Tim Sweeny: Soon you will see lower prices on Epic Games Store

Crayon · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
If the cut doesn't provide value for me on the part of Valve, devs will create this value through other means that I care more about: video games.

The amount of dollars that is redistributed to create games, jobs and opportunities will be more valuable and will be better for everyone involved from consumers to the people working in the industry. The social value is much higher through redistribution than centered around one company.

Valve uses their money to develop and provide all kinds of tools for developers RIGHT NOW. Tools and technologies that make it easier to make, sell, and maintain games. There's no way that doesn't leave two more, better games for me to choose from. And again, to emphasize, that is happening right now. It's been happening.

Also, they forfeit a lot of their cut so that resellers and small publishers/developers can do business independently, and compete on prices. Prices lower than MSRP.

These are tangible, specific benefits right now. the way you're describing things getting better to you with a lower cut, is beyond vague and I can see will never be measurable.

Fadewise · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
If the cut doesn't provide value for me on the part of Valve, devs will create this value through other means that I care more about: video games.

The amount of dollars that is redistributed to create games, jobs and opportunities will be more valuable and will be better for everyone involved from consumers to the people working in the industry. The social value is much higher through redistribution than centered around one company.

Dreamboum said:
As I said, it's commendable. It's not worth that much a cut at the expense of developers.

And I can still think that EGS is doing a lot of things wrong and Tim's trickle-down bullshit sucks.

I think the root of much of the angst regarding the EGS is specifically that almost the entirety of the value of it to developers has come at the expense of value to consumers.

Demacabre · May 3, 2019

Shogun said:
You do know you can find everything you want on the first page right?

Okay

I looked at this and did some napkin math and that's worth a 24.87% cut at MAX. And even that is highway robbery.

On other storefronts though, 30% sounds just fine because... reasons.

Dreamboum · May 3, 2019

Mass_Pincup said:
What are you basing yourself to say that it's not worth that much of a cut ? 20? 10? 5?

Also what cut would be worth it?

I don't know what cut would be worth it to be perfectly honest. I don't think anyone has the means to calculate it other than accepting that 30% is an industry standard or whether or not Epic can sustain itself out of the cut they've provided (and even then it comes with some caveats). I do think that Valve is doing a much better job than most in the same space, but the general discontentment of devs about the cut makes me believe that they haven't provided a good argument as to why they deserve it.

Valve gets the flak because Epic is challenging them and it isn't a closed-off environment, if it was me I'd go for consoles and mobile space the most, but it is what it is.

GhostTrick · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
Other digital stores are wilding too! Why are you so defensive about it? EGS is challenging Valve, just like they're challenging Google with their own fortnite delivery system to phones (that's what i think they're doing anyway). That's why people are talking about it in relation to Valve. That they're offering more features isn't going to make me give them high marks. The value of the 30% cut isn't reflected in my overall experience of Steam throughout more than a decade, it doesn't make me think that Newell being valued at $4.1+ Billion is entirely well deserved. That's pure whataboutism

I'm defensive about it because it means a better leverage for stores to drop prices.
As for the value not reflected in your "decade experience" that's because you're uninformed. It's fine to be uninformed though.
But when you buy your game on GMG and get a 20% off coupon, it comes from that 30% cut.
When all your games have cloud saves and your client build up more extensive features such as Proton or Steam Input, it comes from there.

Dreamboum said:
I don't know what cut would be worth it to be perfectly honest. I don't think anyone has the means to calculate it other than accepting that 30% is an industry standard or whether or not Epic can sustain itself out of the cut they've provided (and even then it comes with some caveats). I do think that Valve is doing a much better job than most in the same space, but the general discontentment of devs about the cut makes me believe that they haven't provided a good argument as to why they deserve it.

Valve gets the flak because Epic is challenging them and it isn't a closed-off environment, if it was me I'd go for consoles and mobile space the most, but it is what it is.

Devs can also be uninformed you know. Some aren't even aware about regional prices and discover it later on.

Princess Bubblegum · May 3, 2019

Does Epic Games Store even have functionality for sales?

Deleted member 10629 · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
I don't know what cut would be worth it to be perfectly honest. I don't think anyone has the means to calculate it other than accepting that 30% is an industry standard or whether or not Epic can sustain itself out of the cut they've provided (and even then it comes with some caveats). I do think that Valve is doing a much better job than most in the same space, but the general discontentment of devs about the cut makes me believe that they haven't provided a good argument as to why they deserve it.

Valve gets the flak because Epic is challenging them and it isn't a closed-off environment, if it was me I'd go for consoles and mobile space the most, but it is what it is.

So you dont know what a fair cut is but arbitrarily decide that 30% is too much.

Okay then.

Dreamboum · May 3, 2019

Fadewise said:
I think the root of much of the angst regarding the EGS is specifically that almost the entirety of the value of it to developers has come at the expense of value to consumers.

That much is fair, and I think there are very good arguments to be made about it, none of them however makes me want to defend a multi-billion company about a sizeable cut. Note that I'm not defending Epic either for that matter.

caff!!! · May 3, 2019

SteveWinwood said:
i can host a webpage for almost nothing so the fact that steam even takes more than say 1% is just hilarious

I should get paid more than what the customer paid otherwise they are hurting me and my games

Dreamboum · May 3, 2019

NarohDethan said:
So you dont know what a fair cut is but arbitrarily decide that 30% is too much.

