Only 6% of devs think Valve justifies its 30% steam cut - GDC 2019. Unreal grants get grand.

Avatar image for vaeh
#1 Posted by Vaeh (545 posts) -

An interesting article based on a GDC poll. https://www.mcvuk.com/just-6-of-devs-think-valve-justifies-its-30-steam-cut-says-new-gdc-poll/

This is only the tip of the iceberg... The volume of tools and services going into UE and the whole Epic platform is, well unreal.

Avatar image for whatafailure
#2 Posted by WhatAFailure (417 posts) -

"Dad, what was it like during the Epic vs. Valve Wars?"

"It was weird, unexpected, and weird, son. Now go play Borderlands 5 on your VR headset"

Avatar image for XVision84
#3 Posted by XVision84 (16332 posts) -

Love the idea of megagrants and stuff like this would make me want to support the platform. More money here and less on scummy business tactics 👌

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#4 Edited by uninspiredcup (34416 posts) -

Now ask them if loot boxes, microtransactions, preorder dlc, game price hikes, times exclusivity, blocking pre-owned copies and DRM protection are justified and watch them nod their head in unison.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#5 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31487 posts) -

Store Wars

Valve: the rebels

Epic: Trade Federation

Me: Jar Jar binks

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#6 Posted by lundy86_4 (53653 posts) -

It's not something that really benefits the devs, but the end-user. Plus, y'know... Widely different market-share, thus the money-hatting. Money talks.

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
#7 Posted by NoodleFighter (10464 posts) -

@lundy86_4: Reading the article the developers complaining about Steam not justifying their 30% cut are somewhat of an oxymoron because 75% or more of the profit of their games sold comes from Steam and not other stores despite them having the same or lower percentage cuts. Which means Steam justifies it cut in the fact that your game is much more likely to sell better there than any other store. Also I think a lot of the devs aren't aware of the features and benefits Steam offers which makes it appealing for people to buy their games through it for a variety of reasons.

Why aren't any of them complaining about console manufacturers charging 30% plus more for dev kits and even more cuts when physical copies are involved and the many losses from used games. Because with the exception of the Nintendo Switch indie games sell better on Steam than they do on Playstation and Xbox.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#8 Edited by lundy86_4 (53653 posts) -

@NoodleFighter: I saw that as well. If you're selling a few million more units, then that increase in price is offset. Obviously this is an assumption, as I don't have any breakdowns. The article just seems to be largely spin... Devs want more money, and they're entitled to try.

Hey now... Let's not go bringing console gaming into this. God-forbid we criticize that monetary breakdown.

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
#9 Posted by NoodleFighter (10464 posts) -

@lundy86_4: Yeah devs are entitled to more money but not if its going to screw us over. Some devs and publishers thought the Xbox One getting rid of used games would be good solely because it would get rid of people's ability to share and sell their games after they're done playing with them. Some devs hate Steam's refund policy because people somehow "exploit" it. A lot of devs hate Let's Plays/Walkthroughs because people will just watch them instead of buying the game.

Then there is how many devs and publishers will actually invest the money into making better games and not just pocket it all for themselves. We already see devs and publishers of highly successful games making double, triple, and quadruple their budget back in just sales of the $50-$60 copy then try nickel and dime us with micro-transactions and loot box gambling claiming they've barely made any money and games are too expensive/risky despite record breaking profits and sales proving otherwise.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#10 Posted by lundy86_4 (53653 posts) -

@NoodleFighter: Oh yeah, I definitely agree. I don't like the Epic Launcher, and it's not because it's just another launcher... I have enough where it's just not an issue. Minor annoyance, nothing more.

I hate the fact that EA have so heavily normalized MTs... Hell, you can unlock all special items in RE2 for a price now. Ridiculous.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#11 Edited by mrbojangles25 (44169 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

Love the idea of megagrants and stuff like this would make me want to support the platform. More money here and less on scummy business tactics 👌

Could not agree more.

I honestly don't care about anything except the whole exclusives thing. It seems like such a sneaky, lame, and dumb tactic.

I wonder how long Epic can keep spending money like this, though; Papa and Mama Tencent has some deep pockets, I am sure, but at what point do they actually have to offer a good product and start making money?

@NoodleFighter said:

@lundy86_4: Reading the article the developers complaining about Steam not justifying their 30% cut are somewhat of an oxymoron because 75% or more of the profit of their games sold comes from Steam and not other stores despite them having the same or lower percentage cuts. Which means Steam justifies it cut in the fact that your game is much more likely to sell better there than any other store. Also I think a lot of the devs aren't aware of the features and benefits Steam offers which makes it appealing for people to buy their games through it for a variety of reasons.

