ElBoxyBrown
Banned
Isn't Spotify #1 in that platform?
I'm talking before Spotify and streaming services.
Isn't Spotify #1 in that platform?
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.
Non-rhetorical question: so cutting the royalty rate is a bad thing for consumers?
Non-rhetorical question: so cutting the royalty rate is a bad thing for consumers?
Non-rhetorical question: so cutting the royalty rate is a bad thing for consumers?
Now you know why EA uses Origin and Blizzard uses Bnet - they don't lose 30% with their OWN services.
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.
Tim appears to have a chip on his shoulder where Steam is concerned.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/898328969774112768
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/898330737006362624
30% of zero is still 0 since uncles are just the ones installing Steam and letting them run.
Tim appears to have a chip on his shoulder where Steam is concerned.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/898328969774112768
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/898330737006362624
and that's why we see lower prices for their games
Yeah this just proves he's incredibly naive and doesn't know what he's talking about then.
For an industry veteran, this level of debate is frighteningly poor.
Hmm because I was wondering if online marketplace costs scale decently with traffic, w.r.t. cost elements like CDN and customer service.The only change would be that publishers and devs would get more money, but other stores would either be forced to lower their cut of sales as well to match steam or chance losing out on publishers and devs possibility abandoning their Store.
Steam can afford to take the hit to their revenues, could other stores handle a smaller share of each sale? Smaller stores get closed down, Steam's market share increases.
This is why I can't get angry over Ubisoft or EA from using their own digital storefronts. It's a minor inconvenience for me but atleast the Devs and publishers who brought the game to life get all of my money.
Isn't PC an open platform?. As far as I know there is nothing stopping devs/publishers from selling their game on their own site or have some sort of store like origin or use some other digital store that takes a smaller cut (if there are any).
You want the Steam user base and the exposure gained from releasing on their store?, Then you pay what they ask for
So wait... if an indie developer uses UE4 they have to give 30% of revenue to Epic, if they release that game on Steam then they need to give a further 30% to steam.
So the developer would only end up getting 40% of the revenue for their game...huh.
I guess that might explain why a lot of indies stick to Unity?
This is why I can't get angry over Ubisoft or EA from using their own digital storefronts. It's a minor inconvenience for me but atleast the Devs and publishers who brought the game to life get all of my money.
This is why I can't get angry over Ubisoft or EA from using their own digital storefronts. It's a minor inconvenience for me but atleast the Devs and publishers who brought the game to life get all of my money.
UE4 is 5% after the first $3k pcq
Isn't Spotify #1 in that platform?
Ah right, thanks for the correction.
For some reason I thought it was 30%
Their marketplace takes a 30% cut.Ah right, thanks for the correction.
For some reason I thought it was 30%
That 30% is not the problem AAA-development faces. That 30% or higher would be there no matter where you sell your stuff, except in your own stores. Publishers make less money from retail sales.Well, developers usually don't. Developers get a percentage of the net receipts, which already has the platform fees deducted. So you take a dollar, subtract 30% from the platform fee, then subtract the publishers share and other costs that might come up and that's what a developer gets.
I do personally agree that a third of all income is too high for the services provided and while Tim comes off as a bit hypocritical with Epic charging the same 30% on their own store, I do think he has a point here. Games are expensive to make, most of them are lucky if they make their money back and when you release a game, knowing that 30% of all profits a game makes are already cut is a tough pill to swallow.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/900260093836402688
He's really delusional if he really believes that reducing Valve's share to 10% would result in lower priced games.
I think Apple taking 30% of the cut from the App Store is more of an insult than Steam doing the same. On the PC, devs do atleast have other options. No choice on the matter when it comes to IOS, it's either the App Store or nothing.
every
store
takes
30%
I disagree. Apple provides everything for the devs. The platform, the store, ways to make money off app and also the development tools. So in fact they give the devs more than Valve, unless they give development tools as well?
I disagree. Apple provides everything for the devs. The platform, the store, ways to make money off app and also the development tools. So in fact they give the devs more than Valve, unless they give development tools as well?
Non-rhetorical question: so cutting the royalty rate is a bad thing for consumers?
So.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.
Capitalism is a bitch.
They have an effective monopoly and they know it.
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.
"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.
Steam takes 30% - for what?
They take 30% because they have the market power, not because of any service they provide.
Apple makes profit off the hardware already though. And developers pay them to publish the app in the first place. They get a cut from every part of the process.I disagree. Apple provides everything for the devs. The platform, the store, ways to make money off app and also the development tools. So in fact they give the devs more than Valve, unless they give development tools as well?