Yeah, that's not exactly surprising.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: F.UltraNot trying to defend Google here (I have no love for them) but the problem on Youtube is the DMCA itself and not Google/YouTube. As a provider you are not allowed to judge if a DMCA request is valid or fraudulent, you have to obey the request at all times.

Yes and no.
YouTube only has to enable such tools for the industry because they are reliant on ad revenue from the industry. Other services that function without ad revenue are much friendlier towards content creators and not so much towards others.

Of course, there are some legal concerns about copyright here, but those would not have to be ruled in favor of the plaintiff by default as is the case on Google. It is absurdly easy to file a DMCA request, but next to impossible to fight it, even if it is nonsense - every content creator can sing you a song about this.
It should be exactly the other way around.

That anyone can just file such a claim and the video gets taken down immediately is totally bonkers.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MalAlso, since the product is technically valid, I don't understand why they are killing it.

That's just Google for you...

Technically valid? Yes.
Can be fixed to be otherwise valid as well? Yes.
Is actually used by people? Yes.
Was an immediate great success and is on a trajectory to the moon? No - cancel it!

Stadia still has yet to be cancelled, of course, but I don't know many people who are very optimistic about it. Which might turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunktIt doesn't THEORETICALLY count for everyone. It counts practically for everyone.

True, definitely used that word wrong.

Quoting: kuhpunktThat only big ones can make use of it, is a) not true and b) not relevant.

A) Please point me towards all those indie devs that benefited from that in earning more than 10 million USD or then 50 million... I wonder if that'll even let you count to 10.
B) So a measure that lowers (with maybe a handful of exceptions) only big publishers' cuts is not relevant in an argument about how big publishers already have lower cuts on Steam, proving that Steam can in fact afford to lower the cut? Okay...

Quoting: kuhpunktCalling others fanboys in this thread here for bringing up simple facts... that's neutral, yeah.

Calling a fanboy a fanboy is neutral in itself, it's not like they are hard to identify. You need only look at the extremes they go to try and push back any and all points being made against their darling.
Just like calling a dog a dog or an apple an apple.

Quoting: kuhpunktI can't do the math, because I have no insight about the costs and what all the factors are.

You could, though. It can all be approximated well enough by numbers publicly available, especially because Steam is so large, you'll end up with so high numbers that a few million here and there simply won't make much of a dent.
Average wages in the industry & location, prices on Steam, the cut, user numbers, employee numbers, stats from games themselves, hosting costs, taxes, etc. It's a lot, but it's not rocket science. You'll have a low and a high end when you input lower/higher approximations and in the end you'll know you are getting there when you end up with numbers that make sense.
That's what I did and ended up in the same ballpark as Epic's numbers. Higher, actually, 10-20%.

You might be too lazy to do it - and I'm fully with you on that one, so am I! Once was enough.
But don't claim you can't do something that you could indeed do.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunktThis is not the argument you made. You are disingenuous.

My argument was that Steam already offers lower cuts to big publishers - which it does, publicly visible to anyone via that 30/25/20 system.
That this theoretically counts for everyone is besides the point as only the big ones can even make use of it.

My argument was also that Steam had specific deals with big publishers that are not disclosed to the public.
Which is, as I said, an open secret in the industry.

Now, what I don't know for certain is if both are active at the same time for how many publishers. I'm not THAT close to the source anymore.
That staggered system is relatively new (2018) and it might have replaced some of the older deals with big publishers.

Quoting: kuhpunktSo you can't offer any proof. And I'm the one who has a narrative?

I don't have a narrative - I don't care about painting Valve in any light - positive or negative. As I said, I am neutral.
I only have what I know due to what I've seen from working close to the industry as well as my own knowledge about digital infrastructures and its cost, which is the truth.
If you believe it or not is - as I said - up to you.
But if all you're going to parrot from now on is just "I don't believe you", you should probably not bother as I think that much has become clear from your side.

Quoting: kuhpunktI didn't say it was a lie. And I'm the one with a problem in my perception?

Please tell me how else you could interpret this:

Quote(About the Epic numbers)You don't know if Epic can run their store at 5-8%... you have no insight into the costs.
(About the GOG numbers)Of course they sell much less than Steam, but that's at least still some actual data.

To me that sounds as if the Epic numbers are not "actual" data to you i.e. they are a lie.
And btw: I don't need to have insights into Epic's costs if they are nice enough to give me these numbers on Twitter of all places.

Quoting: kuhpunktYes, I asked what would be appropriate and you didn't offer a proper answer. You threw out a random number without a reason. I could just do the same and say that Steam deserves 49% and keep the explanation to myself. That wouldn't help either.

I answered the question "What cut would be appropriate?". The answer to that question is a number. I gave you a number and an idea for a calculation of it with what I think would be appropriate.
My hint for future discussions for you: Be precise. Don't expect people to read your mind. My telepathy only works within 3m eyesight.

