Do you think Valve's 30% cut of sales is too high?

[muckymucks]

I just read that Epic Games plans to give 100% of revenue of new games to publishers in the first six months for exclusivity on their platform, then take their regular 12% cut after that. Which got me thinking if Valve was too greedy taking 30% of sales.



https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/epic-will-start-offering-devs-100-of-revenue-for-epic-games-store-exclusivity

[Zukabazuka]

More often than not I haven't really heard most of the games that has been released on Epic store, some devs stated it was like a black hole for advertising once first week was over. The site doesn't help at all in showing people similar games or recommend them.

[phantomproductionset]

Haruspex님이 먼저 게시:

No disrespect to your game, but I think it being an RPG Maker title that doesn't appear to stand out much from any other RPG Maker titles (At least at a glance from the store page.) might have something to do with that.

I would suggest self-publishing it on Epic as well:
https://dev.epicgames.com/portal

Then compare how well it does there compared to Steam. The terms Epic has will prevent you from sharing any actual sales numbers though.

My RPG MAKER "ACE" GAME is actually likely the most advanced "ACE Engine" game in existence in terms of what the engine is intended to do, but doesn't mean a standard jrpg retro style final fantasy type gameplay/story with "mid quality" really draws in a crowd to matter because of the bad rep of RPG MAKER in general.

My game has semi-full time front facing animated battlers which is basically unheard of in RPG MAKER Engines, I've also increased the Battle Enemies Resolution 50% but that merely matches what RPG MAKER MV & BETTER DOES, however is fairly unique for RPG MAKER ACE, the game world is likely in scope far greater from a quality/size ratio vs bland run of the mill RPG MAKER TITLES that don't have as much time put into to their creation.

All that Said a Game like "Sea of Stars" just makes a game like my look Amateur Hr, which it was my first game in a poorly selected engine.

I Digress, have gone a bit off topic.

The current steam rev split is beyond fair from my perspective, but it could be lower for devs that actually make money & need that extra money, me not so much, same for very successful games.

[Tito Shivan]

DiceDsx님이 먼저 게시:

Definitely not as good as an upfront cash payment.

The thing is it looks way worse once one start looking at the numbers.

So: Epic offers devs 100% revenue for six months in exchange for exclusivity. But the thing is Epic's revenue share is just 12%. So in reality devs are signing into six months of exclusivity for a UP TO 12% bonus in revenue.

So the actual headline would be something like this:

Epic is taking the fight to Steam by rolling out a new revenue sharing model in the form of Epic First Run, an initiative that will offer developers UP TO 12% of extra revenue for six months if their PC game remains exclusive to the Epic Games Store.

That pales against their former exclusivity policy.

It'll be fun to see on October 16 which games joined the deal, as they're going to be featured as such:

The first games to release using Epic First Run will appear from October 16th, with included games set to appear with a new badge and in a dedicated collection of First Run releases on the store.

Now I wonder how far we are to the headline telling us how much of a breakthrough is to not give away games for free.

[Mailer]

Tito Shivan님이 먼저 게시:

The thing is it looks way worse once one start looking at the numbers.

So: Epic offers devs 100% revenue for six months in exchange for exclusivity. But the thing is Epic's revenue share is just 12%. So in reality devs are signing into six months of exclusivity for a UP TO 12% bonus in revenue.

So the actual headline would be something like this:

Epic is taking the fight to Steam by rolling out a new revenue sharing model in the form of Epic First Run, an initiative that will offer developers UP TO 12% of extra revenue for six months if their PC game remains exclusive to the Epic Games Store.

That pales against their former exclusivity policy.

Indeed, this would be my primary concern for why such a policy might not catch any wind at all.

Because the way I look at the revenue share is a bit like visualizing a round hill in-between the well established 30% cut and 0% cut. Once you start to encroach into lower than 12% territory it feels a lot less like you are pushing the envelope up the hill, but rather that you are sliding down the other side again with insignificant gains.

At this point you just end up looking at the Epic Games Store and wonder why they even bother with the 12% at that point, while already undergoing a major deficit, and don't just offer a 0% revenue split on everything they sell, if this is going to be such a major selling point.

[Brian9824]

phantomproductionset님이 먼저 게시:

This is a good list but I'd think most of this is just default for a proper digital market, yes you have to pay for the stuff. Yes there is a lot of stuff Steam provides, but lets not call a sword a spade, jk sure you can dig with both sure.

Hosting is Default.
(Bandwidth) = Hosting
(Payment Processing) = Hosting
(Refund Processing) = Hosting
(Global Pricing) = Hosting
(Forums) = Hosting
(Workshop Support)Another Forum.

(Access To Potential Customers)Default, Goes for any Store with a customer base.

(Anti-Cheat)At the most basic lvl sure. Really only matters for PVP games.
(DRM)At the most basic lvl sure, still got cracked basically day one myself.

Type of marketing feature I guess, literally a market.
(Cards and Market Access)Fair Enough, I didn't use it, I rather my game not be treated as card farm ethically speaking makes about as much sense as having NFTs, just personally against it.

(Upgrades)? Sure... Even upgrades you didn't want/ask for & have to now deal with sadly.
(Version Control)? Definitely no version control over which Steam Client players get to use.
(Steamwork Integration)? Not sure what this means.

<<<<'ll add Storepage/Steamwork Tools, are very helpful.>>>>

Most of these did fall under hosting/tools/marketing stuff.

I actually get a unfair deal since all this stuff is provided here even for a game like mine that can't get proper sells, not saying that is warranting a higher % but popular games do cover the cost of non profitable games so it does factor in as well.

The way steam is currently setup remains Fair never said it wasn't, but 30% has always been a little steep & you have Twitch & places trying to normalize 50%+ which is concerning.