Okay then.

Then tell me how 30% is fair & just and give me the data to support your argument.

Mass_Pincup · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
I don't know what cut would be worth it to be perfectly honest. I don't think anyone has the means to calculate it other than accepting that 30% is an industry standard or whether or not Epic can sustain itself out of the cut they've provided (and even then it comes with some caveats). I do think that Valve is doing a much better job than most in the same space, but the general discontentment of devs about the cut makes me believe that they haven't provided a good argument as to why they deserve it.

Valve gets the flak because Epic is challenging them and it isn't a closed-off environment, if it was me I'd go for consoles and mobile space the most, but it is what it is.

The response from devs is pretty normal. If you offer me more money without me having to do anything more I would gladly take it as well, no matter if I was already thriving before (Team Meat, Supergiant games etc...). I understand that and respect that choice when they don't try to bullshit me into thinking that I'll somehow end up paying less or that this is better for consumers.

What I don't understand is why consumers are going to bat to reduce the cut even though it doesn't affect us in any way. Especially in the case of the EGS since the money is only going to big publishers and big indie developers. The people actually needing that better cut won't even be in the store.

Walnut · May 3, 2019

Fadewise said:
I think the root of much of the angst regarding the EGS is specifically that almost the entirety of the value of it to developers has come at the expense of value to consumers.

I agree with this. Also, it impacts value for the developers, but most are more concerned with raw margins rather than looking at the big picture and seeing that a service like Steam provides them with more value than a service like EGS does at this point in time.

Valve needs to hire some developer relations people to communicate why their platform helps developers move more product. The Epic moneyhatting is another thing to deal with but the strategy to dealing with that isn't yet clear since they could give up on it at any time

Deleted member 10629 · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
Then tell me how 30% is fair & just and give me the data to support your argument.

Other users already told you the bulk of functionality that Steam has, which you downplayed, plus the new VR thing, plus added benefits for people in third world countries who have regional prices. And more importantly, they dont pass additional costs to the consumers. Do you think this came out from thin air? Valve doesnt take 30% of it and then sits on its ass forever with it.

Devs have the entire power of the Steamworks API, that should be a great part of the 30% cut, plus hosting and bandwith costs. And even then, devs are free to generate keys at no cost and sell them elsewhere, for a 100% to themselves.

The 12% cut Epic is so heavily pushing for is an illusion and it is unsustainable. Tim Sweeney has said that himself.

Custódio · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
Then tell me how 30% is fair & just and give me the data to support your argument.

That's not how this works. The many, many things Steam does is already listed in this thread. It's much more than any other PC or console store. Your afirmation is the one that needs further proof.

Deleted member 28076 · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
The value of the 30% cut isn't reflected in my overall experience of Steam throughout more than a decade, it doesn't make me think that Newell being valued at $4.1+ Billion is entirely well deserved. That's pure whataboutism

You know Sweeney is worth $7.1 billion, right? By far the most bizarre faction in this whole argument are the leftists who think they're being woke anticapitalists by supporting an even bigger corporation than Valve taking over the PC gaming platform just because they said they do now.

It's also bizarre how you think it's an easier explanation that every digital storefront except Epic is wrong as opposed to the much simpler, more evidence-backed take. Are you completely ignoring that Epic passes on transaction fees for international payment methods to the buyer? By Sweeney's own admission, in those transactions, Epic is taking closer to a 25% cut. Not that far off. Microsoft themselves announced they'd be decreasing the 30% cut of the Windows Store in Windows 10 last year, but that change missed its January release date, and they've made no mention of it since. Maybe because it's unsustainable?

It's so weird how people will bend over backwards and accept conclusions with significantly less proof based on just gut feelings.

Crayon · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
Then tell me how 30% is fair & just and give me the data to support your argument.

30% is fair because there are options to get a lower cut from sellers are platforms that will provide less. Is that not the very picture of fair.

My data is the obvious health of software distribution business today. 30% has proven to be a good standard for everyone to get paid and be satisfied.

Note that's a somewhat weak answer to a very weak question.

PepsimanVsJoe · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/24/18196154/steam-developers-revenue-epic-games-store

I really wish this survey had a section where developers could give reasons as to why Valve is or isn't earning their cut.

GhostTrick · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
That much is fair, and I think there are very good arguments to be made about it, none of them however makes me want to defend a multi-billion company about a sizeable cut. Note that I'm not defending Epic either for that matter.

That cut is the reason the store market is competitive. You're just playing yourself if you want it to be lower. As for the platform not moving as fast as you want... They litterally made a huge chunk of your library compatible with Linux. They gave you the most powerful input mapping API. if it doesn't go as fast as you want, tell me what is going fast in this industry.

Madjoki · May 3, 2019

PepsimanVsJoe said:
I really wish this survey had a section where developers could give reasons as to why Valve is or isn't earning their cut.

Would be interesting to know same about consoles, but for some reason everyone refuses to ask this. And consoles do not give free keys or let you sell keys unlike certain PC services.

Deleted member 28076 · May 3, 2019

GhostTrick said:
That cut is the reason the store market is competitive. You're just playing yourself if you want it to be lower. As for the platform not moving as fast as you want... They litterally made a huge chunk of your library compatible with Linux. They gave you the most powerful input mapping API. if it doesn't go as fast as you want, tell me what is going fast in this industry.

