ByteOnBikesThat lawsuit against Steam’s 30% cut of game sales is now a class action, meaning many other developers could benefit
copygirl30% is the industry standard across the board, with the exception of Epic which takes 12%. However, Epic has already shown that it’s ready to dump loads of money into store exclusivity deals and tons of free games, so I will argue it’s for the sake of growing the number of users and developers using their platform.
But do they, or any other competitor or similar store, offer the same functionality as Steam? rtxn already mentioned some. And there’s more. And then there’s the fact that Valve is using all that money not only to stuff the pockets of alread rich people (not that Gabe isn’t a multi-millionaire if not billionaire, idk), but actually puts it back into the industry: Their own store, Linux/Proton (you may not care, but Microsoft becoming a monopoly in PC gaming is no good), and hardware (with their Steam Deck handheld, and VR stuffs).
Steam might be the biggest player when it comes to storefronts, but it’s because they’ve actually earned it. And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene (other than existing). In fact, they keep trying, and keep failing, and then going back to Steam.
I’m not opposed to more money going to developers, but let’s not single out Steam, who (perhaps besides GOG? I am not familiar enough with it) is doing the most for users and develpers.
And they’re not actively preventing other competitors from entering the scene
Doesn’t Steam also mandate that a game on Steam that’s also on other platforms MUST have the lowest price on Steam? So if a game goes on sale on another store, the Steam version must also match that sale within a given time period.
That’s a pretty big road block, especially if a developer might be willing to sell for a lower price on another storefront that takes another cut.
THAT is actively blocking competition.
That requirement only exists when you also offer a Steam key for the game that’s being sold. So Valve is actually the good guy here: You can sell on another store, where Steam doesn’t get any money, and give the user a Steam key, provided by Steam for free, and the only thing they ask is to match the price on Steam.
Don’t offer a Steam key, and you can pick any price.
That is my understanding of the issue.
There is a claim by some developers that Valve was pressuring them behind the scenes (“don’t offer your game for cheaper elsewhere or else we’ll take it down from our store”) a while ago, but I’ve never seen appropriate proof of it, and that was part of (an earlier?) lawsuit.
We should regularly be seeing lower All-Time-Lows for most multi-platform games on non-Steam platforms then, right?
I don’t think we do. Why not?
Why should we see that?
How much income per sale a seller is willing to accept is a big part of the equation that goes into pricing
And? If they sell at the same price as Steam but with the store taking a smaller cut they’ll make more money per sale.
A lower price may attract more buyers, leading to more money overall (rather than only seeking to maximize each individual sale)
And which platform has the most potential buyers, by a long shot? Steam. That’s why you’re usually seeing all time lows on the Steam platform, because the sheer amount of buyers outweighs the per sale loss.
If a dev wants to make X per game, they could get X with a lower price point on Epic. To still get X, they could sell the game for a lower price on Epic. That lower price may get some people to buy the game who wouldn’t buy it for anything more.
The game can still be sold on both Steam and Epic, which is the whole point of this discussion, so Steam having a larger userbase is irrelevant.
If the userbase is irrelevant then X per game is also irrelevant. X per game matters only in the context of how many sales you’ll make. There’s a strong correlation between sales and userbase because more users means more potential sales.
Steam’s userbase is irrelevant in the example I’m explaining because they can still sell it on Steam. They won’t lose Steam customers by having a lower price on Epic.
You wanted to know why there aren’t all time lows on other stores. You agree that the lower the price gets the more people are likely to purchase it. But then you think userbase is irrelevant?
Let’s say there are 10 million gamers in the entire world, 90% use steam 10% use Epic. Not that it matters but I’ll add it anyway to further prove the point, Epic takes 10% and Steam takes 30%. You make a game that 50% of all the gamers in the world want to buy at a certain price. Let’s say you have no issues selling on Epic and you sell at full price ($60) to the 50% of Epic customers. You make $60 * 0.9 * 1 mil * 0.5 = $27 million. On Steam your game doesn’t sell at all on full price but at 50% off all potential customers will buy the game. So with a 50% discount on Steam you will make $60 * 0.5 * 0.7 * 9 mil * 0.5 = $94.5 million.
You can literally have Steam take a bigger cut than Epic and sell the game for half a price and still make more money on Steam because the userbase plays a huge role in how much money you’ll actually make. That is why you see all time lows on Steam, because you can sell your game for cheaper than any other store and still make more money on Steam.
They can sell on both Steam and Epic.
Now that is actually irrelevant information. Nothing I said refutes what you’ve said and it refutes nothing I’ve said. It’s not even something I’ve overlooked because my example is built on the premise that the game is sold in both stores.
That’s where your thought process is wrong, when you sell something that you can replicate for free the thought process isn’t “I need to cover my costs of Y and make Z% profit on top of that” the thought process is “What is the maximum amount I can charge without losing too many customers, maybe even make 1 or 2 different collectors editions to get the people what wanna pay even more” > you catch all the people that pay full price at launch and a couple months later you put it on a 20% sale to get everyone else.
Maybe for AAA devs. I’m thinking of indie devs as well, who may not be thinking of “big business extract max profit no matter what” optimizations.
You also seem to be leaving out of the equation that some customers will buy a game for $15 but not for $20. If selling at $15 on Steam would give too little money, but selling for $15 on Epic would give enough money, it doesn’t seem absurd selling at $20 on Steam (with the biggest market) and for $15 on Epic (with the higher margin) to reach a few extra customers with the lower price point.
The reason games go on sale so often is because lower prices can mean more sales. Lower middleman cuts can allow for lower prices.
- you sell it for the highest possible price that doesn’t lose you too many customers aka the “sweet spot” > Indie devs charge less not because they are less greedy but because in the public eye an indie game isn’t “worth as much” as a AAA game.
- For example: most people happily pay $70 for the new Silent Hill but no one will pay $70 for Vampire Survivors because its an “Arcade/Indie” Game even tough it has more gameplay/playtime and millions of people just loved it as much or even more
- now you got the money of everyone who is willing to pay “full price” > so you put it on sale for $50 (obviously time limited) this manipulates people that kinda want the game but aren’t willing to pay “full price” to buy it because it’s “on sale” and the human brain loves when stuff is on sale (just look at black Friday, people buy because its on sale and not essentially because they need or really want it)
In other words people buy things based on perceived value and not what its actually worth, if something “costs” $100 but is always on sale for $25 it seems like a “HUGE VALUE” even is it is just worth $10 and if something is below the expected base price the human brain goes “there must be something wrong with it”
so lowering the base price on epic will just make people think “something must be wrong with the epic version” + people a subset of people will wait for a sale no matter the price, they just wont pay “full price” so if you start at $70 and sell it for $50 they are happy but they wouldn’t have bought it if the price was $50 from the beginning > they would have waited for the price to be $35