-
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.
IGN: Steam's 30% Cut Is Actually the Industry Standard
- Thread starter AHA-Lambda
- Start date
Most people don't care, they didn't when this started and that has not changed.
Do you have any receipts?
I mean I like free games, so I hope the EGS survives for a long time.
Yes because the "its just another launcher" bullshit is so much more insightful and original.
My receipts are that they restrict access to their store only to hyped or sought after, exclusive games. Also their inability to add basic features to their store (cart, for example). And common sense.
I like free games, too, but it doesn't take a genius to tell that they're funding this effort with Fortnite cash.
- Steam wallet cards. Many people (especially in low-income markets) can only buy games through Steam wallet cards. Retailers take 15% from those cards so Valves cut is already 15% at that point and Epic can't even afford wallet cards and even takes money from the customer on specific payment methods.
- Steam gets 0% from purchases outside of Steam.
- That means their cut for a single game could be under 10% for games that are big in Asia and other wallet card-heavy countries (In some parts of Asia, over 90% of the customers are paying with "non-standard" payment methods that are pricier for Valve.)
I see it as customer acquisition. They need these partnerships in the beginning to bring people to the plataform, and these big partnerships is a way to do that. I would assume the gateway of entry will be lowered as they gain customers, or else im missing something here?
I have no faith that EGS will attempt to reach feature parity. I recall one of the higher-ups, maybe Tim Sweeney, saying that they don't plan to compete in features.
I mean, the above doesn't tell me anything. I mean we could say they got lots of money from Metro or borderlands... But the truth is, we do not know. So for the time being I guess they are doing at least what they expected.
More free games are always cool in my book!
Their whole shtick is, that they have a hundred millions customers ready to buy your game (Fortnite players) And how does the cut benefit the Big Publisher that can sell their games on their own store?
And the whole talking point about the cut is bs anyway. Those devs are "losing" a magnitude more money on markets that pay less for the copy. Should those markets also raise their prices to US standard prices so that the struggling indie dev and multi billion dollar companie get more money?
Far as I know "spend millions upon millions constantly to try and get games for the store and offer games for free while also selling product on razor-thin margins" is not a sustainable model.
Cool, I guess. Time will tell if this is sustainable, but in my opinion it's pretty obvious it's not. Otherwise the store would be open to anyone and all devs could live in this wonderful 88% cut Utopia.
Enjoy the free games while they last, I know I will.
it has to be the cutoff where anything lower and they would be losing money on each sale. Valve, with its much larger overhead costs (communities, discussion forums, workshop mods, losses from gift cards/devs generating keys at 0% cut, etc), can't cut this low without losing money on each sale.
Agree with point 1, that' s why the paying for exclusivity for customer acquisition. I really dont expect this to continue for a long period of time, they must be racking their brains there trying out ways t bring more people to the store without having to close these partnerships. Its bleeding money right now.
On the second point, I have no information to make an informed point, where I live the games get the taxes and all that, so its always on parity with the US MSRP prices if you make the conversion, so I dont really know how they handle that in markets that pay less, but again, the lower % still benefits the devs, less so, but its an improvement.
And I dont mind multi billion dollar companies making more, if that applies to smaller devs as well. From what im reading here it seems EGS focus on marketing is on the big ones right now, but I dont know how their dev ecosystem is, and how this marketing is tricking down to smaller games. It would be interesting hearing from a smaller dev that has steam and EGS experience and get a comparison from someone with real experience to share.
They have other revenue streams, we just cant see it. Partnerships with computer manufactures, local payment partners, things like that. The sponsor a creator program that encourages people to buy more v-bucks in fortnite must be bringing more money, but I agree, the perception is that right now its bleeding money. Its not sustainable for long. I just think we do not have the bigger picture.
I highly doubt 30% its the lowest of the lower cutout where they make minimal revenue only, and 1% lower brings them to negative revenue. specially with any other revenue streams they have that help make up for it. But im speculating.
Now they do, when they started it was just like any other new client.
When they started was 2004 when no one was doing it. I'd hope that whoever "joins" the clients today would at least be above 2004 standard.
OP
OP
Ok Tim, let everyone use your store instead of picking the lucky few. I'm ready to embrace your future
Im guessing the point it was a gradual step by step progression to this point, and EGS is at the start, so the assumption is that they will gradually introduce new things to get it closer to parity. But I agree that the they should have more functionality from the start then what they did, but I think the money was mainly held for customer acquisition.
I guess time will tell if their choices will be justified by the success or failure of the store.
And of course you take this up with every other dgital store because you're so actually serious about it!
Great post. I can't stress enough how important Steam Wallet Cards are for those living in poorer countries like mine. I know a lot of people who would've never gotten into this hobby (at least legitimately) without it.
It's so convenient and anyone can buy them at 7-Eleven. No credit cards, no bullshit conversion rates.
Valve and Sony will always have my respect for bringing proper support and regional pricing to Malaysia, unlike Microsoft, Nintendo and the billion other storefronts on PC.
So they have millions to spend on exclusively but it's a gradual process to get there launcher to beyond 2004 functionality?
Considering that we're talking about the makers of the Unreal Engine, it's a question that really shouldn't have to be asked. The fact that we are asking the question is a total embarrassment on Epic's part.
I find it surprising that it took that so long for that journalist to know about that fact. Like I was sure that this was common knowledge way before the whole Epic vs. Steam thing began.
Or at very least to state it openly instead of constantly implying the opposite.
Maybe their one year exclusivity just expired as well.
Not surprising, honestly. But still amusing.
Wouldn't Steam's cut "actually" be better than the the industry standard for bigger games though, becuase of the new revenue tiers?
Don't physical sales make less money for pubs / devs because they have to actually physically supply the product to retailers though?
Don't physical sales make less money for pubs / devs because they have to actually physically supply the product to retailers though?