• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Tim Sweeney: Not sure why Steam is still taking 30%

Woo-Fu

Banned
Epic won the engine-licensing battle, but lost every other one.

Steam is still taking 30% because they can, welcome to Business 101, Tim.
 

JP

Member
It does, which is the amusing thing. Epic's cut of assets sold through the UE4 Marketplace is 30%.
Funny thing is that they do.
You should've seen what Epic were charging us when everyone and their mothers used UE3.
They do?

I am sorry, I really don't follow PC gaming at all. From what he was saying it just seemed safe to assume that they hadn't done the same thing. His comment makes even less sense now.
 

Pixieking

Banned
"Effective monopoly" should be find-and-replaced by Modbot, like "PSA" was. It's essentially meaningless. At least "Market Dominance" means something in economics.
 

LordRaptor

Member
Is Steam the most hated service by people that have clearly never even fucking used it on GAF?

e:
But GAF tried to convince me that Steam doesn't have an effective monopoly on the Western market for the vast majority of devs.

It actuallt seems like thats a thing certain GAF members keep trying to push the narrative for when its demonstrably not true
 

Par Score

Member
The hate-on that some people have for Steam continues to be a thing I see.

I guess it's understandable to be jealous of success, especially if it's success you feel like could have been yours, or it's success you don't get to share in.


This is the only reply needed really. Tim's just bellyaching from a position of hypocrisy as usual.

But GAF tried to convince me that Steam doesn't have an effective monopoly on the Western market for the vast majority of devs.

They don't have a monopoly, and them charging the exact same as every other storefront is no evidence to the contrary.
 

Helznicht

Member
Tim wanting the benefits of Steam without paying is what this sounds like.

If Steam nets a company 30%+ more sales why the hell would you mind a 30% share?
 

BigEmil

Junior Member
What about GOG?


Is Steam the most hated service by people that have clearly never even fucking used it on GAF?

e:


It actuallt seems like thats a thing certain GAF members keep trying to push the narrative for when its demonstrably not true

Of course it's you damage controlling for Steam yet again
 
The only response you can give is hope for better competition.

Did people ever accuse iTunes of having a monopoly on the digital music service?
 
Who wants to bet if Valve reduced it's take down to say 10% we would get a tweet from Sweeney screaming that "Valve is pricing other online stores out of the marketplace". Either way in the past Epic has done an excellent screw job on pricing in the past so the level of hypocrisy from Sweeney here is well above 30%.
 

Easy_D

never left the stone age
So now that we've come to realise the Windows Store is a booming failure we're gonna start attacking Steam instead, eh, Sweeney?
 
So now that we've come to realise the Windows Store is a booming failure we're gonna start attacking Steam instead, eh, Sweeney?

The thing is Minecraft, Forza, and KI are doing well on there so it's possible for a game to do well on there. I expect Halo 6 will be successful on the store.
 

danm999

Member
This is basically how Tim seems to be viewing Valve;

1324596542030_7713053.png
 

Lime

Member
It is completely correct that it's ludicrous how much power and dominance of profits that distribution channels hold over entire markets.

People don't need to defend Valve.

Also, just because other services charge the same doesn't excuse the practice.
 

Pixieking

Banned
It is completely correct that it's ludicrous how much power and dominance of profits that distribution channels hold over entire markets.

People don't need to defend Valve.

Also, just because other services charge the same doesn't excuse the practice.

"Distribution channels" are actually stores in this instance. That other stores charge much the same does excuse the practice, because he's not calling out GOG, Origin, Humble, he's calling out Valve, a company that continues to innovate and bring value to consumers. You may not see much value here, btw, but others do.

Also, correcting people's assumptions about a company isn't the same as defending.

Edit: Also, a good time to repost this from page 5

And, as I'm here, people saying "monopoly" or such should remember:

1) The actual legal bar for monopoly is a lot higher than you think, otherwise action would be taken against, as examples, Amazon in the digital marketplace, and Waterstones and HMV in the physical. All three companies command a majority share of their markets (online sales, bricks-and-mortar book sales, bricks-and-mortar CD/DVD sales respectively).
2) As soon as Steam comes close to becoming a monpoly, you can bet your bottom dollar EA, Activision/Blizzard, MS etc are going to file legal complaints in the US, UK and Europe. If anyone really thinks their legal teams aren't just waiting for the moment, they're not thinking far enough ahead.
 

danm999

Member
Also, just because other services charge the same doesn't excuse the practice.

No, but it makes an industry insiders question about why they do it disingenuous, especially when the person asking the question does it themselves.
 
