• 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.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
Seems like most people on here are defending the 70/30 split. You would think more people would want a bigger split for the developers/publishers. I think 80/20 is more reasonable.


Pretty much Every single time this comes up, the popular opinion is that nobody gives a shit about small devs and all folks want is cheap games on Steam.

People are struggling to turn profits and nobody cares. Shame.

I remember reading comments on PC Gamer where folks were like "who cares if some No-name dev can't break even and goes under. There's always more where they came from!"
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,316
Most of the things you list are sunk cost, and perhaps justify why Steam collected the same 30% cut as the console makers that actually had to make, market and support hardware.


You cannot be serious to list 'access to millions of consumers' as a feature deserving a large cut.



This is such a poor tone to take. Wtf is this?


"My favorite manufacturer deserve their cut because they SOLD me an hardware for profit". This is you right now.
 

Deleted member 42472

User requested account closure
Banned
Apr 21, 2018
729
Most of the things you list are sunk cost, and perhaps justify why Steam collected the same 30% cut as the console makers that actually had to make, market and support hardware.


You cannot be serious to list 'access to millions of consumers' as a feature deserving a large cut.
I mean, that is really Steam's value


As consumers, some people love the forums. Other people hate them. Some people love the recommendations. Other people want to turn that shit off. And so forth


From a dev/publisher perspective, what matters is the audience. Steam's value is that it is Steam. It is the gold standard for digital distribution for better or for worse

Back when XBLA first "launched", a bit value add from MS was that they would advertise exclusives. So lots of people would know Fez existed and maybe buy it.

A lot of people were praising Nintendo's eshop for similar reasons. For the first few months the market was barren and any game could get good exposure. So all those people hungry for a game after they got tired of shrines and shines would buy a Neo geo game or something.



And that is arguably part of the value EGS is giving people. The Fortnite demographic is massive and may not even HAVE Steam installed. So the games that aren't getting exclusivity payouts are there because they hope that the comparatively small amount of competition and high number of people launching that launcher every day may equate to more sales than hoping enough streamers tell people to search for your game on Steam.
 

Nome

Designer / Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,312
NYC
Pretty much Every single time this comes up, the popular opinion is that nobody gives a shit about small devs and all folks want is cheap games on Steam.

People are struggling to turn profits and nobody cares. Shame.

I remember reading comments on PC Gamer where folks were like "who cares if some No-name dev can't break even and goes under. There's always more where they came from!"
I think the gaming public in general just has no understanding or interest in the business side of games development. A smaller subgroup canonizes the artistic pursuit and downplays the money-making part. Making money is still taboo for some reason.
 

captainmal01

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,340
Don't buy the DLC then? DLC keeps their games supported and updated over many years instead of being dropped quickly after release. The base games are feature complete.


Stellaris was only good in the early game, with little to nothing in the mid-end game and Hearts Of Iron was also pretty rough. And Imperator: Rome is very barebones.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
"My favorite manufacturer deserve their cut because they SOLD me an hardware for profit". This is you right now.

I can't be held responsible for you failing (as usual) to comprehend my arguments.

And yes, marketing and supporting hardware is a continuous, running cost. 30% is still high in that case, but it's much more understandable than on the PC side.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
I mean, that is really Steam's value


As consumers, some people love the forums. Other people hate them. Some people love the recommendations. Other people want to turn that shit off. And so forth


From a dev/publisher perspective, what matters is the audience. Steam's value is that it is Steam. It is the gold standard for digital distribution for better or for worse

Back when XBLA first "launched", a bit value add from MS was that they would advertise exclusives. So lots of people would know Fez existed and maybe buy it.

A lot of people were praising Nintendo's eshop for similar reasons. For the first few months the market was barren and any game could get good exposure. So all those people hungry for a game after they got tired of shrines and shines would buy a Neo geo game or something.



And that is arguably part of the value EGS is giving people. The Fortnite demographic is massive and may not even HAVE Steam installed. So the games that aren't getting exclusivity payouts are there because they hope that the comparatively small amount of competition and high number of people launching that launcher every day may equate to more sales than hoping enough streamers tell people to search for your game on Steam.

Well, that was Apple's justification for scalping the likes of Spotify for a portion of their subscription charges. They're being investigated by the EU as we speak.
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,316
I can't be held responsible for you failing (as usual) to comprehend my arguments.

And yes, marketing and supporting hardware is a continuous, running cost. 30% is still high in that case, but it's much more understandable than on the PC side.


