Maybe he meant in the sense that they filtered out the shovelware and asset flips from Epic Games Store (at least until recently) so to make the store look good. That way they’re providing hosting only for the games that actually will be downloaded a decent amount of times, avoiding wasting storage on bad/forgotten games.
But hosting is basically a rounding error in the equation of selling games on an online store. The actually significant cost is going to be in developing and maintaining the software powering the online store, and that cost is fixed. This in turn means that having less games in the store is an obvious disadvantage, not an advantage.
I quite doubt that, infrastructure to provide Terabytes of bandwidth per second isn’t cheap, and employing people who are on watch 24/7 and maintain it all, aren’t cheap either.
You need to employ relatively fewer people to maintain and remain on-call for a service as you grow it - this is part of the point I’m trying to make. Having fewer games is a disadvantage for Epic, not an advantage.
…I don’t mean to be rude, but you shouldn’t speak to things you do not understand or know about. Cloud hosting costs for a large e-commerce site are rather large, definitely variable and not cheap.
Cost of developing software is also not fixed over any meaningful period.
I don’t mean to be rude either, but you shouldn’t assume that someone doesn’t know what they are talking about or understand.
From professional experience I can speak pretty confidently on the subject that staffing opex is almost universally going to supersede cloud opex.
EDIT: I noticed that I was being a bit unclear when saying fixed. What I mean by fixed in this context is that you need to develop the whole e-commerce infrastructure regardless of if you have 1 game or 1000 games - a simplification as you do need to take care to scale well when growing, but it is good enough for the purposes of demonstration. The more games sharing the same e-commerce infrastructure, the less the e-commerce infrastructure costs on a per-transaction basis.
It’s also an indefinite cost. It’s not like Valve decides to stop hosting a game they’ve sold after a while. Generally speaking, they store and host it forever even if they never get revenue from sales of it ever again. Of course, I’m sure if the revenue wanes that much that downloads will too, but there’s definitely a crossover point where maintenance will start being a permanent negative cashflow. Now multiply that across tens to hundreds of thousands of games and counting. Forever. You kind of have to consider that for the long term when setting your pricing for today since sales cuts are the only revenue you get.
discord i believe when they sold games only took like 10% cut. turns out, thats not all it takes to sell games, and its not like no one uses discord, so you couldn’t even say people were avoiding the software as it is a popular platform.
Yes. Since nobody else seems to want to answer. Also, they waive the Unreal Engine revenue share from sales on the Epic Store.
I appreciate Epics pro developer stance, but the need a better consumer experience and innovation in that space if they want to be serious about the store.
Valve has spen’t much of the last 25 years pushing the industry forwards in distribution. That’s why there’s so much loyalty to them.
They are only pro developer because they aren’t breaking into the market well at all.
I guarantee that if they ever have a breakthrough and start approaching 40% sales or more, they will double their cut for sure.
Their cut is literally only to draw in developers and operate at a loss, subsidized by other income or investors, to gain as much market share as possible before jacking up prices.
It is the exact scummy playbook that amazon went by to drown their competition with their bare hands. The only difference is that Epic doesn’t understand the market at all and won’t commit resources to improving their store.
If scale is no longer an issue, why can’t Epic create a store with similar functionality to steam? Because it’s not about that. It’s about Tim not being able to pocket as much.
Epic simply doesn’t want to be consumer friendly. Epic sees the money Valve is making, but not the effort Valve puts into their store. Just how consumer friendly Valve is the reason Valve basically a monopoly. Valve gives so many tools to the devs too such as SteamAPI to make their games better and accessible to a wide range of consumers with a wide range of devices.
Epic knows that the way it can fight Valve is by pointing out their 30% cut. Everything else, involves making their store better, which Epic doesn’t wanna do.
Not a lot of people know the troll face is used by pedo rings to identify each other. It was true back then but its common use muddied the water and gave them a lot of plausible deniability, but nowadays that it’s fallen off from common use it’s almost exclusively used as a symbol.
