Already sold over 1 million copies, generating ~$20 million, so they already earned the 25% cut. Shouldn't take long until they pass the $50 million mark.

https://steamcommunity.com/games/892970/announcements/detail/3059603085894895512 [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library GuyThe "actually in game" number is less than a third of the "on Steam" number.
What on earth are all those people doing on Steam when they're not playing games?

Chatting, waiting for other people to show up.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPMy 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.

It doesn't THEORETICALLY count for everyone. It counts practically for everyone. That only big ones can make use of it, is a) not true and b) not relevant.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPMy 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.

You repeat that over and over again with no proof. If those deals were in place, why did so many big publishers leave and create their own stores? Why is there no proof? Stuff leaks all the time. Why would/should Valve make such deals in the first place?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI don't have a narrative - I don't care about painting Valve in any light - positive or negative. As I said, I am neutral.

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

Quoting: TheSHEEEPPlease tell me how else you could interpret this:

(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.

There is no need for interpretation. I said what I meant. You don't know the costs for running a store like Steam or EGS or gog.

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

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

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.

This is not the argument you made. You are disingenuous.

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

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.

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

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

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.

That's no argument. gog is barely a direct competitor and why would that play a role?

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

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.

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

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

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.

Yes, 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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

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 [External Link]
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.

That 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.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPThe 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.

So you make baseless claims and just say that this is an open secret. Who does this apply to? Why doesn't this apply to CD Projekt Red, a big money maker for Steam?

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

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%.

It'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: TheSHEEEPBut 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.

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

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.[/quote]That's not what I asked.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPLet'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.

You haven't shown any sign that you have an idea what you are talking about. Nothing but allegations that you can't back up.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

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.

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

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.

How do you know that they already offer lower cuts to large publishers/developers? CD Projekt Red is pretty big and Cyberpunk 2077 was one of the biggest launches in history. They didn't get an extra deal.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: TheSHEEEPOf 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.

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

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BielFPsPersonally I think Valve does this to prevent companies to sabotage steam by selling their games at higher price on purpose.

You don't even know if Valve is actually doing this.

Quoting: BielFPsIf I'm not mistake, Valve also have a clause forbidding dlc to not be selling through steam if they're available in other stores , which was one of the reasons that made EA left Steam back then

EA sold Mass Effect through Steam, but they wanted to sell their DLC for those games with their own stuff, thus bypassing Steam. That's what Valve is not allowing.

View this comment - View article - View full comments