It is so bonkers to me that Valve just announced and put pre-orders up for the most advanced VR headset available to consumers and people are still like "Valve doesn't do anything anymore."

LewieP · May 3, 2019

PepsimanVsJoe said:
I really wish this survey had a section where developers could give reasons as to why Valve is or isn't earning their cut.

Yeah I don't think most of these devs would actually stop releasing their games on Steam unless the likes of Epic offered them a big bag of money to not release their games on Steam. Because they do think that it is worth releasing on Steam.

Deleted member 10629 · May 3, 2019

Madjoki said:
Would be interesting to know same about consoles, but for some reason everyone refuses to ask this. And consoles do not give free keys or let you sell keys unlike certain PC services.

But you see, they develop the hardware so they deserve it :)

/s

Doctor Ironic said:
It is so bonkers to me that Valve just announced and put pre-orders up for the most advanced VR headset available to consumers and people are still like "Valve doesn't do anything anymore."

People take Valve time too seriously.

Mass_Pincup · May 3, 2019

LewieP said:
Yeah I don't think most of these devs would actually stop releasing their games on Steam unless the likes of Epic offered them a big bag of money to not release their games on Steam. Because they do think that it is worth releasing on Steam.

It really is as simple as that.

Zomba13 · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/24/18196154/steam-developers-revenue-epic-games-store

What is the 30% cut necessary for if it isn't improving my experience as a consumer. Are the games buying itself?

Steam did a good job pushing the PC market where it is and it is good and sensible to acknowledge it. However, I can still safely say I have a lot of issues with the platform and it didn't evolve as fast as it should. I do not need a point of comparison with another storefront to know that refunds was a hot debate for years before it was introduced as an example.

It's a shame there also isn't a survey asking the same question regarding console digital stores and physical retail. Also it'd be nice to know reasons why the devs that the platform does/doesn't deserve the cut they get.

Armaros · May 3, 2019

GhostTrick said:
That cut is the reason the store market is competitive. You're just playing yourself if you want it to be lower. As for the platform not moving as fast as you want... They litterally made a huge chunk of your library compatible with Linux. They gave you the most powerful input mapping API. if it doesn't go as fast as you want, tell me what is going fast in this industry.

People constantly bring up Steam being slow to add refunds.

As if the rest of the market is even at that level even now a few years later.

MS's is suppose to be here but MIA in 'Beta'.
Sony still doesn't have an equal one.
Origin is EA games Only
GoG is for technical issues only.
EGS is the only similar one, but had to be shamed into it and it doesn't cover DLC iirc.

Polk · May 3, 2019

LewieP said:
Yeah I don't think most of these devs would actually stop releasing their games on Steam unless the likes of Epic offered them a big bag of money to not release their games on Steam. Because they do think that it is worth releasing on Steam.

If it's the same survey I remember, almost half of responders didn't even develop games on PC but on mobile.

Deleted member 10629 · May 3, 2019

Armaros said:
People constantly bring up Steam being slow to add refunds.

As if the rest of the market is even at that level even now a few years later.

MS's is suppose to be here but MIA in 'Beta'.
Sony still doesn't have an equal one.
Origin is EA games Only
GoG is for technical issues only.
EGS is the only similar one, but had to be shamed into it and it doesn't cover DLC iirc.

And Nintendo will act as if you're robbing them.

Sean Mirrsen · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
It's not worth that much a cut at the expense of developers.

Is it worth it to lower that cut at the expense of Steam itself? Because the only reason Steam is what it is - and the only reason Valve is what it is - is that 30% cut. Valve hasn't made a successful game in a long while, and very few of their hardware initiatives have borne significant fruit. The only thing that taking money away from Steam will accomplish, is make Steam take longer to get better - because right now the only source of money that could go into improving Steam, is Steam itself. Epic Games Store is running on the edge of breaking even (that's before any moneyhat expenses) with its 12%, and it can do that because it doesn't need to make money, the money is coming from elsewhere. Steam, however, absolutely needs to make money in order to keep being a place of great service, and to keep improving.

Dreamboum · May 3, 2019

I'm answering to posts I've missed

Shogun said:
You do know you can find everything you want on the first page right?

I don't have it

but you just made me realize I need to extend the steam window. I couldn't have possibly known.

Armaros said:
So because you personally don't care about anything Steam does, that makes a smaller cut better for everyone?

Your have lots of posts saying how you don't care about X and Y.

And yet we are suppose to take your argument without evidence at face value with just your feelings as backup?

I've made a post exactly to say that I care about what they do and this is why I think I don't think the value of the cut matches with my own experience. I said I don't care about what EGS does, and even then I was disingenuous, I have many platforms with the platform that I outlined earlier.

Crayon said:
Valve uses their money to develop and provide all kinds of tools for developers RIGHT NOW. Tools and technologies that make it easier to make, sell, and maintain games. There's no way that doesn't leave two more, better games for me to choose from. And again, to emphasize, that is happening right now. It's been happening.

Also, they forfeit a lot of their cut so that resellers and small publishers/developers can do business independently, and compete on prices. Prices lower than MSRP.

These are tangible, specific benefits right now. the way you're describing things getting better to you with a lower cut, is beyond vague and I can see will never be measurable.

This is a good thing but this is not going to the root of the problem that is the cut itself. Steam is the place to go to sell your game, free keys is a band-aid. I don't know why devs needs to take Valve at face value over the tools they provide. If they don't think it's worth 30% for a good amount of them, are they all wrong? Are they all uninformed? Aren't they using those tools to provide an assessment of the value?

Mass_Pincup said:
What I don't understand is why consumers are going to bat to reduce the cut even though it doesn't affect us in any way. Especially in the case of the EGS since the money is only going to big publishers and big indie developers. The people actually needing that better cut won't even be in the store.

I don't think it needs to benefit me at a fundamental level. I just believe the redistribution of the cut is a better deal that will end up paying dividends rather than giving it to Valve in terms of economic and social value, unless they prove that 30% is necessary for sustainement, of which I've said my own experience doesn't map out with that argument, and neither that GDC poll.

Doctor Ironic said:
You know Sweeney is worth $7.1 billion, right? By far the most bizarre faction in this whole argument are the leftists who think they're being woke anticapitalists by supporting an even bigger corporation than Valve taking over the PC gaming platform just because they said they do now.

It's also bizarre how you think it's an easier explanation that every digital storefront except Epic is wrong as opposed to the much simpler, more evidence-backed take. Are you completely ignoring that Epic passes on transaction fees for international payment methods to the buyer? By Sweeney's own admission, in those transactions, Epic is taking closer to a 25% cut. Not that far off. Microsoft themselves announced they'd be decreasing the 30% cut of the Windows Store in Windows 10 last year, but that change missed its January release date, and they've made no mention of it since. Maybe because it's unsustainable?

It's so weird how people will bend over backwards and accept conclusions with significantly less proof based on just gut feelings.

Literally where did I go to bat for Sweeney and how it is an anticapitalist take in the first place? You're clearly being rattled if you think that Microsoft can't sustain itself on this and I'm going woke over this. Didn't Valve literally offer tiers for games selling at a certain threshold recently to be as low as 20%? They're eating up the loss that they're recouping with earlier sales now and they somehow couldn't before? 30% for all the lifetime of a video game is unreasonable, if Microsoft is empirical evidence against it, then I hope to stay woke a while longer.

GhostTrick said:
That cut is the reason the store market is competitive. You're just playing yourself if you want it to be lower. As for the platform not moving as fast as you want... They litterally made a huge chunk of your library compatible with Linux. They gave you the most powerful input mapping API. if it doesn't go as fast as you want, tell me what is going fast in this industry.

How so?

Madjoki · May 3, 2019

Armaros said:
People constantly bring up Steam being slow to add refunds.

As if the rest of the market is even at that level even now a few years later.

MS's is suppose to be here but MIA in 'Beta'.
Sony still doesn't have an equal one.
Origin is EA games Only
GoG is for technical issues only.
EGS is the only similar one, but had to be shamed into it and it doesn't cover DLC iirc.

Not forgetting Nintendo, who Norwegian Consumer Counsel took into EU court over refusal to add refunds for preorders.

GhostTrick · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
I'm answering to posts I've missed

I don't have it

but you just made me realize I need to extend the steam window. I couldn't have possibly known.

I've made a post exactly to say that I care about what they do and this is why I think I don't think the value of the cut matches with my own experience. I said I don't care about what EGS does, and even then I was disingenuous, I have many platforms with the platform that I outlined earlier.

This is a good thing but this is not going to the root of the problem that is the cut itself. Steam is the place to go to sell your game, free keys is a band-aid. I don't know why devs needs to take Valve at face value over the tools they provide. If they don't think it's worth 30% for a good amount of them, are they all wrong? Are they all uninformed? Aren't they using those tools to provide an assessment of the value?

I don't think it needs to benefit me at a fundamental level. I just believe the redistribution of the cut is a better deal that will end up paying dividends rather than giving it to Valve in terms of economic and social value, unless they prove that 30% is necessary for sustainement, of which I've said my own experience doesn't map out with that argument, and neither that GDC poll.

Literally where did I go to bat for Sweeney and how it is an anticapitalist take in the first place? You're clearly being rattled if you think that Microsoft can't sustain itself on this and I'm going woke over this. Didn't Valve literally offer tiers for games selling at a certain threshold recently to be as low as 20%? They're eating up the loss that they're recouping with earlier sales now and they somehow couldn't before? 30% for all the lifetime of a video game is unreasonable, if Microsoft is empirical evidence against it, then I hope to stay woke a while longer.

How so?

Very simple :
That 30% cut is a price leverage for stores. When Greenmangaming or fanatical offers you a 20% discount on a PC game on release, it's because they eat on their own cut to not eat on the devs cut.
The moment you lower that cut, the moment you lose as a customer your cheaper prices.
You dont believe me ?
Check Borderlands 3 on GMG. The max discount is 10%.
Check Borderlands 3 on Humble Bundle. They cant offer the 10% discount for those who subscribed monthly bundle. That's because their cut on Borderlands 3 is 12%.

As for the rest, these 30% are how you can build a solid backend for all the games without pushing the cost onto customers. Heck, offering Wallet cards already means a 10 to 15% markup on Valve's own cut.
Realistically speaking, they dont get the full fat 30% out of these purchases for various reasons. Which you wouldnt know because as a customer, the cost is never passed onto you'

Crayon · May 3, 2019

Madjoki said:
, but for some reason everyone refuses to ask this. .

o/

I know. I know.