Why aren't any of them complaining about console manufacturers charging 30% plus more for dev kits and even more cuts when physical copies are involved and the many losses from used games. Because with the exception of the Nintendo Switch indie games sell better on Steam than they do on Playstation and Xbox.

I think what we are seeing is a lot of people doing dumb shit over "the principle" of it. Cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Steam is the best. And that includes selling as many copies of a game as possible. Better to sell 10 million copies at a 30% cut than 5 million at a 20% cut.

I would love to see Steam get some competition, but not at my expense. Isolating game sales to just one digital storefront does exactly that.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#12 Posted by PC_Rocks (2559 posts) -

Devs/Publishers want as much money as possible...news at 11. I mean forget Devs/Publishers every single human being wants as much money he can get away with.

That's like asking how much money you will be satisfied with?

Avatar image for deactivated-5cd08b1605da1
#13 Edited by deactivated-5cd08b1605da1 (9317 posts) -

Yeah, 30% is way too much just to put some files on their servers. Valve is greedy asf

If I was a dev and had someone take 30% of my game sales just to sell it on their store I would also be p*ssed. EPIC might be anti-consumer but its pro-developer

Avatar image for vaeh
#14 Posted by Vaeh (545 posts) -

@pc_rocks: If I cut 30% instead of 10% from your salary it will be ok for you ? They're profiting off of someone else's product.

@mrbojangles25 If EGS can cut less % then why not Valve ?

People: "If devs don't like it, they can sell it elsewhere"

Same People: "If devs don't sell it on steam I WILL NOT purchase it"

That's why they still sell on Steam. Steam charges a high amount because so many gamers are weirdly loyal to Steam.

@NoodleFighter said:

@lundy86_4:

Why aren't any of them complaining about console manufacturers charging 30%

They probably think Sony, MS and Nintendo don't justify the fee either. You just don't have another storefront option on console.

Avatar image for Jag85
#15 Edited by Jag85 (13605 posts) -

@NoodleFighter: Like you said, consoles involve dev kits and publishing physical copies, so the costs are justified. It's harder to justify similar costs for digital games.

Avatar image for vaeh
#16 Posted by Vaeh (545 posts) -
@Jag85 said:

@NoodleFighter: Like you said, consoles involve dev kits and publishing physical copies, so the costs are justified. It's harder to justify similar costs for digital games.

Consoles games have always had royalties. A certain percent or flat amount payed to the console manufacturer. Publishers can't get away from that no matter if they go digital or physical. Whereas on PC there is no hardware manufacturer. There are no royalties. PC publishers aren't paying hardware manufacturers for their R&D or to help subsidize the hardware's price tag.

People were talking about Valves cut being too much long before Epic had a storefront.

Avatar image for Rockman999
#17 Posted by Rockman999 (7508 posts) -

Meanwhile the same hermits that ride Steam's cock 24/7 are the ones that act confused and incensed when Rockstar Games and other big developers delay their big releases on the PC platform in favor of focusing on the console release. The big money has always been on consoles. No, your money is not worth the same cause you assholes just buy stolen keys from grey market key resellers and abuse VPNs to buy from Mexican stores while fucking Mexican gamers over in the process. Stay pressed, hermits. 😂

I stand with the developers, not the publishers, the developers, and Epic is the only one in the platform that is doing the same.

Avatar image for schu
#18 Posted by schu (10055 posts) -

I'm not really sure how to interpret this currently. A) I don't want every game I play made in the same engine. B) Whether or not these grants go to the kind of people where I would really appreciate this is yet to be known.

Avatar image for tenaka2
#19 Posted by tenaka2 (17200 posts) -

This is like asking who likes paying taxes..... of course everyone is going to say no.

Avatar image for vaeh
#20 Posted by Vaeh (545 posts) -

@schu: It's not the first time Epic is giving grants to devs. They're somehow hidden publisher.

lol same engine is dominating the gaming industry.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#21 Posted by PC_Rocks (2559 posts) -

@vaeh said:

@pc_rocks: If I cut 30% instead of 10% from your salary it will be ok for you ? They're profiting off of someone else's product.

@mrbojangles25 If EGS can cut less % then why not Valve ?

People: "If devs don't like it, they can sell it elsewhere"

Same People: "If devs don't sell it on steam I WILL NOT purchase it"

That's why they still sell on Steam. Steam charges a high amount because so many gamers are weirdly loyal to Steam.

@NoodleFighter said:

@lundy86_4:

Why aren't any of them complaining about console manufacturers charging 30%

They probably think Sony, MS and Nintendo don't justify the fee either. You just don't have another storefront option on console.

If the job offered to me with 30% cut compared to the rest of the industry's standard of more than 50% cut, I'll take it. Of course I would like it to be 0% but that's not how things work. As I said everyone would like their costs to be as low as possible which is basically the poll was about.