The “you mad bro” is found among internal Valve communication (Valve COO Scott Lynch to Erik Johnson and Newell, i.e. in the sense Johnson/Newell being “mad”, not Sweeney). It was particularly not sent out as a response to Sweeney. Another outlet already got tripped over this and had to make a correction: gamingonlinux.com/…/valve-coo-on-epics-tim-sweene…
This is not quite as sensational as some people are framing it.
There’s two Carmacks in gaming and I can never keep them apart, which is a point of cognitive dissonance for me because one just held a right-winger convention and the other was one of the minds behind the now-defunct Unreal franchise that I still miss to this day.
This past fall’s harvest, actually; that is a perfectly cromulent question to ask for once. As it is, pretty sure my brain mixed up the credit screen for Quake 3 with UT2k4.
Y’know after wracking my brain for the past 15 minutes you might be right; I might’ve somehow mentally mondegreen’d the credits screen of Quake 3 Arena over that of Unreal 2k4
Those DVDs usually had the game backup files on it too, so you didn’t even need to download most physical copies you purchased. And I can still download the original CS game I bought like 20 years ago. Seems like a good deal since that game cost me like $40 in store.
Steam is just perfect at keeping the gamers behind them as they are only assholes behind doors to the Devs on their platform.
30% is an absurd cut for a store that has such a monopoly that if you don’t release there your game is pretty much cancelled even if you release at your own store without DRM and with additional goodies (Looking at GOG and The Witcher - they released the Gwent standalone like a year later on steam because it didn’t sell at all on GOG and then it apparently outsold the GOG version without a week)
People are just too lazy and Steam is keeping them happy enough to not bother looking another way.
Epic isn’t a good guy in any case but the exclusive deals on AAA Games they do is probably the only way to get someone to buy the game there instead of Steam
A short list of the biggest fucking games in half a dozen genres. Do you know what an outlier is? There’s not just the one.
As a direct comparison: Fortnite probably installed a lot of Android copies outside the Play Store. But surely 99.9% of Android games are still installed through the Play Store. No matter how hard any particular ultra-popular game could have gone, the reality for an overwhelming majority of cases is that being outside that one store is death.
Steam is not perfect but far better than 90% of the outcomes we could have had. It helps they work on Proton/Wine, helping Linux community directly. They are the reason Linux gaming picked up steam (very punny, ik) since Ubuntu 16.04 + Wine made primary desktop Linux usage viable.
I will buy from other storefronts if the deal is good, I have bought plenty from GOG. Epic are just anti-consumer and I refuse to support that store.
Steam just offers peace of mind with refunds and the feature set they provide is next to none, I haven't been given a reason to look elsewhere primarily.
75% is not “basically a monopoly”, especially not when there are so many other ways to buy and sell games. Plenty of games have been incredibly successful without ever being on Steam.
They have an overwhelming majority that makes assorted competitors individually irrelevant. Jesus, do I hate having to say “they have an overwhelming majority that makes assorted competitors individually irrelevant,” just because people get in a snit about the word “monopoly.”
You know Standard Oil didn’t own all the oil - right? They peaked around 85% of sales. They had many competitors. Those competitors did not matter.
For every game that’s done well outside Steam, there’s ten that eventually came to Steam and sold massively better than before. That jump is the power Steam wields. That is why we regulate competition, beyond ‘do competitors exist.’
The barrier to entry is a huge concern on whether something should be considered a monopoly or not. Extracting and refining oil is nowhere near the same as selling your videogame online. Today the barrier of entry for digital distribution incredibly low.
It definitely does matter. Some games effectively pay Valve about 15%, which basically nullifies Sweeneys whining since it’s roughly the same they’d pay on the Epic store.
You’re right about Steam being the dominant game store, but the narrative around it is all wrong. Steam offers far more functionality for their cut than any other competitor could even come close to.