It's because this would be considered a serious offense to the hand that feeds you in the blogocosm we call the gaming press. Companies put pressure in varying degrees. You know this is true because don't be dumb. While we don't know which companies applying more or less pressure, it's very likely that it correlates to their general business aggression.

Also safe to say that valve has to be way at the end of the spectrum. There's no marketing and they are reliably inert in the face of criticism.

So valve is totally safe to lay into, while the idea of putting others in the hot seat may give you pause. Your boss is not going to get a call from valve asking why you were leveling churlish accusations in your little article.

Mass_Pincup · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
I don't think it needs to benefit me at a fundamental level. I just believe the redistribution of the cut is a better deal that will end up paying dividends rather than giving it to Valve in terms of economic and social value, unless they prove that 30% is necessary for sustainement, of which I've said my own experience doesn't map out with that argument, and neither that GDC poll.

Such as?

Also regarding that GDC poll, if you're looking at the quotes highlighted in the reports, you'll see that no matter what Valve does, a larger part of their partners will be disappointed:

"Take less revenue from sales and curate their store better for visibility for real games," is what one respondent wrote when we asked what features respondents felt Steam could add to better serve developers.

"Better support for amateur, hobbyist, and independent creators," wrote another. "More fostering of things like game jams and actual development communities to be created on the platform."

"They need to have visibility for low-budget games," opined one respondent. "They need to fix the broken troll review system. They need to only charge 5 percent for games that are simply hosted with achievements and make less than $10,000 per month. They need to give visibility to games that are updated to give a reason to update your game as no one sees updates now so there is little point in doing them."

Steam can't answer those opposite needs concurrently. Steam is making too much different type of developers relevant and they naturally all want to be catered to with how much that platform represent in terms of revenue and sales.

Here for exemple, Steam can potentially be included in the Humble part, as well as the Direct part and maybe others while not making any cent out of it.

Deleted member 25117 · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
https://www.polygon.com/2019/1/24/18196154/steam-developers-revenue-epic-games-store

What is the 30% cut necessary for if it isn't improving my experience as a consumer. Are the games buying itself?

Steam did a good job pushing the PC market where it is and it is good and sensible to acknowledge it. However, I can still safely say I have a lot of issues with the platform and it didn't evolve as fast as it should. I do not need a point of comparison with another storefront to know that refunds was a hot debate for years before it was introduced as an example.

Yes hi I wasn't asking if developers thought a 30% revenue split was fair. By design developers will always be against any cut larger than 0%, and with Steam we're even more likely to see negative biases from developers who feel wronged because their game didn't succeed so they blame lack of curation even though their game would have never made it on the store if curation was still in place. All this despite them having the ability to sell Steam keys of their games anywhere for up to 100% revenue cut... but oh, this doesn't fit the narrative that the Steam cut is unjustified so everyone ignores it.

Madjoki · May 3, 2019

GhostTrick said:
Very simple :
That 30% cut is a price leverage for stores. When Greenmangaming or fanatical offers you a 20% discount on a PC game on release, it's because they eat on their own cut to not eat on the devs cut.
The moment you lower that cut, the moment you lose as a customer your cheaper prices.
You dont believe me ?
Check Borderlands 3 on GMG. The max discount is 10%.
Check Borderlands 3 on Humble Bundle. They cant offer the 10% discount for those who subscribed monthly bundle. That's because their cut on Borderlands 3 is 12%.

As for the rest, these 30% are how you can build a solid backend for all the games without pushing the cost onto customers. Heck, offering Wallet cards already means a 10 to 15% markup on Valve's own cut.
Realistically speaking, they dont get the full fat 30% out of these purchases for various reasons. Which you wouldnt know because as a customer, the cost is never passed onto you'

Or GoG who ended their rewards program for high priced countries (EU) citing:

"In the past, we were able to cover these extra costs from our cut and still turn a small profit. Unfortunately, this is not the case anymore. With an increasing share paid to developers, our cut gets smaller. However, we look at it, at the end of the day we are a store and need to make sure we sell games without a loss."

Ferris Bueller said:
Yes hi I wasn't asking if developers thought a 30% revenue split was fair. By design developers will always be against any cut larger than 0%, and with Steam we're even more likely to see negative biases from developers who feel wronged because their game didn't succeed so they blame lack of curation even though their game would have never made it on the store if curation was still in place. All this despite them having the ability to sell Steam keys of their games anywhere for up to 100% revenue cut... but oh, this doesn't fit the narrative that the Steam cut is unjustified so everyone ignores it.

I don't think selling keys yourself is good idea in this age of fraud though.
Probably best deal is selling keys for 5% + payment fees cut via Humble Widget. It's not 100%, but humble takes care of activation support, fraud prevention etc.

jrDev · May 3, 2019

Alexandros said:
Fortnite is the biggest game in the world now. Why aren't they using that leverage to publicly push for the reduction of the cut on consoles?

How do you know they are not lol?

Zefah said:
How in the world do they have no overhead? The money they make goes directly into funding further development of the platform, which is currently unprecedented in its feature set and offering of tools to developers. That's not even mentioning all of the support for various payment methods in various regions and their bandwidth costs.

Only thing I'll give you here is the fees that they cover (which is a huge help for the customers), but can I see receipts that say those other minor features are worth the 30% cut (you know, because all the other storefronts have a need for maintenance/updates AND hardware investment...