People are loyal to Steam because Steam Didn't abandon PC gaming, Steam made it flourish and Steam provides quality service to its CONSUMERS.

Lastly the cost estimates are grossly misreported. Even in Epic's own words some payment gateways charge as high as 10 to 12% in many countries and they pass this to the consumers compared to Steam.

Avatar image for BenjaminBanklin
#22 Posted by BenjaminBanklin (4924 posts) -

Who were the 6%? Valve themselves?

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#23 Edited by 04dcarraher (23230 posts) -

@Vatusus said:

Yeah, 30% is way too much just to put some files on their servers. Valve is greedy asf

If I was a dev and had someone take 30% of my game sales just to sell it on their store I would also be p*ssed. EPIC might be anti-consumer but its pro-developer

Yea lets ignore Microsoft,Sony,Nintendo,Apple, and Google also taking 30-50%... Also let us not forget how much it would cost to produce a physical copy that would eat into their profit ratio of the game....... let alone having to supply and maintain their own digital distribution servers/platform.... Now how about the fact that steam does not take a direct 30% cut anymore but goes as low as 20% based on an amount made from the game. Or the fact that Valve/steam allows all publishers/devs to sell their keys to 3rd party outlets in which valve/steam does not take any cut from(while EPIC prohibits).

The whole EPIC front is sham to get their foot into the market.... And their only tactic is waving and big bag of money up in front of a publisher to get them to do a "timed exclusive". Their lower % cut is a ploy to try to get more sympathy and make them look like the "good guys" going to change the status quo for the better for "publishers".... while at the same time doing these shady practices and questionable decisions that dont help us the "consumer".

Avatar image for jeezers
#24 Edited by jeezers (3185 posts) -

@04dcarraher: nah its not the same as sony and nintendo, they own the hardware they are making the game for, so it makes sense to pay the hardware developer 30 percent, than it does a 3rd party digital store/launcher. Steam doesnt own PC

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#25 Edited by 04dcarraher (23230 posts) -

@jeezers said:

@04dcarraher: nah its not the same as sony and nintendo, they own the hardware they are making the game for, so it makes sense to pay the hardware developer 30 percent, than it does a 3rd party digital store/launcher. Steam doesnt own PC

Any 3rd party publisher/dev putting still have to pay the cut for games to use their distribution methods hardware or no hardware... Steam owns the servers and distribution on their service of the games . 30% is nothing vs what it use to be and what a physical copy eats into the profit ratio.

So the idea of EPIC being the "white knight" offering better publisher ratios, while cornering the market with 3rd party exclusives and timed exclusives to force users on an open platform to use their service is so two faced and hypocritical.

Avatar image for jeezers
#26 Edited by jeezers (3185 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:
@jeezers said:

@04dcarraher: nah its not the same as sony and nintendo, they own the hardware they are making the game for, so it makes sense to pay the hardware developer 30 percent, than it does a 3rd party digital store/launcher. Steam doesnt own PC

Any 3rd party publisher/dev putting still have to pay the cut for games to use their distribution methods hardware or no hardware... Steam owns the servers and distribution on their service of the games . 30% is nothing vs what it use to be and what a physical copy eats into the profit ratio.

So the idea of EPIC being the "white knight" offering better publisher ratios, while cornering the market with 3rd party exclusives and timed exclusives to force users on an open platform to use their service is so two faced and hypocritical.

but that just it , they don't have to use steams distribution or servers, its not their hardware, they are only a digital store front/launcher, and there are other stores/launchers on PC to choose from. So why is steam entitled to a 30% cut, steam isn't required.

unlike consoles which have one store for that piece of hardware. Sony and Nintendo for example can charge how ever they want, not only is it their digital store its their hardware. If you want a game on their hardware you have to play by their terms.

Steam is in a completely different position, basically they aren't entitled to any developers games on PC. If they don't want to use steam to sell their game, they don't have too, but can still sell on PC.

Gaben loyalists really have to stretch the truth to make their case here lol

Avatar image for vaeh
#27 Posted by Vaeh (545 posts) -

@04dcarraher: If you want access to Apple, Google, Sony, Nintendo userbase you pay 30% you do not have a choice. Arguing about what these companies "deserve" is stupid. The difference is on PC you don't need to pay 30% to have access to the PC audience.

Valve can do what they want, however these are developers responding about how they feel about it.

@pc_rocks said:
@vaeh said:

@pc_rocks: If I cut 30% instead of 10% from your salary it will be ok for you ? They're profiting off of someone else's product.

@mrbojangles25 If EGS can cut less % then why not Valve ?

People: "If devs don't like it, they can sell it elsewhere"

Same People: "If devs don't sell it on steam I WILL NOT purchase it"

That's why they still sell on Steam. Steam charges a high amount because so many gamers are weirdly loyal to Steam.