A lot of that is factually wrong, payment processing, refunds, forums, etc are very different from hosting. But hey if you feel your deal is unfair your free to use EPIC, Itch, or any other site. Your not restricted to using steam. You can even set up your own site and pay your own hosting, payment processing, etc if you feel the cost isn't worth it.

No one forces people to use steam, they can decide for themselves if the money they pay is worth it.

[Haruspex]

phantomproductionset님이 먼저 게시:

My RPG MAKER "ACE" GAME is actually likely the most advanced "ACE Engine" game in existence in terms of what the engine is intended to do, but doesn't mean a standard jrpg retro style final fantasy type gameplay/story with "mid quality" really draws in a crowd to matter because of the bad rep of RPG MAKER in general.

My game has semi-full time front facing animated battlers which is basically unheard of in RPG MAKER Engines, I've also increased the Battle Enemies Resolution 50% but that merely matches what RPG MAKER MV & BETTER DOES, however is fairly unique for RPG MAKER ACE, the game world is likely in scope far greater from a quality/size ratio vs bland run of the mill RPG MAKER TITLES that don't have as much time put into to their creation.

All that Said a Game like "Sea of Stars" just makes a game like my look Amateur Hr, which it was my first game in a poorly selected engine.

As I said, no disrespect. I'm going off very first impressions from the store page, and having played a lot of RPG Maker games starting around 2001 or so, your game didn't jump out at me as having anything interesting beyond what a typical RPG Maker game has to offer.

As an RPG fan, and a fan of RPG Maker, for all intents and purposes, I'm part of your target market.

A game needs to grab a potential purchaser's attention from the very instant they look at your store page. If it truly is "likely the most advanced "ACE Engine" game in existence", everything about your store page should scream this.

Since you've mentioned that (you believe) it's the "most advanced "ACE Engine" game in existence", you've at least inspired me to give the game another look, beyond my initial first impression.

The shortcomings of your game's initial market pitch aside, my own point might have been a separate one from what you were saying. You've sold $100 worth on Steam. How well would it do on Epic? I would be curious to find out, though Epic's terms would prevent you from actually sharing. If I had to make a prediction I would say that your game would likely sell between 1/10 and 1/2 the copies compared to Steam, and that's a generous estimate.

[__++__==]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

muckymucks님이 먼저 게시:

I just read that Epic Games plans to give 100% of revenue of new games to publishers in the first six months for exclusivity on their platform, then take their regular 12% cut after that. Which got me thinking if Valve was too greedy taking 30% of sales.



https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/epic-will-start-offering-devs-100-of-revenue-for-epic-games-store-exclusivity

the better question is. Is EGS actually making money?
Because even they themselves admit they're not being profitable.
I mean lets face it. When you have an inferior service you have to charge less.
This likely is EPic saying that they can no longer afford to payout for exclusivity as they did before .


It's happening folks. Sweeny's Cash Reserves are starting to run low.

They have an actual game engine, unlike Source 2 vapourware

[BJWyler]

muckymucks님이 먼저 게시:

Komarimaru님이 먼저 게시:

Just more money for Epic to lose, funny how they are trying to target Game Pass as well though.

Competition ultimately benefits consumers. I only have loyalty to myself. Valve, Epic Games, and Xbox can eat each other. What I care about is getting games as cheaply as possible.

And they haven't been any cheaper on EGS with their lower percentage take. Pound for pound, the best deals I have always found have been on Steam.

Now whether 30% is too high or not is a better question for developers, and for Valve. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what % is charged by any online store.

[Tito Shivan]

BJWyler님이 먼저 게시:

Now whether 30% is too high or not is a better question for developers, and for Valve. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what % is charged by any online store.

It keeps amazing me how the revenue share was never a talking point for gamers until very specifically a few months prior to the unveiling of the Epic Store, featuring their new revenue share.

I'm not a fan of tinfoil hats, but some things make you wonder.

[fluxtorrent]

I think the developers have already voted. There is a reason they put their games on Steam not EGS. Obviously the benefits of the platform are worth that 30%

[phantomproductionset]

I likely won't publish on a platform I don't use.

[Start_Running]

fluxtorrent님이 먼저 게시:

I think the developers have already voted. There is a reason they put their games on Steam not EGS. Obviously the benefits of the platform are worth that 30%

To be fair there's literally nothis stopping a dev from puttinga game on both. Or on EGS< Microsoft, Amazon, Steam, Gog, EA, and selling directly at the same time.

__++__==님이 먼저 게시:

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

the better question is. Is EGS actually making money?
Because even they themselves admit they're not being profitable.
I mean lets face it. When you have an inferior service you have to charge less.
This likely is EPic saying that they can no longer afford to payout for exclusivity as they did before .


It's happening folks. Sweeny's Cash Reserves are starting to run low.

They have an actual game engine, unlike Source 2 vapourware

Titanfall 2 . Nuff said.

[fluxtorrent]

Exactly Start, and yet so many don't heh

[Start_Running]

fluxtorrent님이 먼저 게시:

Exactly Start, and yet so many don't heh

Takes time and work to implement the various API's and to actually manage the various store fronts A burdden which grows with every game you publish.

So devs basicallty go with the store fronts that give them the widest market coverage.
Thing is. They know that most users don't stick to one platform.

[fluxtorrent]

Start_Running님이 먼저 게시:

fluxtorrent님이 먼저 게시:

Exactly Start, and yet so many don't heh

Takes time and work to implement the various API's and to actually manage the various store fronts A burdden which grows with every game you publish.

So devs basicallty go with the store fronts that give them the widest market coverage.
Thing is. They know that most users don't stick to one platform.

And market coverage being the big selling point is a perfectly legit reason to charge a higher cut heh