I''ll take your question at face value as a legitimate one and explain how I see it. If you could offer a good to the consumer/customer directly and effectively, you would indeed take 100%. Like EA or Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard do on their own stores. If you are forced to go through a middle-man, like the Apple Store or Steam, you need to pay for that. Now, what's a 'just split'? You can approach it pragmatically or idealistically. The 70/30 split was based on physical goods distribution. Creating and delivering physical goods is a lot more expensive than digital. Effectively, a digital storefront is taking same for less. It's no wonder developers push back against it.
Idealistically, I would like for the one who created the game to earn more than the one who puts it on their storefront. This is reflective of my liberal (European liberal, so also socialist) views. It's the workers own means of production mnetality ;) It'd be more rewarding to be a creator and you'd get a lot more diverse stuff.
That last sentence evokes a strange sentiment "Screw you, we've got it worse". Changing the split certainly won't be worse for customers and can lead to a more diverse market with a lower barier of entry for indie devs who need to put up development money out of their pockets.
Eh sorry but no.
25% is the retailer's margin ($15 at $60, $5 at $20). 20% is the licensing fee + cost of goods from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo for making a retail game ($12, and from previous conversations with industry figures, this is static regardless what you're charging). By comparison, it's a flat 30% with...
www.resetera.com
And you claim "delivering phisical goods is a lot more expensive than digital". The thing is, you see a storefront only as a way to deliver a good. You're completly missing the ecosystem aspect. Apple and Steam aren't just middlemen. They're also building an entire set of tools and ecosystem so that the user experience is cohesive. That I buy my game from Best Buy or Walmart is the same thing. There's no strings attached to the product. In a digital environnement though ? There's a lot more to it than just delivering you the product. There's also how the product interacts with your ecosystem and the other products. How it integrates to the whole user experience. And that's something you're completly skipping. Hence why other launchers are terrible, save for Uplay who has been doing progress. Because while they take 100%, they're also lacking in every other departments.
You're claiming a digital storefront is taking same for less, okay i'll take it at face value:
- Does Gamestop provides tools for the games such as APIs for matchmaking, achievements, mods ?
- Does Gamestop provides servers for the hosting of user created content such as mods, screenshots ?
- Does Gamestop provides dedicated servers for multiplayer ?
- Does Gamestop provides an API for your game so that controller support/operating system support/VR support is handled by the launcher and not the dev ?
- Does Gamestop provides a space for the devs to manage their own shelves ?
Basically, you're looking through it in a simple way that completly skip the important thing: The customer experience and the reality of developpement. Basically you're seeing the game as a product that is delivered in any way the same way it would be for a physical product. The reality is different though.
For your second paragraph, it's already the case. 70% is bigger than 30%. But then again, you have a simple way of seeing digital distribution. Basically, you envision it as glorified FTP server where customers download the game. You see it as a shelve. It's more than that. It's a wide subset of tools that completly change the way the customer enjoy their product. You can think it's petty but I'm sorry to tell you this: It matters to customers. Why do you think Apple products are selling a shiton for a huge markup ?
For your last sentence, changing the split is worse for the customer already. As I said before, that 30% cut gives a leverage for 3rd party stores to exist and compete. GreenManGaming, Humble Store and such. With that 30% cut, they can compete on price. They can offer discounts, from 10 to 25% to customers. The saving I make as a customer, it goes toward other games. A better distribution of my euros basically.
You don't believe me ? It's concrete facts: Take any game EGS exclusive sold on Humble Store: You cant apply the 10% off if you're a monthly subscriber. And the % you get back is also lower. It might also apply to charity. Because at 12%; you can't do much.
GOG also lowered their cut. What did it mean to customer ? They killed their fair price program:
How does Epic maintain a 12% cut ? By making the customer pay any overcharge and by keeping their service cost effective by killing features.