If you really wanted to get a full calculation of WHY exactly that cut is appropriate (which is not the question that you asked): I already anwered that.
Do the math yourself, all the numbers are out there in good enough estimations (partly very precise) to end up with something in a +/- 5% range.
I'm not here to be your convenience business and maths consultant and what you're asking is a full approximate rundown of maintaining a storefront like Steam. The last time I did this calculation (about two years ago, as I said), it took almost a day - and yes, I should have saved it but didn't. Trust me, I begin to regret that right now.
But that doesn't mean I'll do it again just to convince some random users on a website.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DrMcCoyYes, and then Google just randomly throws half the mails you send to people with gmail accounts into their spam folder, where the recipients never see them...

Didn't happen to me a single time in 10+ years.

The provider is https://www.df.eu/int/ and the email hosting is part of a whole package including webserver, etc. It's actually a German provider, back from when I still lived in Germany.
I don't really run a webserver where I got some PHP service running with my self-signed certificate or anything like that, if that's what you thought

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I wonder what's the story behind this.
Google not replying to a medium-sized fish in the pond (who is no less developing for their thirsty-for-good-news-service) for three weeks straight is slightly concerning.

I'm just glad I never relied too much on Google services to begin with - other than Chrome, but that would definitely be replaceable. And the App Store, obviously, but I never spend money there, anyway.
Lucky me, I guess!

E-mail wise, I thankfully host my own (or, well, pay a provider to host it for me). It's just more professional if you have your own email domain ;)

Video-wise I try to get into a habit to look at odysee.com first before I have to go to YouTube since most people I follow are unfortunately not on both.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: kuhpunktThat is not what you claimed. You said that Valve makes deals with big publishers so that the 20/25/30% cut rule doesn't apply. This applies to everybody.

So you do not see how this is just a veiled deal with all big publishers as those are the only ones (bar a few indie successes maybe?) who can even fulfill it?
The goal with this was - and it was successful, too - to get big publishers to come back to Steam instead of running their own exclusive stores which they started doing prior to this. There was this period of a year or so (not entirely sure how long it was) where for example EA did not release anything big on Steam.

Quoting: kuhpunktSo you make baseless claims and just say that this is an open secret.

It is very obvious from this comment and most of your others that you do not work in the industry or even close to it.
I cannot show you any definite proof of this as that would be a rather stupid thing to do in my position and some of the people I work with.
Believe me or not - it's your choice, but I think we all know you're going to go with the choice that fits into your narrative.

Quoting: kuhpunktWho does this apply to? Why doesn't this apply to CD Projekt Red, a big money maker for Steam?

Hmmm... why would Valve not cut deals with their direct competitors at GOG?
Yeah, no idea. It is a mystery of which only the brightest detectives would be worthy.

Quoting: kuhpunktIt's what they said. You don't know if Epic can run their store at 5-8%... you have no insight into the costs.

Quoting: kuhpunktOf course they sell much less than Steam, but that's at least still some actual data.

Ah, so if Epic (well, the person who runs it, anyway) gives you some numbers, that must be a lie.
But if GOG gives you some numbers, that must be true.
I truly hope that you can see the problem in your perception here.

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: kuhpunktHow do you know it's a way too big cut? What cut would be appropriate?

Quoting: thesheeepMy suggestion would be to not have one-cut-fits-all, but a minimal cut, say 10-15%.
And then developers can add packages on top. Want a forum with it? +1%. Want multiplayer servers/matchmaking, etc.?+1-4% Other stuff? +1% each.
You get the idea.
This might actually end up with something close to 30% in the end for the premium package, but it's a fact that most developers don't even need half the services Steam supposedly takes such a large chunk for.

That's not what I asked.

You asked what cut would be appropriate. How my answer is not what you asked remains your secret so far.
You also asked how I know it's a way too big cut - I already answered that, multiple times over. You just chose to either ignore it or not believe me. Not much more I can do for you there. I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wingHow do you know that? If I have to guess, Epic is losing money right now. For each free copy they give they are probably forced to pay a fee to the publisher. Not to mention that the temporal exclusives aren't cheap. This strategies aren't new in the gaming market, many new comers always worked at loss in the first years.

You are mixing different points here. We're talking about the store cut of 12%. With that low cut, Epic still nets a profit:
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1120441795010338816

Of course, if you also take all the other measures into account - the exclusivity deals and the free games - then yeah, I'm fully with you they most likely run at a net loss right now.
But those other growth measures are not the topic of discussion here.

Quoting: x_wing"Wrong, again." There is now way you can get any number out of this as Valve isn't a public company. Unless you're Valve's accountant or a shareholder of Valve, this number are pure speculation (not to mention that you don't evaluate costs).

I did list some of the numbers you CAN get despite Valve not being a public company. It isn't totally precise, but there's no way it is entirely off, either. If you wanna do the math, be my guest. I did that ~2 years ago when EGS first entered the picture and it turned out that Epic is very much right on this one.
And the last two years only saw more growth and profit for Valve, so I don't see any reason to assume much has changed in this regard.

