Support NeoGAF

[Pixieking]

This thread reads like one about a console maker.
Lots and lots of people defending an effective monopoly with nonsense arguments.

"Sell elsewhere if you don't like it" - ...

"30% is standard, everyone takes 30%" - So if everyone took 50% it would be okay? What if they took 70%, 90%? By that logic it's ok as long as everyone does it.
That the big guys don't throw away money by lowering the cut without pressure should be obvious.

30% is more than console manufactures take/took as their physical cut.
30% is more than a retail store gets.
Steam takes 30% - for what?
They take 30% because they have the market power, not because of any service they provide.

I'd suggest you read through the thread. I've already posted about the pointlessness of the statement "Effective monopoly", since it's not an actual term within economics, which this is really what the whole discussion is about. Market Dominance is not anything like a monopoly.

Stump posted what Valve actually do for their 30%. Other storefronts do a lot less, and have less features, and take the same (or almost the same, in the case of Humble).

Retail stores took, at one time (my figures may be outdated) 70% to cover everything, on worse deals for publishers, like sale or return.

Sony and MS take about 30% of every sale, and have restrictions on where you can purchase items.

And as has been pointed out time and time again, if Valve lowered their percentage cut, it would be counted as predatory pricing, and would be literally anti-competitive.

 

[Abilidebob]

I'd suggest you read through the thread.

Neogaf users rarely read past the 1st and last pages.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

Console makers charge 30% on their digital retail stores PSN, XBox Live and the eShop do it.

Physically They get a cut from every disk printed and the dev stil has to pay all costs associated with physical distribution and give a cut to the actual store that sells the game.

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

 

[TP-DK]

Apple provides less for that cut than Steam does.
Theres a mandatory $100 per year subscription fee for Apple developers too.

Oh yeah I forgot about that nasty fee.

But I don't think the comparison of Steam and iPhone is good anyway. With iPhone, Apple made a new platform, and allowed other people to develop and earn money on it. Steam is, not to make it sound less than it is, just another storefront with some added benefits.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

Valve does so much for PC gaming it's awesome.

They almost singlehandedly made Linux development easier by creating a common set of Steam runtime libraries to develop against.

They created an entire console esque front end.

They created a controller compatibility layer.

They offer the fastest downloads in the entire gaming industry for the largest library we've ever seen, one that grows daily in ways most gamers can't even understand. And they offer downloads of games that they will never monetize directly.

Back in 2007, when Microsoft was beginning to offer middleware to bring Xbox like features to PC, Valve created even better tools and just gave them away to the player base. Plus built in DRM that isn't overly draconian or awful or buggy.

Valve may not offer the sexy stuff for PC gamers, but I remain gobsmacked how much they do, and how many services they maintain.

 

[Pixieking]

Neogaf users rarely read past the 1st and last pages.

I've noticed that in this thread... To be fair, I do the same, but only when I browse. If I'm caring enough to post, I'm caring enough to read every page.

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

Valve have developed their own controller, develop a branch of Linux, started the Steam Machine intitiative, developed and gave away VR tech, and help to develop VR with HTC.

 

[LordRaptor]

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

and it costs money to develop operating systems, VR headsets, universal controllers, thin client streaming boxes, and all the other things Valve spend money on, or are we back to "i don't care about thing so thing doesn't count" like good old "valve dont make games any more"

 

[Stone Ocean]

"Effective monopoly" continues to be one of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

and it costs money to develop operating systems, VR headsets, universal controllers, thin client streaming boxes, and all the other things Valve spend money on, or are we back to "i don't care about thing so thing doesn't count" like good old "valve dont make games any more"

Bandwidth is free guise!

 

[TheRaidenPT]

It's not surprising it's still 30%.

Valve has made a living out of Steam, they barely made any games in the last couple of years.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

Can we get a "PSA"-esque replacement for the phrase effective monopoly?

I want to bash my head against a wall each time I see it, and it only highlights the ignorance of others.

 

[pislit]

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

It also costs money for valve to develop and maintain it's Linux, Mac, Windows things, universal controller compatibility, workshop things, among other things all of this while being able to allow refunds and regional pricing.

 

[CambriaRising]

Comparing consignment fees to CC processing fees is beyond idiotic.

 

[patapuf]

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

Steam as a platform costs money too. It's popularity is not because it's feature poor.

