$0.01 when selling something for $0.03?

[Piazano󠁳 ⁧⁧[G59]]

I can understand taking some money out of market transactions, but there seems to be an error there. $0.03 is the lowest an item can go for, but you get $0.01 when it sells. Valve takes 15% out of sales on the market. $0.03 cannot be divided like that but I think we should get $0.02. Sure it's one cent but that is one cent unfairly taken from many people many times. With it being like this, 15% turned into 66%.

[The French Connection]

sorry you are right it's 66% because they can't apply 15% on small numbers...

[Piazano󠁳 ⁧⁧[G59]]

Originally posted by The French Connection:

Originally posted by Piazano:

$0.03 is the lowest an item can go for, but you get $0.01 when it sells. Valve takes 15% out of sales
15% turned into 66%.

what knid of math is that?

if sale at 0.03 left 0.01 steam take +33%
can't apply 15% on 0.03

how 15% can turn into 66%?

Ahh yes, the toxic steam community at work.

66% is 1/3. I get 1/3 of the 3 cents the buyer pays.

[aiusepsi]

There are three components to the final sale price; the amount the seller gets, the Steam transaction fee, and the game fee, which goes to the developer of the game the item is from. Since the least each of these components can be is $0.01, the minimum sale price is $0.03.

Valve could treat their own games as a special case, so rather than a Steam fee of 5% and a game fee of 10%, they could have a combined Valve fee of 15%. They'd also have to override the logic for why the minimum price is $0.03, as with only two components to the final price it should be $0.02. If they didn't fix the lower bound to $0.03, I have little doubt that the price would just fall to the new $0.02 floor.

Ideally, you'd want some mechanism to sell bundles of cards on the market, which would have the effect of allowing prices to fall to what their 'true' level ought to be given supply and demand.

[Gus the Crocodile]

They could just use more decimal places in their calculations and prices so that they're able to take 15% accurately and not need the arbitrary minimum fee.

Not that I'm particularly unhappy about the way it is. I mean, Valve has plenty of money coming in, I don't intend to defend their cut, but I'm pretty happy that small developers have this little trickle of income and I don't think it's particularly excessive that they're getting 1c of some 3c card transactions. If buyers thought it was excessive they wouldn't buy, surely.

[Piazano󠁳 ⁧⁧[G59]]

Originally posted by aiusepsi:

There are three components to the final sale price; the amount the seller gets, the Steam transaction fee, and the game fee, which goes to the developer of the game the item is from. Since the least each of these components can be is $0.01, the minimum sale price is $0.03.

Valve could treat their own games as a special case, so rather than a Steam fee of 5% and a game fee of 10%, they could have a combined Valve fee of 15%. They'd also have to override the logic for why the minimum price is $0.03, as with only two components to the final price it should be $0.02. If they didn't fix the lower bound to $0.03, I have little doubt that the price would just fall to the new $0.02 floor.

Ideally, you'd want some mechanism to sell bundles of cards on the market, which would have the effect of allowing prices to fall to what their 'true' level ought to be given supply and demand.

Oh wow, thanks for clearing that up. Never mind then lmao

[Washell]

Originally posted by aiusepsi:

Ideally, you'd want some mechanism to sell bundles of cards on the market, which would have the effect of allowing prices to fall to what their 'true' level ought to be given supply and demand.

Or stimulate demand so that most items don't hit rock bottom.

[mimizukari]

minimum of each of the two distinct fees is 0.01.