I didn't say they should only take a 10% cut. I said they should take 10%, plus payment processing costs. I don't really know or care what, exactly, a proper number would be, anyway. I picked 90/10 as an example because it would be roughly equal to Epic's cut in the absolute best case (very low payment processing costs) and pretty close to Valve's existing cut in the worst case (~15% lost on gift cards). The point I'm trying to make is that Valve could give developers/publishers a better cut by varying it based on checkout costs, instead of just taking a bigger profit on the cheaper payment methods.What about Valve's operating costs for all of their services and support suggests a 10% cut is fair and a rational proposal for them when Epic -- who is offering demonstrably less in services or features -- have already stated that 12% is unsustainable for them and on their comparatively barren service?
Ya'll need to think these things through better.
I believe Sony, MS and Nintendo include the 10% royalty fee in their 30% cut. the 20% cut is the standard retailer cut charged by all phsyical retailers like walmart,bestbuy and gamestop. First party publishers are simply including the 10% royalty fee up front.
Steam charging the extra 10% makes no sense because they didnt invest billions of dollars in manufacturing and selling consoles.
Lol, how are you even beginning to quantify what 5% amounts to, features/support wise?!IMO steam do a lot others don't on PC so they can justify a bigger cut but not 12% more then Epic. If STEAM did a 25/75% cut across the board I think it would go a long way to satisfying PC developers.
How much cheaper? Again, how can we have this conversation without numbers?
How much cheaper is it to own and run massive data centers with scores of features than to print a box, insert into a DVD into a sleeve and ship and commercial bulk prices (pennies, if you weren't aware)?
How does anyone assert it is less expensive without that information? Gut feelings?
Yea. I guess my point is people are throwing around "this is crazy" but don't actually have any financial perspective on what is or is not crazy to base their opinions on.I mean, my point is that it's usually not sustainable lol. I could definitely see Epic changing it whenever they make less money from Fortnite.
Oh, didn't know that. What's the split for smaller devs?
It needs to be the other way, the big devs that sell millions of copies can afford the 30/70 split, it's the smaller devs that needs a lower percentage to not run away to EGS.If anything it will be more like corporate tax where the bigger you are the more tax incentives you're given to stop you going elsewhere
I'm confused about this too. If Steam lowered their cut to 20% but instead devs had to give AMD/Nvidia/Intel a 10% cut on top of that, would everyone be ok with that? It's suddenly fine?First:
The royalty fee from Sony/MS/Nintendo on physical copies is 20% according to ubisoft.
Second:
Excuse me but, what does the digital share has to do with "manufacturing and selling consoles" ? Are those consoles given for free ? No, they're sold at a profit in the long run. They also sell accessories with a huge markup. And they also make online paywalls.
I'm confused about this too. If Steam lowered their cut to 20% but instead devs had to give AMD/Nvidia/Intel a 10% cut on top of that, would everyone be ok with that? It's suddenly fine?
What the hell do devs have to do with that?
Taking a lower cut so consumers who use certain payment methods don't have to pay more is absurd, but helping fund someone else's hardware is perfectly reasonable?
Should Valve's cut be bigger for SteamVR games? I mean, it uses their hardware.
Why do these companies only bring up Steam and not also Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo? The digital split is the same on all of them.
Steam should just offer a 90/10 cut package to devs that want it and include in it all the features the Epic store has.
I bet the crying would go away real fast.
People absolutely think it costs effectively nothing to run a service like Steam. The tip off is that they simultaneously want great customer support, a client overhaul, tons of features, refunds, etc. while wanting the company to earn two thirds less revenue.Yea. I guess my point is people are throwing around "this is crazy" but don't actually have any financial perspective on what is or is not crazy to base their opinions on.
Is 30% too much? I don't know. I don't know how much it costs Steam to run all of their services and data centers for free (for the consumers) along with the value of access to the Steam market and its audience which costs next to nothing to get your game on. Are Sony, Apple, Samsung, Google, and Microsoft also taking too much? Because in this same thread not a few posts up we have people defending platform holders as offering "a magnitude more" value but they are not selling hardware at a loss and are simultaneously charging gamers monthly just to play online (which they could offer for free) and offering comparatively inferior online services, slower download speeds, etc. If they are taking to much, again, what is that based on? How much does it cost THEM to run their online services with 99.9% uptime and support staff?