It's also free. Unlike consoles and PSN/Xbox Live subscriptions.

 

[Pixieking]

Can we get a "PSA"-esque replacement for the phrase effective monopoly?

I want to bash my head against a wall each time I see it, and it only highlights the ignorance of others.

I was asking this before it was cool. Like, two pages ago.

 

[Abilidebob]

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

An expensive console devkit that can only be sold directly by the console manufacturer also costs money.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

Some consoles can also be sold at a profit too btw, and that's also what royalty fees off of physical discs sale are for also.

Is hardware manufacture the only recognisable expense now in this thread? Never mind labour or R&D?
And also when Valve make controllers, Steam links, and are clearly heavily involved in vive development?

This thread is embarrassing.

I was asking this before it was cool. Like, two pages ago.

It' should be ok then, cos everyone is doing it now

 

[Absoludacrous]

Comparing consignment fees to CC processing fees is beyond idiotic.

He didn't though?

Edit: He was saying Steam has to pay 2-5% to the credit card companies, then an additional small amount for bandwidth, so they don't have such huge costs that they need a 30% cut.

 

[TechnicPuppet]

and it costs money to develop operating systems, VR headsets, universal controllers, thin client streaming boxes, and all the other things Valve spend money on, or are we back to "i don't care about thing so thing doesn't count" like good old "valve dont make games any more"

This doesn't make any sense at all. EA, Ubisoft or whatever pay their 30% to allow the console market to exist. Not so Sony can use the money to make a new movie or MS a new office.

 

[pislit]

This doesn't make any sense at all. EA, Ubisoft or whatever pay their 30% to allow the console market to exist. Not so Sony can use the money to make a new movie or MS a new office.

WAT.

 

[Ascheroth]

Some consoles can also be sold at a profit too, and that's also what royalty fees off of physical discs are for.

Is hardware manufacture the only recognisable expense now in this thread?
When Valve also make controllers, Steam links, and are clearly heavily involved in vive development?

This thread is embarrassing.



It' should be ok then, cos everyone is doing it now

PC accessories and VR don't count because...
...
reasons.

 

[Lostconfused]

The wikipedia article on market dominance is pretty bare bones and is mainly about defining and calculating it. Kind of more interested in implications, impact, and business strategy it allows for.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

This doesn't make any sense at all. EA, Ubisoft or whatever pay their 30% to allow the console market to exist. Not so Sony can use the money to make a new movie or MS a new office.

...

I f*cking give up.
The naivety in this thread is astounding.

MS and Sony can do whatever they like with any revenue they get.
And to publishers that's just the price of doing business.

 

[LordRaptor]

This doesn't make any sense at all. EA, Ubisoft or whatever pay their 30% to allow the console market to exist. .

Oh, its like a tithe to the console god that makes sense

 

[texhnolyze]

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

"Everything that isn't visible doesn't cost money."

 

[Abilidebob]

This doesn't make any sense at all. EA, Ubisoft or whatever pay their 30% to allow the console market to exist. Not so Sony can use the money to make a new movie or MS a new office.

HAHAHAHA, Jesus Christ.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

This doesn't make any sense at all. EA, Ubisoft or whatever pay their 30% to allow the console market to exist. Not so Sony can use the money to make a new movie or MS a new office.

The third parties pay the fee because they have to. What those two companies do with those profits is up to them, but I promise you it definitely doesn't all just go right back into console development. For a while, PlayStation was making a good deal of money within sony, so yes, PlayStation profits did probably pay for a movie or two.

 

[CambriaRising]

He didn't though?

Edit: He was saying Steam has to pay 2-5% to the credit card companies, then an additional small amount for bandwidth, so they don't have such huge costs that they need a 30% cut.

It didn't read like that to me but I guess that's probably it. In any case this guy has zero business sense if he thinks valve should cut this consignment fee just because they don't "need" the profit. Tim himself charges 30% on the unreal store.

 

[Baron_Calamity]

If they took 3% its unlikely games would be 27% cheaper so as an end consomer what do I care?

 

[Ascheroth]

He didn't though?

Edit: He was saying Steam has to pay 2-5% to the credit card companies, then an additional small amount for bandwidth, so they don't have such huge costs that they need a 30% cut.

