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.
Do you have any receipts?
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.Do you have any receipts?
I mean I like free games, so I hope the EGS survives for a long time.
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?
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
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?
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.
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?
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.Do you have any receipts?
I mean I like free games, so I hope the EGS survives for a long time.
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.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!
This is an incredibly dumb hot takeAnd with that 30% cut what has Valve accomplished? More DOTA skins? Lol.
Wonder what made EGS settle on 12%. Such an odd (no pun intended) number.
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?
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.
I mean I like free games, so I hope the EGS survives for a long time.
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.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.
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.
Now they do, when they started it was just like any other new client.Steam charges more but it gives a fuck ton more back in return compared to the other storefronts on PC, and slightly more in comparison to the Consoles.
Now they do, when they started it was just like any other new client.
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.
Im waiting for the steams availabilty to resell my games, as i do with Nintendo and Sony.
Wait, they are giving digital codes, instead of disks, wait, they are asking for the same 30% as sony, ms and nintendo?
good joke
- 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.)
because i can choose?And of course you take this up with every other dgital store because you're so actually serious about it!
So they have millions to spend on exclusively but it's a gradual process to get there launcher to beyond 2004 functionality?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.
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.So they have millions to spend on exclusively but it's a gradual process to get there launcher to beyond 2004 functionality?
Or at very least to state it openly instead of constantly implying the opposite.I find it surprising that it took that so long for that journalist to know about that fact.
Not surprising, honestly. But still amusing.Well, the best part of this story is seeing Sweeney have a little tantrum on Twitter.
Im waiting for the steams availabilty to resell my games, as i do with Nintendo and Sony.
Wait, they are giving digital codes, instead of disks, wait, they are asking for the same 30% as sony, ms and nintendo?
good joke