-
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.
Should Digital Storefronts Charge a 30% Fee for Selling a Video Game
- Thread starter galv
- Start date
OP
OP
There is no justification for why those platforms charge ongoing subscription fees monthly from users, other than those platform holders wanting to monetize their user base via an ongoing revenue stream. You and I both know this.
? The platform itself is a monopoly from the creator itselfs. Without their "stamp of approval" no game can be sold in the platform itself as there is code there to prevent any third party not accepted programs to run.
On a broader aspect, gaming is not a monopoly but it does contain platforms that are monopolistic.
Last edited:
It's a privilege to be on any platform. Even platforms within an open platform aren't your right (as a dev). There's no true difference.
OP
OP
Yes, and Valve also has tons developers improving their service. You can't say that for majority of other stores including consoles. Sony charges 30% for transactions on their store, % for publishing game on their platform and they charge users 50$ per year for online play, and yet their service is bare bones compared to Steam.
Alot of this stuff is stuff they don't do or the publisher has to handle themselves, or things the publishers already pays for i.e the certification process to make sure a game is ready for the system already costs alot or marketing agreements, or the customer already pays for.
Plus alot of these features would be standard across all the games, it doesn't make sense that it costs that much for each one of them.
https://gdcvault.com/play/1024944/Failing-to-Fail-The-Spiderweb
I can't post a specific place to start the video but just start at 26:10 and go until about 27:47 if you want a persons view point unique beyond "Wah it's too high!"
Another point is the entire video is a great watch
It's about a Indie Developer of one person (Sometimes two, sometimes three) with a career spanning from the 80s to now and they talk about pretty everything.
I can't post a specific place to start the video but just start at 26:10 and go until about 27:47 if you want a persons view point unique beyond "Wah it's too high!"
Another point is the entire video is a great watch
It's about a Indie Developer of one person (Sometimes two, sometimes three) with a career spanning from the 80s to now and they talk about pretty everything.
That's not what a monopoly is though. Saying Sony has a monopoly on Playstations or that Valve has a monopoly on the Steam store is silly because those platforms themselves are in competition with other platforms. If publishers feel like these platforms are charging too much, then they're free to move away from Steam or app stores to other platforms and capture that extra revenue.
No, the correct term is monopolistic competition. There are many buyers and sellers in the gaming market.
Untrue.
Depending of the platform, you get a wide range of tools, APIs, and stuff processed for you.
They should charge whatever the market can bear. Given some of the comments on this board and reddit you would think PC gamers have little interest to shop elsewhere. If you are the dominant digital store in that space you can dictate terms. Same applies to consoles.
No one deserves anything. I don't think many publishers or developers would be happy paying 'thank you Valve tax' for the rest of their existence.
not in most cases
it actually doesn't make much sense for it to be a percentage rather than a flat rate (or itemized rate based on things like # of patches, download size, etc.)
it also creates tension between what the store should be doing as a product (recommending games you will like) versus what the store should be doing as a business (recommending games where you're more likely to spend more money)
it actually doesn't make much sense for it to be a percentage rather than a flat rate (or itemized rate based on things like # of patches, download size, etc.)
it also creates tension between what the store should be doing as a product (recommending games you will like) versus what the store should be doing as a business (recommending games where you're more likely to spend more money)
I mean... that is correct though? The issue is that Steam (or heck google play store!) does not have a monopoly on the platforms as you are able to launch your product in the same market without paying anything to them. On the case of "platform holders" that is not possible at all, as any product that launches in the market must pass through them.
A sports agent earns 4-10%. An NFL agent can't receive more than 3%.The standard Realtor Commission is 5-6%. Licensed talent agents cannot take more than 10%.
These agents actively push to get their clients work and the best offers to earn their rate.
If these digital store fronts were to charge a base 10% and then offer a program where they'll push your title for an extra 20% cut via suggestions, videos, social media posts etc. and earn the 30% through higher volume sales, that would be fine. Big publishers wouldn't need it. Struggling Indie's would have nothing to lose.
These agents actively push to get their clients work and the best offers to earn their rate.
If these digital store fronts were to charge a base 10% and then offer a program where they'll push your title for an extra 20% cut via suggestions, videos, social media posts etc. and earn the 30% through higher volume sales, that would be fine. Big publishers wouldn't need it. Struggling Indie's would have nothing to lose.
First post nails it.
It's capitalism in action, like almost everything else in the games industry.
I'm curious why you think Sony and MS deserve 30%, but not Valve, seeing as Steam has more users than both XBL and PSN. Something about "privilege" to be on a platform was it?
Agreed on this. It should come down to to providing value for the fees. And there's a huge disparity here. Some companies use that fee to constantly improve the platform for both gamers and devs (which actually does cost money). Others not so much. Only thing they care about is their cut (and the fact they can get away with charging 30 percent and not having to do much of anything regarding the platform). Constantly providing awesome features, for free, is why so many love the Steam platform (and why they're frustrated at all the half ass competition that run barebones services (that keep every last cent and re-invest nothing)).
That's not how it works, if you want your game to be hosted you have to pay for it somehow. Companies also have to pay stores to put their products on shelves it's how they make their money.
Take Steam as an example. You'll use DirectX and other Windows APIs Microsoft doesn't get any money for. Steam offers some (pretty barebones) achievements and online APIs I think nobody would cry for.