Of interest:

Note that they pay the credit card processor 2-5% of the full price of the sale, not just the 30%. That's 6-16% of Valve's cut.

 

[AHA-Lambda]

If they took 3% its unlikely games would be 27% cheaper so as an end consomer what do I care?

Yeah, as a consumer you have no need to care at all.

That's why I laugh when people say "but I want to give big international corporation all my money!"

 

[Stone Ocean]

Oh, its like a tithe to the console god that makes sense

It's either that or sacrificing CEOs

We must please the console gods for a bountiful Black Friday harvest

 

[TheRedSnifit]

The third parties pay the fee because they have to. What those two companies do with those profits is up to them, but I promise you it definitely doesn't all just go right back into console development. For a while, PlayStation was making a good deal of money within sony, so yes, PlayStation profits did probably pay for a movie or two.

You mean to tell me that Sony doesn't make consoles for their love of the art?

 

[Nheco]

Every time I read a Tim Sweeney's rant I imagine him writing it using a tin foil. Stop ashaming yourself dude, specially on a matter that your freaking company does the exactly same.

If Tim have reasons to justify charging people 30% on Unreal's store, why Gaben wouldn't have his reasons too? Steam covers bandwidth costs from a lot of stores that are steam activation keys based, like Humble, Nuuvem and others. Steam don't get any cut from those sales. Steam is a monopoly? I don't think so, and even if I'm wrong, they got all this power in the pc space because they are pro consumer as fuck, but they are still a company: don't expect it to be a charity.

 

[Pixieking]

The wikipedia article on market dominance is pretty bare bones and is mainly about defining and calculating it. Kind of more interested in implications, impact, and business strategy it allows for.

Mmmm, it would be good to read, but I haven't come across anything that would fit the bill, sadly. I think it also depends upon the industry? If anyone has anything more in depth, please post it.

Edit: Also "Tithe to the Console God" should be a tell-all book about the games industry.

 

[LordRaptor]

Edit: Also "Tithe to the Console God" should be a tell-all book about the games industry.

it would explain the zealotry against the unwashed mobile heathens and the dangerous pc infidels

 

[Head.spawn]

Are people really surprised buy 30%? Where the hell have you been? That's the standard damn near everywhere and even in retail.

 

[Pixieking]

it would explain the zealotry against the unwashed mobile heathens and the dangerous pc infidels

Movie adaptation to feature Christopher Lee as S'ony, Peter Cushing as "Micros'oft", and Vincent Price as Gabe Newell. oh! And Peter Lorre as Steve Jobs.

(Yes, I know they're all dead. :'( )

 

[water_wendi]

im glad i lived long enough to see popular opinion on Valve and Steam start to change.

 

[Backlogger]

They handle:
- Credit card processing, including payment processing for every payment processor in every country
- Historically, giving you literally hundreds of thousands of front page impressions -- not sure if they still guarantee this but historically they did; I know they currently guarantee tons of patch update impressions on the front page
- Unlimited keys for external sales which they take 0% on
- All handling of refunds and chargebacks
- A marketplace for item content, which they only take 10% on
- A marketplace for trading cards, which are free for developers, where each sale they take 10% on
- Custom art and promotion in major sale events
- Hosting every download and redownload, all patches and patch downloads, all costs associated with patch certification
- Hosting preloads
- Closed beta tests and interactive branching for deployment
- Cloud saves and storage for all your users in perpetuity
- Coupons and targeted user contacts
- A pretty effective anti-cheat system, yours for free
- A community discussion forum and an unlimited supply of free labour to moderate it if you need it
- Purchase support in every major language
- Steam Days
- Matchmaking
- Leaderboards
- Several engine tech stacks, including the major tech stack for VR, completely free
- An audience of 100 million users

Of course you might say you can do without some of these and roll your own for some of these (also, when you discontinue your roll-your-own service 3 years from now because you can't afford it, I hope you enjoy an unending torrent of complaints for your customers because you demanded not to have to pay 30%). But the idea that "lol if u add up mastercard and my cdn costs steam ain't worth 30%" is stupid as hell.

The monopoly / monopsony arguments seem totally incoherent; maybe 6 or 7 of the the 10 biggest games on PC aren't on Steam at all.

.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

I don't think the majority of PC gaming is even done via Steam.