Edit: and before anyone jumps down my throat, I know valve dabbles in some minor hardware stuff...

Dreamboum · May 3, 2019

Crayon said:
30% is fair because there are options to get a lower cut from sellers are platforms that will provide less. Is that not the very picture of fair.

My data is the obvious health of software distribution business today. 30% has proven to be a good standard for everyone to get paid and be satisfied.

Note that's a somewhat weak answer to a very weak question.

Armaros said:
People constantly bring up Steam being slow to add refunds.

As if the rest of the market is even at that level even now a few years later.

MS's is suppose to be here but MIA in 'Beta'.
Sony still doesn't have an equal one.
Origin is EA games Only
GoG is for technical issues only.
EGS is the only similar one, but had to be shamed into it and it doesn't cover DLC iirc.

It's an issue too & it's 100% true a similar system should be added everywhere. I say with utmost certainty that consoles deserves to get into far more scrutiny than Valve does, but it doesn't mean I should ignore Valve in a case of whataboutism. Steam was a more pressing issue because there are far more factors that makes refunds more likely due to the open nature of the platform and PC games not working flawlessly with every setup in terms of compatibility or mismatched expectations. That's why there was a hot debate about it back then.

GhostTrick said:
Very simple :
That 30% cut is a price leverage for stores. When Greenmangaming or fanatical offers you a 20% discount on a PC game on release, it's because they eat on their own cut to not eat on the devs cut.
The moment you lower that cut, the moment you lose as a customer your cheaper prices.
You dont believe me ?
Check Borderlands 3 on GMG. The max discount is 10%.
Check Borderlands 3 on Humble Bundle. They cant offer the 10% discount for those who subscribed monthly bundle. That's because their cut on Borderlands 3 is 12%.

As for the rest, these 30% are how you can build a solid backend for all the games without pushing the cost onto customers. Heck, offering Wallet cards already means a 10 to 15% markup on Valve's own cut.
Realistically speaking, they dont get the full fat 30% out of these purchases for various reasons. Which you wouldnt know because as a customer, the cost is never passed onto you'

I was never saying Valve doesn't eat up on its own cut. I can understand this argument though and I don't have the knowledge to offer a rebuttal, mostly because it would imply (big) companies reducing the cost of games themselves, which as we know won't happen for obvious reasons because the market won't change on that front.

I still do think a blanket 30% (which now only lowers for games who makes a ton of money in the case of Valve) pushes out a lot of small developers. Epic is a symptom of a broader issue where their stance only benefits bigger companies at a large scale, which is why I won't defend the Epic store nor its trickle-down argument, because we haven't seen it appear yet. At the very least, 30% should not apply to every kind of developer out there (and lower cuts should not benefit BIG games only).

inpHilltr8r · May 3, 2019

Crayon said:
Somebody please explain to me again why valve should lower their cut.

IFF they start losing games to other stores past the point were they're comfortable with, and publishers / indie devs are stating that the cut is the reason, then they should probably lower their cut.

Otherwise, hell, just keep on making money. Seems to be working.

inpHilltr8r · May 3, 2019

Alexandros said:
Fortnite is the biggest game in the world now. Why aren't they using that leverage to publicly push for the reduction of the cut on consoles?

Spending that capital on pushing cross-play / purchase / progress instead.

GhostTrick · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
It's an issue too & it's 100% true a similar system should be added everywhere. I say with utmost certainty that consoles deserves to get into far more scrutiny than Valve does, but it doesn't mean I should ignore Valve in a case of whataboutism. Steam was a more pressing issue because there are far more factors that makes refunds more likely due to the open nature of the platform and PC games not working flawlessly with every setup in terms of compatibility or mismatched expectations. That's why there was a hot debate about it back then.

I was never saying Valve doesn't eat up on its own cut. I can understand this argument though and I don't have the knowledge to offer a rebuttal, mostly because it would imply (big) companies reducing the cost of games themselves, which as we know won't happen for obvious reasons because the market won't change on that front.

I still do think a blanket 30% (which now only lowers for games who makes a ton of money in the case of Valve) pushes out a lot of small developers. Epic is a symptom of a broader issue where their stance only benefits bigger companies at a large scale, which is why I won't defend the Epic store nor its trickle-down argument, because we haven't seen it appear yet.

What pushes out small developpers isn't a 30% cut at all. What pushes out small developpers is other small developpers because the indie market as it is right now is unsustainable. You could give 15% more money, it wont make a load of difference to make it sustainable because the indie offer vastly surpassed the indie demand.

In fact, I'll go even further: By killing these discounts on games, you know what will happen ? It'll benefit the bigger games. For your average user, instead of buying the latest AAA title for 40-45€ and have a spare 15-20€ for a smaller indie game, they'll now give a full fat 60€ to the bigger, more exciting game. Cheaper prices means more buying power which means more games benefits from these sales. Less buying power means a more cautious market and users only relying on safe values.

Yes, Valve surely does make a profit on a 30% cut. But you also need to the actual provider of the only solid backend on PC to also make money too. Because as of right now, they're the reason why these indies can even release games in the first place.

And that's not even accounting that in fact, a lot of that "30%" cut is going elsewhere. It allows poorer countries to access different payment methods that cost up to 20% sometimes, without these customers paying for it. It allows developpement of tools which allow devs to implement a lot of stuff they wouldn't implement otherwise.

