choice ), smaller-ish update to SteamVR ( steam home and the like ), on the friend list, etc.. might have forgotten some things thought ( or valve did nothing but swim in their pool of money during 2015-2016, which is a possibility ).

In comparison, I'd like someone to list what Origin and Uplay did other than release their own exclusive titles to their store. I'll be honest I use them so little I wouldn't even know where to start.

How much of a cut would it take for Valve to kill Steam Market, Steam Trading Cards and the User Review System? 35%? 40%?
 

Dog of Bork

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,988
Texas
Why would more money going to devs ruin the industry?
If "more money to devs" means more money to a small fraction of selected devs whose games are chosen based on their popularity on pre-order lists of other platforms, maybe you have a point. EGS is giving more money to a few devs and forbidding everyone else from using their storefront. Devs aren't welcome to release on EGS without exclusivity, and only a tiny fraction of devs even get that opportunity.

If this was a sustainable practice the store would be open.

The only thing driving sales on EGS over other, more feature rich platforms is exclusivity.
 

Bricktop

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,847
Welcome to the party IGN! No shit, we all knew this and it's irrelevant. Standards change. 80 work weeks used to be standard, too.
 

Browser

Member
Apr 13, 2019
2,031
Because you're inherently ruining the platforms they're sold and consumed through.
In what way is this new % ruining Steam, or EGS itself?
What functionalities and services does steam offer at 30% that EGS does not at 12%, and are those services and functionalities worth the extra 18% not going to companies who could use it to be able to create more games?
 

Ascenion

Prophet of Truth - One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,081
Mecklenburg-Strelitz
So out of a $60 purchase roughly $18 is going to the retailer. Hmm. I can see why digital is more appealing. At least that way you skip the additional licensing fee paid to platform holders on top of the store cut, as well as the money involved in distribution and returns (yes bad games get sent back, Walmart isn't here to stock things that don't sell).
 

BigBlue

Alt-Account
Banned
Jun 6, 2019
203
So because everyone else does it, it's 100% okay that steam does it?

We been knew the 30% cut. EGS's whole selling point is that it gives more to developers by taking a much much lower cut
 

Moebius

Member
Oct 28, 2017
5,384
It would be nice if creators got a bigger cut. We'll have to see how this shakes out. No doubt it would potentially allow devs to make better games if they had more return.
 

TitanicFall

Member
Nov 12, 2017
8,263
You might say that the industry is overdue for a price hike. $60 will become $70. If the storefront holders don't want to lower their cut then it's the consumers that will have to pay up.
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
12,772
So because everyone else does it, it's 100% okay that steam does it?

We been knew the 30% cut. EGS's whole selling point is that it gives more to developers by taking a much much lower cut
The reality of EGS though is that it gives more to developers by cutting deals with select studios to pay for their games to be on the platform. A direct comparison between Steam isn't really possible because there's no way for a small dev to just hop on EGS and start taking their 88%.
 

Deleted member 11413

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
22,961
So out of a $60 purchase roughly $18 is going to the retailer. Hmm. I can see why digital is more appealing. At least that way you skip the additional licensing fee paid to platform holders on top of the store cut, as well as the money involved in distribution and returns (yes bad games get sent back, Walmart isn't here to stock things that don't sell).
Eh, retailers aren't really mass sending back product that doesn't sell well, they clearance it, don't order more, and move on.
 

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
Also, I just want to remind people:

The store with the best developer cut is not Epic. It's Itch.io. They default to 10% but allow you to literally set whatever cut you want. Even 0% if you are a bit of an asshole.

For small developers, itch is as close as you can get to direct support through a purchase. I strongly encourage more people to use itch.
 

Hektor

Community Resettler
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,884
Deutschland
You might say that the industry is overdue for a price hike. $60 will become $70. If the storefront holders don't want to lower their cut then it's the consumers that will have to pay up.

Publishers will raise the price of their games when they have a good chance at doing so regardless of platform cuts.
That is why you don't give corporates a single, fucking quarter.
Because they ARE going to get their quarter anyways, and if you surrender they'll just take two.
 
Oct 25, 2017
11,251
In what way is this new % ruining Steam, or EGS itself?
What functionalities and services does steam offer at 30% that EGS does not at 12%, and are those services and functionalities worth the extra 18% not going to companies who could use it to be able to create more games?

Universal controller support and button remapping, Linux support, a game sharing system, a built-in mod browser, in-home streaming, robust community features, and an alternate couch gaming-friendly UI, just to name a few.
 

Arex

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,496
Indonesia
EGS is just being disruptive because they can afford to and they have to really, in order to try to compete with Steam.

imho the cut needs to be sustainable to both the client and the devs, and 12% seems very low / unsustainable for the client side.
 

Browser

Member
Apr 13, 2019
2,031
Universal controller support and button remapping, Linux support, a game sharing system, a built-in mod browser, in-home streaming, robust community features, and an alternate couch gaming-friendly UI, just to name a few.
So the worry here is that if steam feels the pressure (pun intended) and drop their percentage, the support for all this you listed will disappear from steam and EGS will feel no need to introduce these functionalities for parity with steam to try and secure more customers?
 

OmegaX

Member
Oct 28, 2017
4,119
The problem is that it has not benefited consumers yet, and it probably never will. It's not like EGS has resulted in lower prices. Borderlands 3 is $59.99 regardless of Epic's "smaller cut". The truth is that Epic Games isn't competing for the consumer, they are pursuing this loss-leader strat of moneyhatting publishers. And it's even been a mixed bag for publishers, I mean Control flopped, Metro Exodus saw reduced PC sales, the jury is still out on BL3...
Control was gonna flop regardless. At least, they got money upfront for it.
People rushed to buy Metro on Steam while it was still possible. Maybe the third game of the trilogy was always going to be less successful.
Didn't they say BL3 was doing great?
I'm just saying that me as a consumer don't feel the need to defend Valve on this. I'd rather watch from the sidelines how the market changes and adapts. PC market has been a race for the bottom for years thanks to Steam sales. Maybe it was already doomed to fail? Who knows?
 

Kyougar

Cute Animal Whisperer
Member
Nov 3, 2017
9,354
1 - Its funny to say something is industry standard when its the industry that sets the standard.
2 - EGS at 12% is trying a new structure to see if it works for them, if t does, maybe valve was taking more then they needed for higher profits all along? Which is ok until you have someone else that shows a different way, then you need to adapt, not try to further justify it.

If it would work for them, they wouldn't pay devs to make their games exclusive on their Store.
And what about the devs who have their own store where they get 100% of the money? Why go to EGS if you can bring home 100% instead? Spoiler: it was never about the Cut