Steam never took off in Asia (so half the planet), and even in western countries, games like Minecraft, League, Blizzard games and EA games are large enough that Steam likely has a smaller percentage of PC gamers than I think most people assume they have.

The term "monopoly" seems to have been boiled down to mean "dominate store front for western developed indie games" which I guess describes Steam, but it's hardly a monopoly.

 

[psychowave]

Yeah, as a consumer you have no need to care at all.

That's why I laugh when people say "but I want to give big international corporation all my money!"

It matters for indie game makers, though. They need my support more than Valve.

 

[AmFreak]

I'd suggest you read through the thread. I've already posted about the pointlessness of the statement "Effective monpoly", since it's not an actual term within economics, which this is really what the whole discussion is about. Market Dominance is not anything like a monopoly.

Valve does not only have market dominance.
In the normal case you are either on Steam or you are fucked.
There is no real alternative.

Stump posted what Valve actually do for their 30%. Other storefronts do a lot less, and have less features, and take the same (or almost the same, in the case of Humble).

This isn't about what stores have what features.
Devs aren't on Steam, because of it's features, they are on Steam, because they have to.

Retail stores took, at one time (my figures may be outdated) 70% to cover everything, on worse deals for publishers, like sale or return.

A video game store doesn't get 30% of your bought $60 game.

And as has been pointed out time and time again, if Valve lowered their percentage cut, it would be counted as predatory pricing, and would be literally anti-competitive.

This is nothing more than an assumption.

 

[rudger]

Not sure why everybody is saying this is because all digital platofrms charge this. It has nothing to do with being digital. This started with the Nintendo Seal of Quality, got co-opted by all console makers, then Apple brought it into the digital space. It's a fee for having your software appear on a platform. it might be time to lower the cut as it hasn't really changed in decades. Certainly worth discussing, but not really fair to single Steam out (and I hate Steam).

 

[JaseC]

This isn't about what stores have what features.
Devs aren't on Steam, because of it's features, they are on Steam, because they have to.

You're the one who said "they take 30% because they have the market power, not because of any service they provide". That money demonstrably does, at least in part, go towards providing services for developers.

Please don't be intellectually dishonest. It's unbecoming.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Valve does not only have market dominance.
In the normal case you are either on Steam or you are fucked.
There is no real alternative.

Other than all of the hugely successful PC games that aren't on Steam?

A video game store doesn't get 30% of your bought $60 game.

The publisher certainly doesn't get 70% of retail sales

This is nothing more than an assumption.

If Steam went lower than 30%, they'd be the lowest on the market and could easily secure substantial exclusives they do not currently get.

 

[pislit]

Valve does not only have market dominance.
In the normal case you are either on Steam or you are fucked.
There is no real alternative.

League of Legends, GOG, Blizzard, Minecraft, all mmorpgs, Origin, etc. Etc. says no. You don't have to be the runaway market leader to be successful. If you are a just a fraction of Valve's market share, you are still winning otherwise you are out of bizniz.

 

[The_Super_Inframan]

It costs money to develop and and sell consoles.

developing a store front and backend for millions of users with lots of features that nobody else provides isnt cheap either...

also stuff like Controllers, VR or SteamLink

edit: ups, forgot to refresh the thread, this was already mentioned

 

[Pixieking]

This is nothing more than an assumption.

where a product or service is set at a very low price

In this case, the storefront cut of 30% being reduced to Tim's suggestion of 10%

intending to drive competitors out of the market, or create barriers to entry for potential new competitors.

Intent isn't the point here, so let's carry on

Theoretically if competitors or potential competitors cannot sustain equal or lower prices without losing money,

So, if GOG, GMG, Origin, Humble etc can't afford to lower their own percentages to 10% to compete.

they go out of business or choose not to enter the business.

Self-explanatory.

Not an assumption. It's an economic theory, but it's one that

is considered anti-competitive in many jurisdictions and is illegal under competition laws. However, it can be difficult to prove that prices dropped because of deliberate predatory pricing rather than legitimate price competition. In any case, competitors may be driven out of the market before the case is ever heard.

 

[Stone Ocean]

This is nothing more than an assumption.

So what you're saying is that the market leader lowering their sales cut below every competition's for no reason would not fuck over the competition entirely? lmao

 

[Pureauthor]

I'm not sure the anti-Steam crowd actually knows what they want Steam to do w/ regards to pricing.