The epic games store user experience is awful. Exclusives are awful. I have zero reason to ever use it except for if I’d been taking advantage of the countless free games they’ve been giving away.
Steam offers a service, hosting downloads and all the backend for friends/multiplayer connectivity/etc isn’t free. If you’re big enough to not need that(minecraft), good for you! Otherwise, it’s clearly difficult to make a launcher/game platform that doesn’t suck ass(uplay/origin/etc) - sorry that steam is just better than any alternative right now.
People are just too lazy and Steam is keeping them happy enough to not bother looking another way.
You say that like we are making any kind of sacrifice by using steam. I used Epic and Xbox Gamepass or whatever on PC for like a year or two but stopped using either because the steam experience is just better and the exclusives weren’t worth changing.
I know we happen to be a minority, but given how much valve has done for linux gaming, I’m happy to vote and support them with my wallet.
For reference, before they started giving a good linux experience I didn’t buy games for more than 15 years, so is not like the game developers were going to get 100% of the money I’m paying for games now, the choice is to get 70% or nothing because I wouldn’t play their games. Not only that, if the proton compatibility layer fails, I’m very confident that steam’s refund policy has my back, again, without this policy I wouldn’t buy games.
Remember, not everyone is you, and not everyone plays games the way you do.
This is me too. I’d moved away from PC gaming completely when I dropped Windows from my PCs back during the XP era. The Steam Deck has brought me back though. I really like the experience, and I get a kickass Linux handheld PC for a great price.
I recently moved my main desktop to Linux (everything else has been for a long time), and - aside from some problems with Wayland (due to NVidia) - everything has just worked. Every game I’ve played has been working flawlessly. They’ve been doing an amazing job with Proton.
30% is an absurd cut for a store that has such a monopoly that if you don’t release there your game is pretty much cancelled
That’s exactly why they take 30%. Because having your game on Steam is a huge deal. Because Steam is very popular and lucrative. Because it’s well-made and useful. Little Timmy wants to skip to having a popular and lucrative platform without first doing the step of making it well-made and useful.
The exclusive on epic game store is a cancer that should not exist. And epic should remove their parody of launcher from existence because they somehow managed to make this a cancer too.
300+ library on Steam over more than a decade with them. I’m not moving to Epic regardless of how shitty Steam gets because I’m not maintaining multiple accounts for multiple launchers just 'cause Tim fucking Sweeney decided it was mandatory I split my library so he could stack a couple more zeros in his bank account.
I mean it’s not like Epic does anything to help sales, they just give devs slightly more of the money. Or at least it cannot prove that. Their store is so badly organized that the reduction in discovery and the Sweeney-created (and in fact at this point seemingly deliberate) negative association of the epic store and in particular exclusivity on it, it’s impossible for a company to judge whether the 25.7% increased money (70%->88%) is not easily eaten up by the loss in sales compared to other stores.
Valve can also trivially point to all the stuff Steam provides like forums, mod integration and streaming to justify higher cost, and Sweeney suspiciously never talks about that. I bet if he had to, he’d have to admit that he actually provides less value with his baby store considering how little devs get for the 12% taken compared to what Valve provides for the 30% they take.
Is it cool that stores take 30%? No.
Can I, as a gamer, judge whether it’s a valid amount of even one worthy of critique in particular comparing brick&mortar supply chains (his 75%-loss-criticism is a false equivalence, as the extra costs he adds existed with physical stores, too)? No, I cannot.
Does it feel to me as a gamer that I get “more” buying a game on Steam than on Epic? For sure! Sometimes I can get it cheaper on Epic, which might be worth it compared to having stuff like workshop integration or prompt updates on Steam. Or it might not be, that’s something everyone has to judge.
For me personally, my takeaway from Sweeney’s baby trantrum antics and aggressive exclusivity has been this:
I window-shop on all digital store fronts.
I select where to buy based on isthereanydeal, with no particular weight given to any store except a little one towards GOG because I get actual installers for offline storage there.