Deleted member 28076 · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
Literally where did I go to bat for Sweeney and how it is an anticapitalist take in the first place? You're clearly being rattled if you think that Microsoft can't sustain itself on this and I'm going woke over this. Didn't Valve literally offer tiers for games selling at a certain threshold recently to be as low as 20%? They're eating up the loss that they're recouping with earlier sales now and they somehow couldn't before? 30% for all the lifetime of a video game is unreasonable, if Microsoft is empirical evidence against it, then I hope to stay woke a while longer.

It was probably the part where you shit on Newell for his wealth* but conspicuously neglected to mention Sweeney, who is considerably even richer.

You keep talking about 30% being too much like it's something self-evident even though it's not. At the very least, you can't explain why the vast majority of digital storefronts - not even just video game ones - still take 30% without resorting to bizarre conspiracy theories. You completely skip over all the evidence that other people in this thread are giving you that the 30% cut enables, or that Valve does significantly more with what they earn from Steam than any other company with a similar service. Are you here to discuss or just to troll?

*I believe being a billionaire is inherently immoral, but supporting EGS to spite Steam is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Crayon · May 3, 2019

Dreamboum said:
It's an issue too & it's 100% true a similar system should be added everywhere. I say with utmost certainty that consoles deserves to get into far more scrutiny than Valve does, but it doesn't mean I should ignore Valve in a case of whataboutism. Steam was a more pressing issue because there are far more factors that makes refunds more likely due to the open nature of the platform and PC games not working flawlessly with every setup in terms of compatibility or mismatched expectations. That's why there was a hot debate about it back then.

I was never saying Valve doesn't eat up on its own cut. I can understand this argument though and I don't have the knowledge to offer a rebuttal, mostly because it would imply (big) companies reducing the cost of games themselves, which as we know won't happen for obvious reasons because the market won't change on that front.

I still do think a blanket 30% (which now only lowers for games who makes a ton of money in the case of Valve) pushes out a lot of small developers. Epic is a symptom of a broader issue where their stance only benefits bigger companies at a large scale, which is why I won't defend the Epic store nor its trickle-down argument, because we haven't seen it appear yet. At the very least, 30% should not apply to every kind of developer out there (and lower cuts should not benefit BIG games only).

It's not so much whataboutism as pointing out a big flaw in the argument. It would be whataboutism if it had no bearing on the argument and was only deflecting.

You're showing a lack of consideration why the standard is 30% now. And there seems to have come with that a lack of consideration for why it needs to change.

A little poll of developers saying they would like more for less is not sufficient. I think anyone can see that. It's something, though.

Can't seem to put our finger on what's good about it, nor what's bad about it, which way it should go, which way it's going to hurt, which way it's going to help. It's not a coincidence that all of this is so murky. it comes to the most basic of questions: Why? If there was a clear reason why the cut should be lower, things with me more clear.

That's so far, this reason has not shown itself.

And much, much less a reason that this change is demanded from only one platform.

Alexandros · May 3, 2019

jrDev said:
How do you know they are not lol?

Did you somehow miss the word 'publicly' in my post?

inpHilltr8r said:
Spending that capital on pushing cross-play / purchase / progress instead.

Why not both? Why crossplay over a higher cut?

tuxfool · May 3, 2019

inpHilltr8r said:
Spending that capital on pushing cross-play / purchase / progress instead.

Clearly then they're not interested in doing good for everyone. Just lining their own pockets.

It's easy for them to whine about it, but by targeting only one entity is the height of hypocrisy. Tim Sweeny seems to be all about whining about "Open Platforms", but then takes any opportunity to despoil the advantages those provide.

Reinhard · May 3, 2019

GhostTrick said:
Very simple :
That 30% cut is a price leverage for stores. When Greenmangaming or fanatical offers you a 20% discount on a PC game on release, it's because they eat on their own cut to not eat on the devs cut.
The moment you lower that cut, the moment you lose as a customer your cheaper prices.
You dont believe me ?
Check Borderlands 3 on GMG. The max discount is 10%.
Check Borderlands 3 on Humble Bundle. They cant offer the 10% discount for those who subscribed monthly bundle. That's because their cut on Borderlands 3 is 12%.

As for the rest, these 30% are how you can build a solid backend for all the games without pushing the cost onto customers. Heck, offering Wallet cards already means a 10 to 15% markup on Valve's own cut.
Realistically speaking, they dont get the full fat 30% out of these purchases for various reasons. Which you wouldnt know because as a customer, the cost is never passed onto you'

This is very true, and BL3 on GMG isn't even getting a 10% discount. It had the 10% discount available for about 1 day, then gone since. I expect a 10% off coupon will show up again eventually near launch but be available for a very limited time period. When keys are available to publishers for free to put on other storefronts and the original take of Steam was 30%, that means publishers can still get their money and have the 3rd party stores offer 15-25% discounts. With EGS, expect 0 discounts as the norm with maybe a special 5-10% discount coupon every once in a blue moon on 3rd party sites.

GhostTrick · May 3, 2019

Reinhard said:
This is very true, and BL3 on GMG isn't even getting a 10% discount. It had the 10% discount available for about 1 day, then gone since. I expect a 10% off coupon will show up again eventually near launch but again be available for a very limited time period. When keys are available to publishers for free to put on other storefronts and the original take of Steam was 30%, that means publishers can still get their money and have the 3rd party stores offer 15-25% discounts. With EGS, expect 0 discounts as the norm with maybe a special 5-10% discount coupon every once in a blue moon on 3rd party sites.