Is 20% too much? Again, I don't know and am not sure how anyone can suggest that is more or less fair than 30% for the services provided.
I sort of feel like people think some of these services they use and enjoy are free or close to free to own and operate. It feels like the access to tens of millions of users isn't being considered.
Are these things cheaper than the pennies it costs to print and ship a DVD or Blu-ray? Are you sure? If people are sure, they should clarify just how much cheaper and show their work.
Wait, are you saying console manufacturers should stop charging royalty fees really? Royalty fees have always been a thing. If you have an issue with them, go back 40 years and ask console manufacturers why they are charging a royalty fee. thats their entire business. or at least used to be before the digital store front and PS+ subs. That royalty cut is how they made their money. Consoles only become profitable later in their life cycle and even then the margins are barely even there.First:
The royalty fee from Sony/MS/Nintendo on physical copies is 20% according to ubisoft.
Second:
Excuse me but, what does the digital share has to do with "manufacturing and selling consoles" ? Are those consoles given for free ? No, they're sold at a profit in the long run. They also sell accessories with a huge markup. And they also make online paywalls.
On Steam, smaller devs are allowed access to the same features as larger devs. Besides that, they can freely generate their own keys to sell through other means, essentially allowing them to take a 100/0 split.It needs to be the other way, the big devs that sell millions of copies can afford the 30/70 split, it's the smaller devs that needs a lower percentage to not run away to EGS.
How about Paradox stops charging players for patches?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.
Patches are free and contain a lot of stuff...
It is almost as if the OP mentioned Steam... It is funny how you just see what you want to see.Here I am laughing at how some people here automatically had a "but steam...!" reaction.
Even if you don't read the article, steam isn't mentioned in any of the quotes on the OP.
It's kind of funny how exacerbated the hate for EGS can get.
What exactly should be discussed about that topic?This is a more interesting topic and I'm surprised doesn't get discussed much.
Did you read the OP or were you too busy laughing at everyone?Here I am laughing at how some people here automatically had a "but steam...!" reaction.
Even if you don't read the article, steam isn't mentioned in any of the quotes on the OP.
It's kind of funny how exacerbated the hate for EGS can get.
It's kind of telling that what the vast majority of publishers do with their keys is just selling them to other stores like GMG and Nuuvem, instead of building their own stores to sell as much as GMG does while making more money from each copy.On Steam, smaller devs are allowed access to the same features as larger devs. Besides that, they can freely generate their own keys to sell through other means, essentially allowing them to take a 100/0 split.
Nearly every dev ever that didn't need those features would take that in a heartbeat
As long as they have the only PC storefront that isn't hot garbage I'd say the split is as justified as the console maker's.I guess this is going to be the thread where we pretend that Valve's cut isn't justified compared to MS, Sony, Nintendo etc. because they don't make hardware, completely ignoring all their software efforts in the PC space.
I'm sure many would. And then be thoroughly ignored by most of Steam's playerbase. Which would solve no problem.
Did you read the OP or were you too busy laughing at everyone?
Deadass it wouldn't fucking matter lol they would take an extra 20% and still be on Steam
Wait, are you saying console manufacturers should stop charging royalty fees really? Royalty fees have always been a thing. If you have an issue with them, go back 40 years and ask console manufacturers why they are charging a royalty fee. thats their entire business. or at least used to be before the digital store front and PS+ subs. That royalty cut is how they made their money. Consoles only become profitable later in their life cycle and even then the margins are barely even there.
If the royalty cut is 20% like you said, then their vendor cut is only 10%. compared to the 20% retailer cut, thats half off. 20% rotalty cut on physical sales seems ridiculously high since retailer cut is 20% and other distribution costs mean they barely get a 50% return after factoring everything in. 20% would mean they make 40% per copy which if true is ridiculous and unsustainable.