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

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

Hardly.
I 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.

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

Valve is just a topic here more often due to most other stores barely being relevant to this site. Obviously the same cut isn't really justified anywhere.
But in contrast to e.g. the PlayStation Store, developers on PC have a choice of where to publish if they want a lower cut. At least in theory. That choice simply doesn't exist on consoles, or on IOS/Android.

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

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: TheSHEEEPA lower cut is good for developers and neutral for customers.

So in total, a positive thing.

I guess this could hypothetically be a bad thing for customers if it means the store owner (Valve in this case) decides to cut spending on platform development and upkeep due to smaller profit margins.

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

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: orochi_kyoIf that is true you come off like a very aggressive Steam hater, not the first time you show you think Steam is something despicable.

That's because I call shitty things out when I see them, independent of the good stuff the same entity (Valve in this case) does.

I am neutral.
Of course, to the mind of a rabid fanboy, calling things out like a way too big cut or a refusal to have regional pricing within the same currency zone immediately makes you a hater.

In this case, it turned out the whole thing of the article was a lot of smoke about nothing and it will most certainly go nowhere. I initially assumed there was actually some point to the lawsuit - as in, Valve actually does what the lawsuit claims it does. And of course argued based on that assumption.
But apparently that doesn't seem to be the case. Making it all just very weird.

Quoting: orochi_kyoAnd the first fact you or anyone else in this forum can not deny is that "lower cuts generate lower prices, which is good for customers" is a lie.

I don't know who said that, but I sure didn't. A few devs may choose to lower the price due to a lower cut, but most won't.
A lower cut is good for developers and neutral for customers.

So in total, a positive thing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

This really looks quite interesting.
Not quite sure about longevity, but at that price, that might not be the biggest concern.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Can I have some sauce with that jungle planet, please?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: JSo do you think we will get these happy chappies as a DLC?

To protect your privacy, external media requires approval to load. Source: 1d4chan.org
View cookie preferences.
Accept & Show Accept All & Don't show this again   Direct Link

They will be popular....

I mean, everyone knows that there are only ordersome Dwarves and that Dwarves would never succumb to Chaos, so.... no idea what you are talking about.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RedBatmanI'm glad about this. My only worry is that Warhammer 2 had bugs that were bad and Linux was getting some bugs that affected performance. Hopefully they will be fixed by this new release.

The entire engine will be much closer to what you can see in Three Kingdoms or Troy - both totally outperform the WH 2 engine.

No doubt it will be the same with WH3.

Of course you can still expect bugs, though ;)

View this comment - View article - View full comments