On iOS, sure you'll get to enjoy Apple's shit tier connectivity stack, shockingly bad Xcode, and do some genuinely cool stuff with Metal or AR Kit if you are lucky. But more likely you will use Objective C, C++, Java on server side, Unity, Unreal Engine, Godot, because you really don't want to tie your game to single platform. And payment for those tools goes from your 70% meant for development, not Apple's "platform fee" meant for, according to you, "a wide range of tools, APIs".
And Android... well, I trust you get my point.
These things would just end up hurting the consumer because it would make developers less likely to release patches or 4K texture packs at all
They can charge whatever they want to charge. Welcome to capitalism.
It's really up to publishers and customers to dictate these things. Publishers can agree, disagree or make a better deal. Customers can not use the store front if pricing is an issue. But why would the customer care when digital prices on steam are already pretty good?
Obviously if the publisher publishes a game on steam, that's their problem. And no, why would they deserve 100% profit when selling on someone else's store? Lol.
It would not stay 30% if publishers refused to publish games on steam.
As for digital sales as a whole? I think they should be cheaper. But again that's decided by you and I. And everyone seems pretty ready to buy digital at full value, so oh well there goes that. Subscription models are the future anyways.
It's really up to publishers and customers to dictate these things. Publishers can agree, disagree or make a better deal. Customers can not use the store front if pricing is an issue. But why would the customer care when digital prices on steam are already pretty good?
Obviously if the publisher publishes a game on steam, that's their problem. And no, why would they deserve 100% profit when selling on someone else's store? Lol.
It would not stay 30% if publishers refused to publish games on steam.
As for digital sales as a whole? I think they should be cheaper. But again that's decided by you and I. And everyone seems pretty ready to buy digital at full value, so oh well there goes that. Subscription models are the future anyways.
Meanwhile, we are people complaining in ERA why Nintendo doesn't add achievements in the Switch, but that's off topic.
Personally, I believe 30% is fine, but I'm just a person who enjoys gaming as a hobby, so my opinion doesn't hold too much value. But if everyone is fine with it and the market allows it, then by all means, they should continue charging it.
"One area where the contrast is stark, however, is in multiplayer accessibility. While the PlayStation 4 version had its hiccups with getting the squad together, those aren't present at all in the PC version, which makes the most of its integration with Steam to get you playing together in under a couple of minutes. It's refreshingly simple compared to laboriously typing out a string of numbers, or fiddling with the PlayStation 4's subpar native interface."
https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/monster-hunter-world-review-deadliest-catch/1900-6416842/
hmmm online apis no one wants ? seems like psn might need some help
On Steam, you also get
- Full free mod hosting and an API to integrate that
- A VR compositor and API to integrate that
- The best input API on PC
- What I'd say is the best spatial audio API/engine around (to be fair, Valve is giving that to everyone for free, not just on Steam)
- Also not sure what is "barebones" about the online APIs -- they have everything anyone else has, and it's all free to your users (and you, beyond the revenue cut)
- You also do in fact get a game engine (Source 2) completely for free (but admittedly, you probably wouldn't want to use it over the alternatives with its current level of documentation/support)
if developers would give PSN 40%, surely that would be sorted in no time.
If that were true, both CoD and FIFA would still release on Steam.
if you want to be on an iPhone or an Xbox or a Playstation you have no choice to give 30% to Apple, Microsoft or Sony. If you don't think 30% is worthwhile then you simply don't release on their platform. I did not say they deserve 30% I said they can justify it because otherwise, developers would not be releasing on their platforms
If Valve disappeared tomorrow Blizzard, EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Epic, Bethesda, Riot would still be releasing their games on PC and PC gaming would survive. No business lasts forever and you can easily argue that PC gaming has outgrown the need for Valve and their 30% cut.
Why are Blizz, EA, Ubi, MS, Bethesda okay with 30% but not Valve with offering far less? Valve still offers far more if you would define it as a plattform or just a launcher than the competitors. They offer far more than Sony with PSN outside of Hardware for publishers, devs and consumers.
Also because of Valve/Steam we now have most japanese games on Steam, since japanese devs and pubs seemed its a great alternative with the same 30% cut that consoles have.
I do agree that Steam provides some uniquely valuable things not provided by all platforms - mod hosting is pretty novel, along with their own engine. VR/AR tools, input API, audio API and online API are mostly table stakes these days. But even that pales in comparison to what Microsoft offers, and gets no cut for beside OS license.
if it were that easy, why are they not doing it now? cause in reality the set up and management is not cheap nor easy. if Valve goes down each of em wont make their own store, someone else will rise to become the new "valve"
Is that actually a PSN problem or just bad development choice?
I've never played the game but what in the world could you be doing that would even require "a couple of minutes"?
Pretty standard shit in other games is having a full party together within a matter of seconds, and in-game as fast as loading permits.
By that logic Nintendo deserves all the credit for saving all video games in the US and Canada
...and a large amount of mid-tier and indie games would suffer but ok.
Epic used to take 30% on it's Unreal marketplace. Last month they dropped to 12% even retroactive back to 2014 (giving that 18% back as a payment to everyone who sold anything.)
I get what you're saying, but all those companies he mentioned already has a digital store on PC. Also Bethesda isn't releasing Fallout 76 on Steam. It will be their own store. publishers are starting to try this now.