A competitor that is completely at Steam’s mercy. So, if ever GMG tried to shake up the prices or provide their own model that truly threatened Steams prices, you know Steam would just end them.
I don’t consider them a competitor.
Well, I guess if you redefine “competitor” you can make any argument :)
Some with their own product or service? Hows that? GMG is just a glorified middleman, a reseller.
And the second example I gave, Anno 1800?
Here’s an idea. You know how EA stopped selling games on Steam and put them on Origin, where they have $0 profit share and big bad Steam can’t make them price match? How much less did they charge for their games once they made that move? Whoops, looks like everything is still $60!
More dollars into the hands of developers instead of a storefront/distributor is fantastic. I applaud Epic for taking a smaller cut. This is especially true for indie devs like Travis, where the extra margins are going to be huge (I would imagine). When it comes to padding EA profits, I admit I don’t care.
But all that being said, Sweeney saying that this is going to result in savings for gamers is a load of shit and he knows it.
What is a reasonable price for a AAA game? I mean, we’ve been paying 60 dollars for a long time now, and inflation and prices for everything else has been going up. We’ve also seen loot boxes, DLCs, and all kinds of extras (Sound tracks, books, whatever) added to make money for a game.
So, like healthcare, maybe we are stuck where we are stuck . Games won’t go down in price. Maybe games can’t go down in price. Not without going into the Freemium model.
Anyway, I’m hoping that more money in developers pockets means slightly more leeway to take risks or to turn out more interesting content. It might mean that a favorite developer can survive a flop a bit better, that would also be good.
Steam sells games, GMG gaming sells pretty much the same games, they compete on price. It’s really pretty simple.
As long as Steam allows it.
That is a lot of faith in a single company.
Which is warranted given their track record.
This is all great and all but KevinC’s simple point is that Sweeney is not being honest when he talks about price reductions.
It’s also kind of amusing how he calls 70/30 “store tax” when talking about Valve, but then suddenly switches to “revenue split” when talking about his 88/12 cut.
Hell 30% isn’t even that bad when you look at other industries, as well as the industry standard. My own company wholesale prices are fully half of retail. Meaning the store gets a 50% cut of what we make! How is that fair!?
Oh, right, everyone is a business and the type of product we make has certain fungibility to it meaning higher margins for retailers are needed to compensate for stock that doesn’t sell in time, etc. I hardly think Steam has been fleecing devs, as 30% isn’t some random number, it’s what retail distribution of those goods had as the standard rate from before Steam.
As for @legowarrior’s point on $60 has been the price for a long time so why hasn’t it gone up? I will point out that he only listed things that added to the cost of the total game, without pointing out changes that lowered developer costs. Now I can’t say $60 is the obviously correct price, but I will say that the extended period makes sense.
We used to pay $50 on Pc when consoles were $60. But that changed about a decade ago. So prices on PC did increase there, matching consoles. But as digital has become increasingly important and physical game sales less so, you would expect that cost to keep prices lower. Digitally distributing is cheaper than manufacturing and distributing physical goods. So that cost is lower. Engines and tools to make games have improved and gotten cheaper, and more options. So the cost of non AAA scope of game making have decreased.
So costs (aside from AAA visual production which ever increases due to fidelity) has gone down and prices (due to DLC, loot boxes, etc) has gone up. We just don’t see it reflected in the baseline retail price tag.
Which they do. What not condemn them if they stop allowing it?
Because Epic fanbois need to manufacture reasons to denigrate Steam.
Cyberpunk 2077 gets 100% of the revenue split on GOG.
Why is Epic charging the devs 12%? Epic Tax! So unfair. The devs deserve a better split!
Because Epic is being so greedy here consumers will never see lower prices, dev reinvestment, or higher profits for game studios.
STOP THE STORE TAX!
There’s no evidence that they intend otherwise. And you’re bringing into the discussion an unpredictable and unknowable future event. I could disqualify anything on that basis. The fact is that GMG is currently a competitor to Steam when it comes to game sales. I know that messes with your argument, but that’s life.
Well, GMG’s business model is in contravention of Steam’s TOS as @jsnell linked above. It’s pretty clear that GMG can only operate as long as Steam tolerates it; that makes it more a partner than a competitor.
So it’s been pointed out before that the gaming industry keeps trying to isolate itself from the rest of the real world.
Just because someone likes the 88/12 split and doesn’t like the 70/30 doesn’t mean you can call one a tax and the other revenue split.
Just because most of these games operate on the same OS with the good graces of Microsoft doesn’t suddenly make make that company only a partner and never a competitor even though they also make and sell games.
The question isn’t whether or not Steam has competitors or not. Yes, of course they do. There are other places to buy games. Developers didn’t have to list their games on Steam, didn’t have to list them on other storefronts either, but there are other storefronts. They chose Steam for a number of reasons, and just because they wanted a better option doesn’t mean there weren’t other options or that the other storefronts weren’t or aren’t there today.
There is no reason to believe Epic when he claims they care at all that game prices will go down or even that price reduction was even a goal, and there is no proof that there will be a price reduction based on what they’re doing. Even if they can drastically reduce prices for developers… that doesn’t mean they are going to pass on the savings. It can mean they don’t have to sell as many units. You see this in other markets and gaming isn’t so special that you can’t look at other markets and what they do. Just because you shift your costs from say something like state side to overseas, China, doesn’t mean your goal is a price reduction. It can mean that, but it can also mean you just want a better margin and the market has told you your shelf price is fine already; you just want more profits. Maybe you aren’t making enough even as you sell tons of units. That’s not an evil or anything… it just is.
Again, you just redefine “competitor” and change it to “partner”. Call them what you want, they are another seller of :PC games that provides another retail source for gamers, that consistently has a cheaper price than Steam. The contortions you’re going through at this point are ludicrous so I’l let you have the last word and let you redefine “competition” again.
I think the point people are making is, it’s a business that is entirely dependent on its competitor. 100%
It’s like a broke college grad that lives at home with his parents. Sure, it’s cheap, but only as long as his/her parents are willing to let them live there without paying room and board.
And the game still activates, runs and uses the Steam system for everything.
Anyway, argue as much as you would like, but in the end of the day, there is 0 difference between buying from GMG and Steam as far as the service goes, except, with GMG, you can’t return the key after you bought it.
In fact, that might be a huge knock against it. You can’t get a refund.
[quote=“legowarrior, post:4502, topic:139011”]I
think the point people are making is, it’s a business that is entirely dependent on its competitor.
[/quote]
Isn’t this the point you are trying to make? And really failing at…
That’s exactly the point though. Valve has made zero changes, to price or service or otherwise, as a result of GMG’s existence. They’re irrelevant to Valve’s business, or maybe even viewed as a net positive overall due to driving people to Steam.
So sure, if all you care about is “I can occasionally get a game a little cheaper” then fine, call them whatever you want. But the question for some people here is whether Valve feels any competitive market pressure to improve their service to keep ahead of others. They don’t and never will feel any such pressure from a company that just sells their keys.
Can you fix the quotes? It’s hard to read whatever your point is.