30% is currently the standard across a lot of platforms, I personally don't have an issue with it since you are using their services.
 

Chris1

Member
Wait people didn't know it was 30%? I thought it was common knowledge. Pretty much any big publisher has their own storefront these days for a reason.

To be honest, Steam is free online so I don't have a problem with them taking 30%. MS, Sony and soon Nintendo on the other hand..
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
The sad thing about this 30% standard isn't really Steams monopoly, it's the collusion between all the stores to not undercut it, even companies like MS & Epic, even GOG who are trying to break into the market mysteriously still set their revenue share at 70/30.


Clearly the thinking is "we could lower the cut, but then if we do well Valve will just match us and we'll all just make less money, so stick to 30%"
 

JaseC

gave away the keys to the kingdom.
Last I heard they had 6 million unique players [throughout March] when it launched on the Windows Store.

The PC version launched with cross-play support, though, so it's impossible to say for certain what percentage of that figure it represented.
 

Pixieking

Banned
The sad thing about this 30% standard isn't really Steams monopoly, it's the collusion between all the stores to not undercut it, even companies like MS & Epic, even GOG who are trying to break into the market mysteriously still set their revenue share at 70/30.

It's an interesting point, and it may be that it's the sweet-spot for all concerned. Humble and GOG are smaller, so have less sales, but also less ongoing costs and development API to maintain. Valve have larger sales - so more revenue - but far more in terms of outgoings.

Just speculation on my part, though.
 
The sad thing about this 30% standard isn't really Steams monopoly, it's the collusion between all the stores to not undercut it, even companies like MS & Epic, even GOG who are trying to break into the market mysteriously still set their revenue share at 70/30.


Clearly the thinking is "we could lower the cut, but then if we do well Valve will just lower there's and we'll all just make less money, so stick to 30%"
Publishers set the prices. So if GOG lowers their cut, the publisher would just pocket the extra money. So since prices are then the same, you will not sell more games, and lowering the cut would be a negative for GOG.
 

LordRaptor

Member
The sad thing about this 30% standard isn't really Steams monopoly, it's the collusion between all the stores to not undercut it, even companies like MS & Epic, even GOG who are trying to break into the market mysteriously still set their revenue share at 70/30.

Physical retailers are often at around the 20% margin, but a producer has to pay their own infrastructure costs (and often operate on unfavorable terms like sale or return, where they then have to pay additional infrastructure costs to cover the return of unsold goods).

Digitial distribution has a higher margin at 30%, but the storefront covers all of those infrastructure costs rather than the producer, so the net result is that a producer will take away 70% of each sale via digital, but only around 30% physical.

I mean, its a win-win for everyone involved unless you as a customer are fundamentally opposed to digital ownership in the first place.
 
Valve is not above criticism. This though is NOT a valid line of it.

No I think any company that is held with such high esteem by games deserves an extra layer of scrutiny.

As others have pointed out, you want a game on steam only it's not just the pubs fault.

Qeue the defense force.
 
It's still completely absurd to me that people are complaining about Valve's supposed monopoly and then arguing they should undercut their competition in the same post.
 

Armaros

Member
It's still completely absurd to me that people are complaining about Valve's supposed monopoly and then arguing they should undercut their competition in the same post.

Shows the level of knowledge about economics and market forces on GAF. While they rail on about monopolies and yet want companies to adopt predatory pricing tactics.
 

Renekton

Member
Shows the level of knowledge about economics and market forces on GAF. While they rail on about monopolies and yet want companies to adopt predatory pricing tactics.
It's still completely absurd to me that people are complaining about Valve's supposed monopoly and then arguing they should undercut their competition in the same post.
Non-rhetorical question: so cutting the royalty rate is a bad thing for consumers?
 

AHA-Lambda

Member
It is completely correct that it's ludicrous how much power and dominance of profits that distribution channels hold over entire markets.

People don't need to defend Valve.

Also, just because other services charge the same doesn't excuse the practice.

Please do go ahead and detail why 30% is a ludicrous number then, when it's already lower than traditional retail channels, and that's why pubs love digital in the first place...
 

danm999

Member
But if everyone's taking 30% (include your own storefront) then why single out Steam?

Tim appears to have a chip on his shoulder where Steam is concerned.

I think 10% is probably not a deal-breaker if it weren't for the other negative of Steam: separating publishers from their users.

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/898328969774112768

The internet was supposed to obsolete the rent-seeking software distribution middlemen, but here's Facebook, Google, Apple, Valve, etc.

https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/898330737006362624
 
Top Bottom