It's a cost. An unrelated cost to the cost of their digital service. It's like saying "There's an online paywall because they advertise their console". This is unrelated as hell. Consoles are sold. Not given away. For a profit in the long run. With royalties on physical copies. And yes, they even charge for online play.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
I'm also not buying anything on EGS. Short of a coordinated boycott there's not many other choices to signal my total objection to what Epic is doing.

OH, thats your choice and a legit decision to take. I'm just disappointed he's reducing what should be a rational discussion around fair dev/storefront splits to 'EPIC sux' when this encompasses multiple storefronts across Mobile, PC and console.
 

Pryme

Member
Aug 23, 2018
8,164
It's a cost. An unrelated cost to the cost of their digital service. It's like saying "There's an online paywall because they advertise their console". This is unrelated as hell. Consoles are sold. Not given away. For a profit in the long run. With royalties on physical copies. And yes, they even charge for online play.


Profit margins on consoles are slim. Especially at the beginning of the gen. Additionally, R&D costs hVe to be recouped, marketing costs are tremendous and they provide hardware support.
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,316
Profit margins on consoles are slim. Especially at the beginning of the gen. Additionally, R&D costs hVe to be recouped, marketing costs are tremendous and they provide hardware support.

"Profit margins" you said it yourself. Yeah they sell you a hardware. That's not a service they're doing here. Neither for devs or customers. Only for them.
 

Jobbs

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,639
It's completely inaccurate to say that listing a game on Steam doesn't cost Steam anything. They provide an infrastructure that does a ton of things and it ain't cheap

But, yeah, I would agree that 30% may be a bit too high
 

Deleted member 4609

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
767
Profit margins on consoles are slim. Especially at the beginning of the gen. Additionally, R&D costs hVe to be recouped, marketing costs are tremendous and they provide hardware support.

If only they could get people to pay, say, $60 a year for stuff that would otherwise be free, like P2P online gaming and cloud saves. Ah, well.
 

Ebullientprism

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,529
Yep. 70/30 is absolutely ridiculous considering Steam cant even give games the kind of spotlight they used to be able to.
 

Hucast

alt account
Banned
Mar 25, 2019
3,598
Yeah PSN, Xbox store, E shop and steam may have to rethink this perhaps
 

Hella

Member
Oct 27, 2017
23,406
It's difficult to defend the current digital split when even Valve is willing to alter it based on how big your game is. The current wisdom behind 70/30 amounts to "because that's the way it's always been" more than anything.

Paradox is probably in a weird spot about it, though. They make long-tail GaaS games, so unless you can jump wholesale to a new platform, you're locked up there forever. Like, I bought CK2 from Origin of all places, registered it to Steam, and once I bought my first piece of DLC for it on Steam, I'm locked there for whatever else happens. That sort of investment (from both player and developer) makes a lot rest on the platform of choice; you can't think of tomorrow, but ten years from now.
 

elzeus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,887
Epic did a great thing bringing this issue to the forefront, hopefully console makers follow suit sometime in the future... but I'm not holding my breath.
 

EloKa

GSP
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
1,906
Big publishers should release their marketing budgets. I bet that this "30% is too much" would stop immediately once people see some big numbers of what publishers are spending in an attempt to sell their games. A service which Steam provides for free / included within that 30%.
 

Bonfires Down

Member
Nov 2, 2017
2,816
I believe Epic saw how Paragon and Unreal Tournament failed on their client and decided they would take drastic measures to force Valve's cut lower, since they happened to come across silly amounts of Fortnite money. Keep in mind that Epic only seem interested in creating F2P games at this point, so they would have no benefit from selling Steam keys off-site. Fortnite is big enough that they don't need Steam, but they are taking the long term approach and hope to put future games on Steam with a higher developer cut.

And if Valve refuses to budge Epic is still in a pretty good situation once they add more features to the client.

Also, if the standard cut on PC becomes ~12%, it might become easier to pressure console owners and Apple etc to also lower their cut.
 

Tovarisc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
24,434
FIN
I believe Epic saw how Paragon and Unreal Tournament failed on their client and decided they would take drastic measures to force Valve's cut lower, since they happened to come across silly amounts of Fortnite money. Keep in mind that Epic only seem interested in creating F2P games at this point, so they would have no benefit from selling Steam keys off-site. Fortnite is big enough that they don't need Steam, but they are taking the long term approach and hope to put future games on Steam with a higher developer cut.

And if Valve refuses to budge Epic is still in a pretty good situation once they add more features to the client.