Quoting: x_wingRegarding "People have been bringing the same points against the 30%" I probably should ask by whom? Before Epic drama, I never heard a complain about that cut (at least not for Steam).

Is this the part where you pretend something didn't happen because you didn't see it happen?
Honestly, just set your search engine to present you results from before 2017 or so and look for discussions about the store owner cut. You'll find quite a few, and absolutely not only about Steam, but also about mobile app stores, consoles, etc.

Your claim was that Epic "created" this narrative in some kind of FUD approach. And that is just provably false.
What Epic did was bring this to way more people's attention, which is a service in itself and if that discussion is the only thing that remains of Epic's efforts, it'll still be at least something good.
Now, did they push this point in an attempt to discredit others and get people on their store? Probably. I couldn't care less about intentions. I care about results.

Quoting: x_wingYou're really an arrogant person. You imply that I don't bring any valid argument and I have no idea of what I'm talking about when you keep creating numbers from nowhere in order to justify what could be the right fee of a Store.

Knowledge is often mistaken for arrogance by those who don't possess it, especially if it isn't sugarcoated, so I'll take that compliment, thank you.

Just because you don't understand where the numbers are coming from, doesn't mean I created them out of thin air. I think I dropped enough keywords by now for anyone to do their own research and I am under no obligation to hand you my own research and do the thinking for you. Nor do I care if you believe me or not, so I'm really not willing to go that extra mile.

Quoting: x_wingNot to mention that you try to show some advantages of fee reduction for customer when many showed you that Epic didn't bring any advantage for us.

Seriously doubt that I ever made such an attempt. I said that some developers might decide to lower their prices due to the lower cut, but most won't.
So for customers, not much of an improvement.

But honestly, customers are cared for pretty well already. Games are cheap, too cheap IMO but that's a different topic altogether. It's the indie/small devs that struggle the most, and that is my perspective, too, so that's what I'm most concerned about.

Quoting: kuhpunktHow do you know that they already offer lower cuts to large publishers/developers?

https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition
Just as the most recent example. That isn't specific to large devs, of course, but I hope you can see how that benefits those the most.
The deals between Steam and large publishers beyond that are more of an open secret, but you won't find many articles about it. Contracts not being disclosed and all that.

Quoting: kuhpunktgog broke down their costs running the store any say said that running their store costs about 20% and 10% is actual profit for them.

If that is true - and I have my doubt here - it would tell you two things:
1.) They suck at running at their business. Epic can run their store at about 5-8% and the rest is profit, but GOG requires three times that much? Something is very wrong here.
2.) 10% profit is already absolutely crazy as any investor will gladly tell you. Do you know how much profit normal, non-digital stores (e.g. supermarkets, electronic markets, etc.) make from products they sell? 1-3%.

But honestly, I think this might just be throwing different things together, not all actually related to the store itself. Or their sales numbers are much lower than I ever expected.

Quoting: kuhpunktHow do you know it's a way too big cut? What cut would be appropriate?

My suggestion would be to not have one-cut-fits-all, but a minimal cut, say 10-15%.
And then developers can add packages on top. Want a forum with it? +1%. Want multiplayer servers/matchmaking, etc.?+1-4% Other stuff? +1% each.
You get the idea.
This might actually end up with something close to 30% in the end for the premium package, but it's a fact that most developers don't even need half the services Steam supposedly takes such a large chunk for.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: x_wingBut mostly, I can see that Valve invest their profit in the gaming market

Wrong, again.
You can see that they invest some of their profit into the gaming market. Which is undoubtedly more than others do, which is a great thing, especially for us.
If they didn't invest anything back, they'd end up with a similar share to Epic, about 12% for developing/maintaining their store infrastructure and all things related to it. Actually Epic nets a profit from even that, but they don't have as much stuff to maintain and their service is just straight worse, so let's just say 12% let's you be even if you are Valve.

Now, if you want to assume that those 18% of Valve's cut they invest back into the market in the form of hardware & software research (incl. Proton), I can't stop you. But I can tell you it is absurd. Even if you assumed twice the number of employees that the highest estimate shows for Valve you couldn't spend that much money on them - assuming Valve doesn't pay multiple times the industry standard wages for everyone...

More realistically, they invest maybe half of that or less into non-profitable endeavours, meaning they could easily ask for a 20% cut from everyone, still do everything they do now, and still be on top of it all.

Quoting: x_wingLet's be honest, this is not about developers this is just about the FUD that Epic created against Valve.

Let's be honest, yes: You have no idea what you are talking about in this matter.
I haven't read a single argument of yours that actually holds up upon inspection.
People have been bringing the same points against the 30% cut since way before Epic entered the picture, though Epic certainly lend the whole criticism much more publicity and credit.
You should do yourself a favor and stop now, before it gets too embarrassing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments