Gaben is one greedy mofo

[frostdiamond]

Today's post on PC GAMER reminded me that Valve takes a whopping 30% cut from developers for simply offering a distribution platform.

30% of ANYTHING is significant. Back in the days when games were sold on shelves in boxes of CDs and DVDs, there was no way the packaging and disc production cost would amount to 30%.

I know many of you don't like or even hate EGS with a passion (for reasons I don't understand), but apparently Epic only *shrug* takes 20% which seems more reasonable in comparison.

I'm not here to promote EGS as I still 20% is STILL a lot to pay for a distribution method. Now if only someone could come out with another platform that charges say, 10% or even 5%; I'd imagine developers, large or small, would throw products at said platform like there's no tomorrow and PERHAPS us gamers would even end up paying less for games.

[FollowsJesus]

引用自 frostdiamond：

Today's post on PC GAMER reminded me that Valve takes a whopping 30% cut from developers for simply offering a distribution platform.

30% of ANYTHING is significant. Back in the days when games were sold on shelves in boxes of CDs and DVDs, there was no way the packaging and disc production cost would amount to 30%.

I know many of you don't like or even hate EGS with a passion (for reasons I don't understand), but apparently Epic only *shrug* takes 20% which seems more reasonable in comparison.

I'm not here to promote EGS as I still 20% is STILL a lot to pay for a distribution method. Now if only someone could come out with another platform that charges say, 10% or even 5%; I'd imagine developers, large or small, would throw products at said platform like there's no tomorrow and PERHAPS us gamers would even end up paying less for games.

epic only takes 12%

[Capt.Luke]

引用自 frostdiamond：

Today's post on PC GAMER reminded me that Valve takes a whopping 30% cut from developers for simply offering a distribution platform.

30% of ANYTHING is significant. Back in the days when games were sold on shelves in boxes of CDs and DVDs, there was no way the packaging and disc production cost would amount to 30%.

I know many of you don't like or even hate EGS with a passion (for reasons I don't understand), but apparently Epic only *shrug* takes 20% which seems more reasonable in comparison.

I'm not here to promote EGS as I still 20% is STILL a lot to pay for a distribution method. Now if only someone could come out with another platform that charges say, 10% or even 5%; I'd imagine developers, large or small, would throw products at said platform like there's no tomorrow and PERHAPS us gamers would even end up paying less for games.

never heard of humble bundle ?
they give you the choice, where you want your money to go to

[Edifier]

https://www.quora.com/How-much-do-game-companies-make-from-each-game-they-sell-if-each-game-costs-60-dollars

You can read there on how much they make from retail sales. But it's often from $7 to $10 per $60 game.

Also remember that retail stores advertised used games as soon as possible and Gamestop being the prime offender of it.
They even went as far as taking those online codes to put them into used games.

So when Steam showed up and didn't have used game sales on their platform it was a massive bonus.


For me, the cut Steam takes from sales is fine. They offer A LOT for what they take.

[Halo]

引用自 frostdiamond：

PERHAPS us gamers would even end up paying less for games.

I just noticed this. 'Us gamers' do end up paying less for games, usually around $1, unless of course you mean less than that. Which let's be honest is just silly because you get into the realms of pirates.

Free market, consumer choice, you choose to buy a $10 game on Steam, well done. I'll go somewhere else, get it for $1 and redeem it on Steam as that is the DRM platform.

I commonly pay $4-$6 for a premium game and I don't resent that at all. Would I resent $30+ for the same thing? Of course, but if you want to pay premium on a branded product on Steam knock yourself out.

A Plague Tale is on my wishlist and I will be getting it for free next week, 100% legitimate.

And before - yeah but grey site - nope, all from 100% endorsed legal retailers.

[Crazy Tiger]

Why do people concern themselves with the deals between store fronts and the publishers? It doesn't matter how big the cut is, it doesn't magically translate to cheaper or better games so there is no difference for us consumers.

[DiceDsx]

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

Why do people concern themselves with the deals between store fronts and the publishers?

Either they expect some benefits or their sense of justice cannot tollerate the evil 30% Valve takes :p

[WolfEisberg]

引用自 Mr. Gentlebot：

引用自 Start_Running：

Says the person who literally knows niothing about the services provided and the costs involved.

Again. The people who actually know the value of what Valve offers, consider that 30%-20% a fair bargain.

Interesting that the particular individual has hijacked this and made it their personal crusade.

引用自 Nx Machina：

So how long have you worked for Valve?

Apparently knowing generalized, likely old/inaccurate cloud bandwidth-only costs somehow equates to knowing the entire scope of running an international business, compared to users that don't work in serving bandwidth.

引用自 Cheetara：

2% wouldn't even cover credit card fees, and pretty much any other payment method.

15% at max is more appropriate, it is plenty to cover all costs involved + plenty room for profit.

Fairly certain you're still making stuff up as you go based upon what you personally want since this has become more of a personal crusade for you, than being logical about the entirety of an operation.

引用自 Cheetara：

When it comes to what Valve offers to developers, and it is developers who are paying that 30%, they do not offer far more than what Epic offers, they offer very little more, and that very little does not justify the 30%.

They offer far more than EGS, the regulars and mods here are clearly telling you that, and anyone that can see Steam, its policies/protections etc can tell you it's entirely worth 30% which becomes a lower number if you sell more. I see page after page of people disproving you, if you hate Steam so much and like EGS you're free to use it, but Steam is clearly on top despite a 30% cut and does nothing to stop competition, though bribes isn't exactly competition now, is it?

引用自 Cheetara：

it goes beyond guessing, rather it is having direct knowledge of what things cost, through the entire business due to being in a field that does something very similar and more.

Cloud computing costs for one particular client/type/tier doesn't equate to the cost of running an entire international company. You're still overly focusing on this as if it has any bearing on the total cost of operations including but not limited to physical assets, employees, etc.

We're talking about an entire operation, and you're very much out of your league.

That sure is a lot of words to literally just say, "no, uh, uh"

By the way, our company serves more than one type of client, we also serve clients around the world and provide services around the world. What my company does is far more complex than what Valve does.

[Mythical Ostrich]

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

Why do people concern themselves with the deals between store fronts and the publishers? It doesn't matter how big the cut is, it doesn't magically translate to cheaper or better games so there is no difference for us consumers.

People somehow managed to dupe themselves into believing it does.
Even though we have a lot of evidence to the contrary. Many publishers have their own stores, so no cut, and games aren't cheaper on them (ex Uplay, Origin). Epic selling things for the same price if not more (ex selling Rocket League DLC for several times higher than it was on Steam). Not to mention Epic is operating at a loss, and doesn't do nearly as much as steam.

[Start_Running]

引用自 Mythical Ostrich：

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

Why do people concern themselves with the deals between store fronts and the publishers? It doesn't matter how big the cut is, it doesn't magically translate to cheaper or better games so there is no difference for us consumers.

People somehow managed to dupe themselves into believing it does.

Might I add..'AGAIN'... to that

Many publishers have their own stores, so no cut, and games aren't cheaper on them (ex Uplay, Origin). Epic selling things for the same price if not more (ex selling Rocket League DLC for several times higher than it was on Steam). Not to mention Epic is operating at a loss, and doesn't do nearly as much as steam.

Origin existing did not make ME:A a better game. Bethesda having their own store did not make a better FO76 andCDPR having their own store..did not make CP2077 a better game. And none of these games were any cheaper for it either.

[WolfEisberg]

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

Why do people concern themselves with the deals between store fronts and the publishers? It doesn't matter how big the cut is, it doesn't magically translate to cheaper or better games so there is no difference for us consumers.

While it doesn't guarantee every single indie or AA studio would reinvest the better cut back into their future games, nor guarantee that every single indie or AA studio would be successful at it if they did reinvest it back into their future projects, but it certainly would happen that some indie and AA studios would do it and be successful at it, and that would be good for us gamers.

AAA not so much, they don't make games for the passion, so it doesn't matter how much they get, they screw up anyways in their manufactured games.

Better revenue share is what is needed for the indie and AA market, to give them the better oppurtunity.