Unreal Tournament 2016 was going to be F2P showcase for capabilities of UE4 and it was still in Alpha when Epic killed it moving team to crunch Fortnite cosmetics.
 

Fredrik

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,003
Valve tend to be really good about letting developers request serial keys to give away or sell as they see fit. I don't know if there is a limit on this, but it means that any developer who is willing to take on the burden of their own online storefront in 2019 can get 100% of profits (barring costs of said storefront)

A more common model is to do this through the Humble Store and their widget. I don't know Humble's take, but I know a lot of devs have said they would prefer it if people bought it through that widget instead of Steam.
That's not a solution to this problem, sounds terrible if you ask me, selling the games directly on Steam must be preferred by the vast majority. I don't even check the Humble Store, I just occasionally jump in on some crazy sales in Humble Bundle.
 

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,139
The only reason Epic keeps bringing up the 70/30 cut is because it takes the heat off of their shitty practices.

I'm kinda surprised people keep falling for Tim's nonsense.
 

Deleted member 42

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
16,939
Worth pointing out that it sure seems like devs/pubs are gonna keep pushing on this on everybody until they get a lower cut across the board, that was the big scuttlebutt from E3 this year business wise

PC is first because there's so many options
Then mobile
Then consoles
 

TooBusyLookinGud

Graphics Engineer
Verified
Oct 27, 2017
7,964
California
I don't like Epic's tactic of moneyhatting, but I do like their split.

I agree that 30% is crazy, but it was necessary at the time due to rampant piracy and developers having a safe space to release their product.

Now, I think they could lower the cost because there are too many storefronts competing.
 

Deleted member 42472

User requested account closure
Banned
Apr 21, 2018
729
That's not a solution to this problem, sounds terrible if you ask me, selling the games directly on Steam must be preferred by the vast majority. I don't even check the Humble Store, I just occasionally jump in on some crazy sales in Humble Bundle.
And now you understand why publishers/devs want Valve to embrace a more favorable model and some studios are willing to take a huge sack of cash in exchange for exclusivity on a different store.

If you do a multi store release you are still basically a Steam exclusive to the vast majority of your consumers.
 

thebishop

Banned
Nov 10, 2017
2,758
And now you understand why publishers/devs want Valve to embrace a more favorable model and some studios are willing to take a huge sack of cash in exchange for exclusivity on a different store.

If you do a multi store release you are still basically a Steam exclusive to the vast majority of your consumers.
It sounds like Steam provides a ton of value to players, developers, and publishers.
 

Pyro

God help us the mods are making weekend threads
Member
Jul 30, 2018
14,505
United States
30% is highway robbery IMO. 20% at the most should be it, but preferably 10-15%.
 

Deleted member 42472

User requested account closure
Banned
Apr 21, 2018
729
It sounds like Steam provides a ton of value to players, developers, and publishers.
They totally do. They also provide a lot of shit and have a storefront where it is really hard for anyone without endorsement from the right streamers to stand out. And they lock devs into that 70/30 unless they are insanely successful or willing to run their own store fronts. And even then the latter probably won't make an appreciable difference.


Since we are once again back to "EGS vs Steam" rather than "What cut makes sense": The best possible outcome of this is that Valve change to something closer to 20/80 and they commit to curating their store so that a narrative game about the awkardness of dating doesn't have "Big Tittty Waifus 62: They Are Totally 9000 Years Old" advertised on the store page since both have "nudity" tags.
 

Antrax

Member
Oct 25, 2017
13,286
Kind of weird to want to put a price on other people's work,

This is literally how all business works though. The seller doesn't determine the value of a good or service, the buyer does. It's all about what people will pay for what you offer, and if a competitor comes in and undercuts you, then that affects the value of what you're offering.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,556
Forums? Community hubs for posting media? Mod support? Cloud saves? A storefront/market where you have access to millions of users?

The idea that steam's cut should go down just because more games get published today in a healthier pc scene is hilarious. Steam is the ONLY REASON WHY things ended up this way for pc gaming
Customer experience does not matter, and steam as a platform only usefullness is to " deliver a game? " which "This doesn't cost anything." ( which is why they don't do it themselves only right ? )

Obviously the article regurgitate the Timmy PR bluff "For his part, Sweeney has publicly stated that it will abandon its exclusives strategy if Valve changes Steam's revenue share to offer developers a more favourable deal."

