Quoting: TheSHEEEPI can't know the exact numbers, obviously, but you can do a rather well educated guess based on the public numbers Valve does release, the prices, what you know about hosting / infrastructure costs, the relatively low number of employees, etc.
Hint: You won't end up at 30% as the required number for a tidy profit.

I can also do a rather well educated guess of Steam infrastructure and I can tell you that it isn't cheap. But mostly, I can see that Valve invest their profit in the gaming market so is kinda difficult to me to say that I don't think that they deserve that cut.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPCritizing Valve, in contrast e.g. to criticizing Sony, might actually lead to a result that is beneficial to developers. Especially since EGS showed up.

But the discussion is always focused on what EGS "criticize". Everyone talks about the 30% cut but never talks about the cut that devs get when items of his game are sold in the market, the tools that Steam provides in order to simplify the release/development process for their games or the access that devs have to activation keys in order do a retail sale wherever they want. Let's be honest, this is not about developers this is just about the FUD that Epic created against Valve.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPEh, their profit margins are so large, they can - and do - already offer lower cuts to large publishers / developers.

Valve isn't a public company so there is no way to know the profit. You're speculating here.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPAnd those deals are outside of the automatic lowering of the cut to 20% after - IIRC - selling 50 million $ worth of game.

Funny enough, large publishers wouldn't even need all those cuts to begin with due to the sheer number of their sales (not that they don't welcome them, mind you).
Adding to all of that, large game releases are what earns Steam the most money - yet they are willing to take a lower cut there - but nowhere else. Hmmmm.

Meanwhile, indie devs get no such treatment - despite Valve being more than capable of granting them a lower cut as well.
And this is mostly about indie/small devs for me, as that is where the best games and most of the passion are at. For them, the 30% cut is more than just a small problem. E.g. the difference between having to sell 1000 games a month to make a living or having to sell 1150 is significant.
For big publishers, the difference is merely one of making a bit more or a bit less profit (but it is profit, either way).

tl;dr: Steam does already grant lower cuts, so it's not like they couldn't afford it - but not to those who'd need it.

Other stores takes the exact same cut but it seems that Steam is always the one that get all the FUD.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPTemporary exclusivity is only a big deal if someone absolutely has to play a game right now instead of one year later.
Now, objectively, how many people absolutely have to play a game right now and couldn't possibly wait? Especially considering so many games nowadays take about a year to "mature" post release to actually be good...

No, Epic is aiming at those without patience and poor impulse control (or who genuinely don't care what storefront they use).
Either way, it's the consumer's decision and the consumer is old enough to make decisions for themselves.
The lure is Epic's, but nobody is forcing anyone to bite.

You are correct about the regional pricing, afaik.
But I don't see what that would have to do with devs being allowed to sell lower on Epic.
If Steam already has better regional pricing, and if you can benefit from that by getting the lowest price already, what does it matter if Epic's high prices are lower than Steam's high prices?

From the beginning my argument was that you're minimizing Epic practices as you understood that this are "business" practices while, at the same time, you gave a bigger weight to this Steam practice (which we are not 100% sure as I shared price differences between stores). From your point of view, Steam's practices affects consumers while Epic doesn't so one is less tolerable than the other... well, if I'm correct regarding regional pricing then we can agree that both practices ends up affecting end users. If I wanted, I could use the same logic and say that Steam practice is not a big deal as not being a "Most Favored Nations" citizen their agreement is completely innocuous for me, but I won't do that.

Oh, and I completely disagree on labeling people as you do. Buying a game on release date doesn't mean that you're an impulsive person, it just mean that you really enjoy a game. And that's what Epic exploits with their exclusivity.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPSorry, I should have specified that I was talking about the majority of users, not the majority of Linux users.
If you are on Windows, both are the same experience (install-wise! not usability-wise as everyone knows).
And most are on Windows, so...

The harsh truth is that Linux still doesn't matter much on the gaming market (and that is still a better state than it was years ago).
"Think of the poor Linux users" just isn't much of an argument when you talk business.

Well, I think that in this forum you'll find that most users have Linux as their only installed desktop OS. And as my arguments were consumer focused, you will also agree that the an Epic exclusivity is yet another disadvantage for us.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI'm speaking in objective terms, not subjective ones.
Using a different client to download and play a game is objectively not a problem to anyone who has access to that client and is capable of... clicking and typing.
If some people are some kind of anti-China, anti-Epic or Linux-zealot is irrelevant to the argument at hand and irrelevant to me as a person. In one ear, out the other.