That is, for the 3rd party sites allowed... or still alive.

Crayon · May 3, 2019

Is it just me or has the argument for epic been deflating for a few weeks now? Like less people in defending or it's getting harder to defend? Seems less heated.

Edit: I guess things have happened. Some of the feistier accounts are gone. And less whip has been spared towards people trolling on valve.

CthulhuSars · May 3, 2019

Crayon said:
Is it just me or has the argument for epic been deflating for a few weeks now? Like less people in defending or it's getting harder to defend? Seems less heated.

It is less heated because its an argument that has been going on for a long while now and Sweeny keeps saying stupid shit so more people are catching on.

mclem · May 3, 2019

Nome said:
Heh, I see what you did there. A bit disingenuous to say that they think it's reasonable.
Epic doesn't think the 30% cut is justified, which is why they don't put Fortnite on the Play Store and opt to distribute the APK themselves.
They're on the other platform stores because they're required to be in order to receive any revenue from that platform.

There's an interesting wrinkle here in that their own games aren't on their own store. Which in itself is fine, and not a huge gotcha in itself, but it does cast this claim in a rather different light: The Sergey tweet suggested that the reason Unreal wasn't on EGS was because it's a hassle to add individual games, and other games get priority.

So they are, in fact, paying extra to have their game distributed on Steam because it's less hassle than setting up their own distribution. Which is precisely the sort of value that comes as part of Steam's cut. It's not hard to see it as reflective of the sacrifices required to hit 12%.

Dreamboum · May 3, 2019

Doctor Ironic said:
It was probably the part where you shit on Newell for his wealth* but conspicuously neglected to mention Sweeney, who is considerably even richer.

You keep talking about 30% being too much like it's something self-evident even though it's not. At the very least, you can't explain why the vast majority of digital storefronts - not even just video game ones - still take 30% without resorting to bizarre conspiracy theories. You completely skip over all the evidence that other people in this thread are giving you that the 30% cut enables, or that Valve does significantly more with what they earn from Steam than any other company with a similar service. Are you here to discuss or just to troll?

I'm interacting with most posts and you're accusing me without evidence by screaming "but WHAT ABOUT SWEENEY" when I have stated several *times* why I am not defending Epic either and why I have issues with the store and their practices. The industry standard doesn't mean it should remain the case just because it is. Many companies are circumventing this cut or are even charging a mark-up for the consumers to eat this cost especially in the mobile space. Sweeney's wealth didn't come from EGS anyway, it came from Unreal Engine, which is a supposedly good engine that is apparently friendly for developers as opposed to Unity, & Fortnite (of which he needs to answer about the bad crunch the devs experiences on the daily).

Crayon said:
It's not so much whataboutism as pointing out a big flaw in the argument. It would be whataboutism if it had no bearing on the argument and was only deflecting.

You're showing a lack of consideration why the standard is 30% now. And there seems to have come with that a lack of consideration for why it needs to change.

A little poll of developers saying they would like more for less is not sufficient. I think anyone can see that. It's something, though.

Can't seem to put our finger on what's good about it, nor what's bad about it, which way it should go, which way it's going to hurt, which way it's going to help. It's not a coincidence that all of this is so murky. it comes to the most basic of questions: Why? If there was a clear reason why well that should be lower, things with me more clear.

That's so far, this reason has not shown itself.

And much, much less a reason that this change is demanded from only one platform.

Should I make a thread for every console company to lower their cut too so I can be believed? How many times must I say it? Please, tell me because it is becoming increasingly annoying at this point.

If companies are ready to eat the cost of international payment just to circumvent the 30% cut in mobile companies, then surely there is money to be made? Am I wrong?

GhostTrick said:
What pushes out small developpers isn't a 30% cut at all. What pushes out small developpers is other small developpers because the indie market as it is right now is unsustainable. You could give 15% more money, it wont make a load of difference to make it sustainable because the indie offer vastly surpassed the indie demand.

In fact, I'll go even further: By killing these discounts on games, you know what will happen ? It'll benefit the bigger games. For your average user, instead of buying the latest AAA title for 40-45€ and have a spare 15-20€ for a smaller indie game, they'll now give a full fat 60€ to the bigger, more exciting game. Cheaper prices means more buying power which means more games benefits from these sales. Less buying power means a more cautious market and users only relying on safe values.

Yes, Valve surely does make a profit on a 30% cut. But you also need to the actual provider of the only solid backend on PC to also make money too. Because as of right now, they're the reason why these indies can even release games in the first place.

And that's not even accounting that in fact, a lot of that "30%" cut is going elsewhere. It allows poorer countries to access different payment methods that cost up to 20% sometimes, without these customers paying for it. It allows developpement of tools which allow devs to implement a lot of stuff they wouldn't implement otherwise.

So I don't see the issue with not making it a blanket 30% even for small devs then? Steam also needs to make their discovery features better for them.

Indies sells for 20, games from big publishers still sells for 40 with resellers, it doesn't push out smaller devs this way. Even then big pub are still strangling smaller devs with micro-transactions so it's always more than 40/60 anyway.

Tim Sweeny: Soon you will see lower prices on Epic Games Store

I'll be the one who puts you in the ground.

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

#1 Waluigi Fan! Current Status: Crying

User requested account closure