this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
663 points (95.3% liked)
Games
32694 readers
1014 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's because you are not in a position to produce and sell a game.
As a user it sure is the case but as a developer you are in a position that you either have to take their 30% cut or accept that you are selling way less
The fact that pretty much immediately after epic launched their store steam lowered the cut for big publishers tells you that they are fully aware that 30% is too much to be reasonable but they completely could get away with that because Devs just didn't have a choice.
Because of epic that now changed since even if you don't actually sell more games you at least can get a guaranteed profit as if you sold those games that you miss out on by not being on steam.
Sure the way epic is doing it is not good but I really don't see another way how a significant number of buyers would ever come to another store. That didn't work for EA, that didn't work for Ubisoft, that also didn't work for GOG where you actually own the game without DRM and not just a license to play it as long as the server is allowing you.
People are fundamentally lazy and hate changing their routines - that's why forcing them into buying at your store is necessary if you want to get them to switch.
I think you got the whole thing mixed up. Sure Valve takes a huge cut, but if game does poorly Valve earns less as well. So there's an incentive from both parties to make sure game succeeds. But in the end Valve makes sure you as a consumer get your money's worth, hence why they even added no questions asked refund policy. Policy which has resulted in more purchases than before, because risk of not liking the game is non-existent now.
Epic on the other hand is forcing users to buy into their ecosystem by way of exclusives. Developers use this to make sure project succeeds even if it's not good. That is to say they get the money regardless. But this model is not sustainable as Epic has to earn money at some point so number of exclusives will be lower and lower. At the same time they are encouraging developers to not try as hard to polish the game since they get the money regardless.
Fundamentally approaches are completely different and Steam's approach can't fail because they cater to customer while Epic is just trying to force people away while offering subpar service. And whoever holds the money holds the power.
It's a really fascinating market dynamic. Steam is good to consumers, generally speaking, and offers features to that end. Family sharing is the wildest thing imaginable, since it's formally letting customers share one purchase instead of each making one for two purchases. Their refund policy too is really, really nice.
Valve has effectively chosen to be more enticing to the end user than to the seller. They've gathered up so many buyers that it's foolish for sellers to not set up a shop there. A 30% cut of revenue is hefty, but like you said, that sets up a dynamic where both want the game to succeed. I suspect paying a monthly fee to remain listed on steam would end up worse for everyone.
Gaben is one hell of a mastermind.
Indeed. And it's a system where everyone benefits. As opposed to currently popular philosophy of "milk it while you can" from big publishers.
It's a healthy dynamic which could be better, but it being healthy for everyone is what keeps it afloat
Subpar is being generous.
how long do devs think this is sustainable?
to me it seems like devs are trading long term sustainability for short term profitability. sure, your game Cracksnot was profitable because EGS paid out the butt to make it exclusive. now hardly anyone has played your game, how many people are going to get excited about Cracksnot 2 in a few years? will epic still be willing to pay you upfront for Cracksnot 2 exclusivity?
if egs never really takes off (which so far, it hasn't), eventually epic will cut their losses and stop throwing money at it.
That's what everyone is doing nowadays. Trading long term "potential" for short term gains. Let's face it, the earth isn't gonna last forever, it'd be a neverending hellscape in like what 40 - 50 years. Better to enjoy it while you can by getting the most of what you need right now.