However, Epic is explicitly excluded. I browse there, I take the freebies, I don’t buy there. The only money Swine-y ever got from my was the 7€ when that bug around Death Stranding happened and I didn’t realize my free game actually cost me money instead of being free.
His criticism might be valid. Or not. I cannot judge that. Regardless, he’s an asshole and his shop is terrible for me as a customer comparing the alternatives.
Then Sweeney adjusts his flight goggles and gets ready for takeoff on one of his pet peeves: the 30% platform fee on Steam. “There was a good case for [such fees] in the early days,” writes Sweeney, “but the scale is now high and operating costs have been driven down, while the churn of new game releases is so fast that the brief marketing or UA value the storefront provides is far disproportionate to the fee.”
Sweeney opines that, if you were to strip away the top 25 selling games on Steam, “I bet Valve made more profit from most of the next 1000 than the developer themselves made.” The maths to get there is 30% to Valve, 30% on marketing, and 15% on servers / engine costs, so “the system takes 75% and that leaves 25% for actually creating the game, worse than the retail distribution economics of the 1990s.”
Sounds valid, it’s a really high cut
“Right now, you assholes are telling the world that the strong and powerful get special terms, while 30% is for the little people,” writes Sweeney. “We’re all in for a prolonged battle if Apple tries to keep their monopoly and 30% by cutting backroom deals with big publishers to keep them quiet. Why not give ALL developers a better deal? What better way is there to convince Apple quickly that their model is now totally untenable?”
Sounds valid, making deals with the big publishers for smaller cut and taking the big cut from smaller publishers. Sounds pretty shit
Yeah but OTOH I can easily see this be discussed away. Economy of scale is very much a thing in physical distribution (so smaller board games have to set aside significantly higher percentages to manufacturing, logistics and marketing), and I lack the business knowledge to know how this does or does not translates to digital distribution.
In other words I cannot judge that, but I have two indicators to suggest it might be a thing:
Physical distribution mirrors it.
Sweeney is an absolutely untrustworthy source, and him so vehemently poking at it suggests it’s a false narrative.
(Plus let’s not forget that Sweeney would take a 105% cut if he could get away with, he himself is a money-greedy bastard)
I think their claims seem credible. I think Steam lowering their take shows that 30% was indeed higher than necessary. And lowering it for those selling shitloads of copies and keeping it high for smaller sellers does sound a bit backwards and scummy.
But both Epic and Valve are businesses. Of course they’re going to be greedy and scummy. I wouldn’t really expect anything else. I just think in this case the specific arguments towards Steam seem valid.
The 30% cut is an obscene standard that needs to be reduced on PC, console, and mobile. Taking an entire third off-the-top as nothing but a middleman and file-server is indefensible. Valve doesn’t even control their platform - they shoved their way onto computers via HL2 and now perpetuate an overwhelming market share. Then as now, it is a problem that games require any online DRM launcher.
Tim can still get bent.
EGS by all accounts does fuck-all to attract users or sellers, beyond adjusting that cut, and it is still a project that exists primarily as rent-seeking for that cut.
Same deal for Fortnite on iOS: their excuses are pretense for taking 30% of everything spent on an app or IN an app, on every iPhone. They once strongarmed Facebook out of even mentioning that. Furthermore, people must have software freedom. It is intolerable that Apple ever restricted what you install on your own goddamn phone.
Fortnite should be unavailable because Fortnite should be illegal.
Nothing inside a video game should cost money. Real-money charges make games objectively less enjoyable. Maximum revenue comes from addiction to manufactured discontent. It is infecting every platform, genre, and price point. It is in single-player games. if we allow this to continue there will be nothing else.
I do wish Steam changed their pricing policy tbh. Make it so you pay smaller % for X amount of purchases, then a higher % on purchases after that and then a yet higher % on purchases after that amount with amounts set to give better terms to small indie game makers, then be less harsh on mid size devs and then get the most operational money out of big games.
steam
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.