[Haruspex]

Keep in mind that back in the day when games were sold on shelves, 30% was just the publisher's cut. There was also the cost of manufacture, printing, packaging, distribution, retail shelf space, then the retailer's cut. With a console game it was even worse, because then on top of all that you also had to add in the cost of the fee the console maker takes for the privilege of releasing a game on their platform. I think after all was said and done a developer was lucky to take home 10%-15% of the actual retail value.

Valve takes the industry standard 30% and they handle everything else for you. Your visibility on the Steam store (admittedly a bit crowded these days), electronic distribution in perpetuity no matter how many times the customer downloads and re-downloads your game, community, multiplayer, Steam DRM, VAC, Linux support without you even having to release a LInux version, controller support with custom layouts and profiles even if you neglected to include any controller support. You get a lot of value for that 30% cut, and it's a one-time cost. Valve will continue hosting your game and providing community services until the end of time at no additional cost to you. They continually improve the platform and they hands-down provide the best place for PC gamers to buy and play their games, proven by their sheer growing popularity.

[Start_Running]

引用自 Cheetara：

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

Why do people concern themselves with the deals between store fronts and the publishers? It doesn't matter how big the cut is, it doesn't magically translate to cheaper or better games so there is no difference for us consumers.

AAA not so much, they don't make games for the passion, so it doesn't matter how much they get, they screw up anyways in their manufactured games. [/quiote]

And every indie makes games for the sheer artistic passion?
Hahahahha

Better revenue share is what is needed for the indie and AA market, to give them the better oppurtunity.

So You should be pushing for an increase in standard price from 60 to 80 dollars then right?

[Crazy Tiger]

引用自 Cheetara：

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

Why do people concern themselves with the deals between store fronts and the publishers? It doesn't matter how big the cut is, it doesn't magically translate to cheaper or better games so there is no difference for us consumers.

While it doesn't guarantee every single indie or AA studio would reinvest the better cut back into their future games, nor guarantee that every single indie or AA studio would be successful at it if they did reinvest it back into their future projects, but it certainly would happen that some indie and AA studios would do it and be successful at it, and that would be good for us gamers.

AAA not so much, they don't make games for the passion, so it doesn't matter how much they get, they screw up anyways in their manufactured games.

Better revenue share is what is needed for the indie and AA market, to give them the better oppurtunity.

People seem to forget that such fantasies have been told various times before, like when we went from cartridges to cd's, then to dvd's and when stores became digital. People forget that physical stores took more than a 30% and that moving to digital already meant a lower cut.

Whatever cut a developer/publisher gets on a store has very little to do with "good for us gamers".

[WolfEisberg]

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

引用自 Cheetara：

While it doesn't guarantee every single indie or AA studio would reinvest the better cut back into their future games, nor guarantee that every single indie or AA studio would be successful at it if they did reinvest it back into their future projects, but it certainly would happen that some indie and AA studios would do it and be successful at it, and that would be good for us gamers.

AAA not so much, they don't make games for the passion, so it doesn't matter how much they get, they screw up anyways in their manufactured games.

Better revenue share is what is needed for the indie and AA market, to give them the better oppurtunity.

People seem to forget that such fantasies have been told various times before, like when we went from cartridges to cd's, then to dvd's and when stores became digital. People forget that physical stores took more than a 30% and that moving to digital already meant a lower cut.

Whatever cut a developer/publisher gets on a store has very little to do with "good for us gamers".

The lower cut which lowers distribution costs, due to going digital created a huge boon to the indie market and we gamers greatly benefited from it, so it literally already happened before. Now it's time to take it to the next level and give the indie market another boon.

[Crazy Tiger]

引用自 Cheetara：

引用自 Crazy Tiger：

People seem to forget that such fantasies have been told various times before, like when we went from cartridges to cd's, then to dvd's and when stores became digital. People forget that physical stores took more than a 30% and that moving to digital already meant a lower cut.

Whatever cut a developer/publisher gets on a store has very little to do with "good for us gamers".

The lower cut which lowers distribution costs, due to going digital created a huge boon to the indie market and we gamers greatly benefited from it, so it literally already happened before. Now it's time to take it to the next level and give the indie market another boon.

No, stores like Steam and Itch.io, opening up to upcoming developers without limitations/curation is what created a buge boon to the indie market. Programs like Early Access created a huge boon to the indie market.

The cut doesn't have the value you think it has.