3765

Before Steam came along publishers were leaving what, 45% or 50% on the table for physical stores? They can always go back to that model if they don’t like Steam, but let’s not pretend Valve is the ultimate big bad here, because their offer is significantly more lucrative than brick and mortar was. Always was, except now that digital distribution is the norm rather than the other way around it’s suddenly a problem?

And before you get into it, we all know that physical stores have to pay for warehousing, logistics and staff - but that doesn’t concern the publisher at all, the only difference they see is the % of retail price they actually get.

3766

Dozens of competitors tried. None did. That is strong circumstantial evidence that this was not a happy accident. That is not the way competitive business generally works.

As for "gouging "the industry:

  1. Steam does not make any money on keys sold elsewhere. Thus their take is far below 30% when this is factored in.
  2. 70% was significantly better than anyone else in the days of retail. It has also been an industry standard across multiple platforms.
  3. We have already established that Steam offers services that are used by many. Just because you do not value them does not mean they have no value. When Epic offers a comparable user experience at 12% then there would be an example that 30% is an exceptionally high rate. Until then, there is not and you have no earthly idea what Valve’s profit margins are at 30%.
3767

Okay, at some point 30% was a good deal, but that doesn’t mean that it continues to be a good deal and Epic is clearly stating that they can survive on a lot less than 30%.

That’s the part that kind of freaks me out. They aren’t taking only 27% or 25% cut. They are taking an 12% cut. And promising more features in the future (which I guess some people doubt will happen).

That feels like someone has been taking a bigger chunk then necessary for a long time.

As for the keys, that is a steam policy they can end at any time. They wouldn’t do it if there weren’t value in it.

3768

I think Steam’s 30% cut was totally worth it some years ago when you got a) Steamworks, which at the time was superior to any other option, including on consoles, and b) you got guaranteed exposure from the store itself in addition to whatever you did yourself.

Now, you get very little exposure - buried almost immediately unless you get major fame from another source - and while Steamworks has a new feature or two (mostly Steam Input) it has largely remained the same for years, including long standing known bugs that never get fixed. They stopped earning 30% IMO, but I also think it is possible for them to be there again, although I’m not sure it’s compatible with “anyone can get on the store with anything for $100”

3769

That would be great, but I just don’t see how a company gets motivated to provide more value without real competition.

3770

I don’t recall stating that I was against competition…?

3771

Years ago, several players had an opportunity to do what Valve did. They either exited the PC market entirely, introduced stores only for their releases (or were only really primarily concerned with 1st party even if they carried third party), became a small player that couldn’t compete or wasn’t committed or they just put their stuff on those others stores (a few just sold from their direct sites).

There is no need to try and revise history in favor of Epic Games Stores in order to discuss Steam’s value today, whether or not that value is the same.

3772

Sorry, I wasn’t trying to argue that you were.

My point was simple that competition is good for the people that prefer steam.

Just like Tesla pushes the rest of the car industry forward, Epic could do the same for Steam.

3773

Absolutely! And I hope they do. I would love a future where EGS is competing for my dollars based on price and features.

3774

There is value in it to both Valve and the developer for Valve not to take a cut of Steam keys sold elsewhere. Much like reducing the share to 12% has value in it. There is no difference. So what is your point?

As for Epic, you are right. They are clearly stating that they can survive on a lot less than 30%. Especially when they want to pass on certain types of transaction costs to customers (https://www.resetera.com/threads/epic-store-and-12-cut.110333/) and do not accept widespread payment methods from certain parts of the world. Remember that their product is currently a loss leader. The real economics have yet to be played out and whether that store can survive on 12% remains to be seen. There is only so long that they will use Fortnite money to cover their store.

Also, if you are “freaked out” about Steam’s standard industry cut then perhaps you should go lie down or something.

3775

100% agree.

3776

Yeah, but those costs shouldn’t be mine, or other customers to bare. Why should it?
If a customer wants to use an overly expansive way to pay, then let that be their burden. And they should aware that their payment method has significant costs associated with it.

I happen to agree with Tim Sweeney on this because the transparency of payment methods are important.

Approximately 80% of Epic Games store transactions use credit cards and Paypal, which carry no surcharge. Numerous other methods are available with no surcharge. See https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/about for a list of all payment methods accepted by the Epic Games store. The methods marked with a * carry a payment processing surcharge.

Developed economies generally support at least one payment method with no surcharge. The other payment methods exist to support developing economies and people without access to efficient payment methods.

Credit card and Paypal transactions generally cost the merchant (whether Epic or Valve) 2.5% to 3.5%. In North America and Europe, that’s the vast majority of transactions.

Retail cards like paysafe have high overhead because there are a lot of companies in line taking a fee: payment processor, retailer, often a retail distributor, often funding a big marketing campaign to encourage adoption. The goal of the Epic Games store is high economic efficiency. Absorbing such costs just hides them, and provides no reason for customers to choose a 3% payment method over a 20% method.

As for the keys, this is a steam policy. I am sure the benefits greatly out weigh the costs, or they wouldn’t do it. I refuse to justify their gouging because of Keys.

That’s like justify Shells brutal business practice because they occasion give money to environmental groups.

3777

Exactly. My position is that Steam has done much to earn my goodwill and has been, I believe, a positive force in PC gaming. I would also like them to always improve. They have invested in improvements over the years in a meandering fashion, with mixed results. And meaningful competition could spur them to improve in a more serious/ planned manner.

Epic seems to have provided some of that spark. However from a personal perspective they have done much to earn negative goodwill. Enough to stop me from Rebel Galaxy Outlaw or Hades? Eh, probably not. But enough to stop me from anything else? Well yeah, probably. All things being equal, I would chose Steam over EGS.

3778

This is their reasoning behind saying they have to do exclusives but… they are also using it to excuse this:

There a big problem with the second one. I don’t actual buy the reasoning behind the first one.

3779

So, if the 30% cut has become such an issue why haven’t more studios released on itch.io where you can set any percentage you want, or why wasn’t there a rush on Discord with its 10% split?

3780

Epic’s payoffs, obviously.

3781

Epic has millions of two things studios want: 1. money and a 2. a huge playerbase. Fortnite has not only fattened Epic’s coffers, but also demonstrates a capability to launch on multiple services, understand scaling problems, a widespread geographic presence, etc. Even if they mean nothing to most gamers, they’re very sexy things for a gaming studio.

3782

I recently went over to the Epic store and a couple things made me wonder.

1). So there was a game, Outland or something, and I clicked on it but could find no information other than its an RPG. Being a GenXer, I immediately mistrust and sales pick written by the seller. This is the only information on the page. So, I end up on metacritic to find out what the game is about and think to myself… " Man this is so 2002, what a shitshow."

2). Back to the Epic site and I start scrolling and scrolling. I wonder, will publishers have to pay to stay at the top of the scroll? Do they have to pay on Steam?

3783

That was one of my initial complaints. You know the best way to get a quick overview of the game? Pull up their Steam page. Multiplayer? Gamepad support? Achievements? DRM? It’s all listed in one quick list.

3784

What you’re saying here in a sense, is that Steam’s success itself, and having so many games on the service, is what’s making it less valuable for companies.

I think much of the success of the Switch indie-wise is predicated on it being new and popular, so there’s no backlog for people to compete with.

I just want the best option for consumers. My impression of EGS so far is that consumers are getting none of the benefit of the lower cut.