Also "When the competition is low, the platform holder can get a big share of the pie; as competition increases, they need to lower their part of the pie, as well. That's how the market works, right?" could be perfectly used to argue that since "the amount of games that were released that year, in 2012, is the same number that are released in one month now on Steam. " the competition increased in gaming thus, game should cost less to be more competitive, That's how the market works, right?.

All of this read exactly like everything I have ever read my bosses complain about.
Taxes are always too high ( and wouldn't pay him another Porche, but lead to me getting a raise, obviously ).
Carrier cost us too much, they are only doing deliveries.
Google ads and the like ? cost too much ( for only giving us the visibility which allow us to survive in the first place )
Paypal taxe us too much.
Renting a server ? too much.
Why was I hired ? because the previous employe wanted a raise.
 

StereoVSN

Member
Nov 1, 2017
13,620
Eastern US
Yeah, Paradox would say that considering their shitty DLC policies and how they have been constantly called out for shoddy work. I am sure they would love to get rid of reviews and forums.
 

Keikaku

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,770
I wonder how much the cut from key resellers is? I'm surprised devs aren't calling them thieves or something.
 

Deleted member 42

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
16,939
Customer experience does not matter, and steam as a platform only usefullness is to " deliver a game? " which "This doesn't cost anything." ( which is why they don't do it themselves only right ? )

Paradox literally has their own store lol

But this whole push and pull thing has been happening for a looooong time now, it's all about what leverage devs/pubs have and what leverage the storefronts have
 

PepsimanVsJoe

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,139
Since we are once again back to "EGS vs Steam" rather than "What cut makes sense": The best possible outcome of this is that Valve change to something closer to 20/80 and they commit to curating their store so that a narrative game about the awkardness of dating doesn't have "Big Tittty Waifus 62: They Are Totally 9000 Years Old" advertised on the store page since both have "nudity" tags.
Who is going to curate the store?
 

StereoVSN

Member
Nov 1, 2017
13,620
Eastern US
Stellaris was only good in the early game, with little to nothing in the mid-end game and Hearts Of Iron was also pretty rough. And Imperator: Rome is very barebones.
Yeap, their releases for that full price have been generally subpar and only got fixed with DLCs (depending on your definition of fixed, Stellaris certainly got a lot more unoriginal).

DLCs also introduce free patches which on one hand do add some new features and fixes but on the other hand often assume that DLCs are there and screw up game balance.
 

Juj

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
504
I haven't been following this epic storefront debacle a lot but I'm initially quite surprised by eras respond to it.

I would think we were against monopolies in markets, singlehandedly deciding prices and cuts.

Can someone explain to me the rationale behind being against several storefronts?
 

Deleted member 42

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
16,939
Which is why I said "only".

If platforms like Steam usefullness was limited to delivering games, the fact thay Paradox can do it themselves should prove enough and they wouldn't have any need for the other platform/stores.

This is sloppy
It benefits a pub/dev to have their choice of storefronts and have them in whatever ones they choose, but they don't have to like the terms dictated to them and can try to change them at any time

They're just choosing this moment now for a litany of reasons, which can be decided as legitimate or not based on a host of things. There's clear momentum behind it because payment terms are getting swapped around/lowered already, but this ain't done yet and probably won't be until like 2021
 
Oct 27, 2017
45,240
Seattle
As long as paradox don't do exclusives with EGS, we are good. I've given hundreds of dollars to paradox interactive and that would stop immediately if they pull
That BS.

Also I buy my games directly from paradox and the use the key to have it on steam. That's the beat way to give paradox more $
 
Oct 25, 2017
14,741
This is literally how all business works though. The seller doesn't determine the value of a good or service, the buyer does. It's all about what people will pay for what you offer, and if a competitor comes in and undercuts you, then that affects the value of what you're offering.
But they keep paying. This only really works if they vote with their wallets, just like regular consumers.

"Make this product cheaper right now! This price is not worth it! I'll take 30."

They already have the means to sell Steam keys for 100% revenue, but most don't use it, or at least not nearly as well as they could. It's very clear they think the service is worth it, they just wish it was cheaper.

In which case, who doesn't? I wish every game was cheaper too, but I still think brand new releases with a reasonable budget are worth $60.
 

Jakisthe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,583
I haven't been following this epic storefront debacle a lot but I'm initially quite surprised by eras respond to it.

I would think we were against monopolies in markets, singlehandedly deciding prices and cuts.

Can someone explain to me the rationale behind being against several storefronts?
You'd think that anyone actually following the back and forth, especially on here, would have seen the points people have raised dozens and dozens of times about that, but I guess not.