You're not being objective here. As I implied in my last comment, Epic doesn't have regional pricing tools as good as Steam has. Being objective would require that you take in account this limitations when you try to imply that a temporal exclusivity is not a big deal. Not to mention that installing Steam client is way simpler in any Linux distro that doing the same with Epic launcher. Try to compare the steps you require in the most common distros in order to get Steam and Epic running. You should be able to see the difference and you should also be able to understand that one client has a major advantage to the other.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPBut you don't see me going around taking my personal preferences or situation as some kind of objective argument in discussions.

In your opinion not taking in account the perspective of other consumers is being objective? That you don't care of the consequences of this practices doesn't make them a less valid argument.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: x_wingWell, in the moment you accept that devs following other anti-consumer practices it's okay because they need the extra money you're minimizing those practices.

There is a VERY large difference between selling your game on a store that everyone can use (hell, even we can by now via some frontends) with the only inconvenience being that you have to use something other than Steam for up to one year if you really want that game right now on one hand.
And on the other hand you have the practice of forcing developers to ask the same prices everywhere, even on places where you could ask for less due to a lower cut (or maybe because you want to push that other platform).

One is a minor to medium inconvenience for customers (and not even illegal), the other (again, if true) a serious misuse of market power that could prevent a gain of profit especially for smaller developers.
As well as artificially trying to uphold a monopoly-like market position - which is almost certainly illegal in itself.

Apples and oranges.

Maybe it's "minor" or "medium" inconvenience for someone like you that lives in a first world country and/or don't care on using a non-native client in order to get a game, but for many others it is a major inconvenience (and mostly a deal breaker). It's now clear to me that you minimize other practices because you are unable to think beyong the consecuences you get by them.

So no, this isn't in anyway an apples and oranges comparison. For many of us here buying a game on Steam is not about being fanboys, it's just about what is a better deal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI don't see how I minimize other practices. I just explained how as a developer, you do what you have to in order to stay afloat.

The practice of Steam of not allowing lower prices on other stores, if true, is what I criticize.

What examples of lower prices are you talking about?
If it is about Steam keys, those are excempt from the contract if I understood that correctly.
If there are more than those, then it is quite possible Steam didn't "catch" those (not all contractually "illegal" things are brought to court, after all) or the claim is indeed baseless - which I still think is unlikely because why make an entirely baseless claim to waste your time and money (lawyers, etc.) with?

Well, in the moment you accept that devs following other anti-consumer practices it's okay because they need the extra money you're minimizing those practices.

Regarding some examples (Using US prices):
https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/product/football-manager-2021-touch/home [External Link]
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1263860/Football_Manager_2021_Touch/ [External Link]

But you have to pay the same price for the FM2021 regular edition. Either way, there are many examples of price difference between GOG, Steam and Epic.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPWho is doing what for the customers? Selling on Steam? Not selling on Steam?
Either way, of course not!
You don't develop games "for the customers", you do it either for yourself and/or because you want to make a profit with it - that's just a necessity of living in a world that requires money.
Some are nice enough to put extra effort in "for the customers" or because they feel like it's the right thing to do and those are generally favored by customers.
But when you get the option to earn 20% more just by selling somewhere else, on top of a fixed pile of cash by Epic (if this is what that was about) - you take it if you can. After all, you'll still be able to sell on Steam later. It's just a sound business decision. Wouldn't blame anyone for it, except if they promised not to beforehand.

I don't get your point. You seem to minimize other practices because "business" but also get mad at Steam with this practice because affects customers (which is debatable as there are examples of lower prices in other platforms).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This totally makes sense but, there are plenty of games that are cheaper on other stores (as long as you live in a "Most Favored Nations", for all of us that lives in a "non favored ones" Steam is always cheaper).

It would be nice to also see some action against Epic exclusives practices as many indie devs mentioned how they had coercive requirements in order to publish a game in their store.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: x_wingBased on what it's written here Steam may not be able to restrict the access to the Russian store nor reject a credit card that is located in the EU.

But what's written there applies only to the EU, except if I missed or misinterpreted something.
I don't think anything in there applies to outside of the EU (like Russia).

You're right on that. Applied EU rules to any country of Europe... silly me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPYou require a VPN to begin with - which has to function well enough for Steam not to detect that you are using it and just show you your "real" prices anyway.
I suspect the entire purchase pipeline in Steam is full with checks to detect VPNs - and afaik using a VPN to purchase is against Steam's TOS, so very much use at your own risk.
In addition to that, I'm fairly sure you also need a "local" payment method, e.g. local Russian credit card or something like that. If you wanna pay via PayPal and your PayPal still says you are not in Russia, well... I wouldn't do it.

Based on what it's written here [External Link] Steam may not be able to restrict the access to the Russian store nor reject a credit card that is located in the EU. BTW, on many countries stores PayPal is not an option.

View this comment - View article - View full comments