@NoodleFighter said:

@lundy86_4:

Why aren't any of them complaining about console manufacturers charging 30%

They probably think Sony, MS and Nintendo don't justify the fee either. You just don't have another storefront option on console.

If the job offered to me with 30% cut compared to the rest of the industry's standard of more than 50% cut, I'll take it. Of course I would like it to be 0% but that's not how things work. As I said everyone would like their costs to be as low as possible which is basically the poll was about.

People are loyal to Steam because Steam Didn't abandon PC gaming, Steam made it flourish and Steam provides quality service to its CONSUMERS.

Lastly the cost estimates are grossly misreported. Even in Epic's own words some payment gateways charge as high as 10 to 12% in many countries and they pass this to the consumers compared to Steam.

You are presenting info in such a deceptive manner. Steam charges payment processing surcharges on some transactions too. See https://twitter.com/galyonkin/status/1115600498910846977 for an example. Steam also charge payment fee on my country.

Tim Sweeney responses: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bb66bf/epic_games_store_12_cut_explained_buyer_takes_on/ekgp77f/ (circlejerk downvoted his other comments)

Based on their Roadmap they are working on having additional payment methods in the next 4-6 months.

All of you saying that Steam deserves that cut for all of the benefits that go into improving Steam for the consumer base, I think what needs to be known for that to apply is just how much of that 30 % goes into developing user-side features. Because there's no proof that Valve is really investing the capital they earn from that in such things, regardless of whether or not they exist.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#28 Edited by mrbojangles25 (44169 posts) -

In other news, only 5% of anyone working anywhere at any time think they get paid enough...

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
#29 Edited by NoodleFighter (10464 posts) -

@vaeh said:

@04dcarraher: If you want access to Apple, Google, Sony, Nintendo userbase you pay 30% you do not have a choice. Arguing about what these companies "deserve" is stupid. The difference is on PC you don't need to pay 30% to have access to the PC audience.

Valve can do what they want, however these are developers responding about how they feel about it.

@pc_rocks said:
@vaeh said:

@pc_rocks: If I cut 30% instead of 10% from your salary it will be ok for you ? They're profiting off of someone else's product.

@mrbojangles25 If EGS can cut less % then why not Valve ?

People: "If devs don't like it, they can sell it elsewhere"

Same People: "If devs don't sell it on steam I WILL NOT purchase it"

That's why they still sell on Steam. Steam charges a high amount because so many gamers are weirdly loyal to Steam.

@NoodleFighter said:

@lundy86_4:

Why aren't any of them complaining about console manufacturers charging 30%

They probably think Sony, MS and Nintendo don't justify the fee either. You just don't have another storefront option on console.

If the job offered to me with 30% cut compared to the rest of the industry's standard of more than 50% cut, I'll take it. Of course I would like it to be 0% but that's not how things work. As I said everyone would like their costs to be as low as possible which is basically the poll was about.

People are loyal to Steam because Steam Didn't abandon PC gaming, Steam made it flourish and Steam provides quality service to its CONSUMERS.

Lastly the cost estimates are grossly misreported. Even in Epic's own words some payment gateways charge as high as 10 to 12% in many countries and they pass this to the consumers compared to Steam.

You are presenting info in such a deceptive manner. Steam charges payment processing surcharges on some transactions too. See https://twitter.com/galyonkin/status/1115600498910846977 for an example. Steam also charge payment fee on my country.

Tim Sweeney responses: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bb66bf/epic_games_store_12_cut_explained_buyer_takes_on/ekgp77f/ (circlejerk downvoted his other comments)

Based on their Roadmap they are working on having additional payment methods in the next 4-6 months.

All of you saying that Steam deserves that cut for all of the benefits that go into improving Steam for the consumer base, I think what needs to be known for that to apply is just how much of that 30 % goes into developing user-side features. Because there's no proof that Valve is really investing the capital they earn from that in such things, regardless of whether or not they exist.

Is it the most common or accessible payment methods in your country being charged? Either way it still doesn't change that Steam covers a lot of transaction fees while Epic doesn't cover any at all. Epic themselves have even stated that if they covered transaction fees they wouldn't be able to maintain a 12% cut and their cut would go up as high as 25% depending on the provider if they were to start covering transaction fees.

I read a post by an Indian gamer talking about how Steam covers the fee of a cash delivery system where someone comes to their home to collect the money and confirm their receipt. Not only that but Steam covers 7-8 domestic payment methods with high overhead fees. I read another post by a German gamer and how PSC is popular payment method better than PayPal that is becoming more popular in Europe.

Here is a comparison pic they took. Not only does Steam cover PSC fees but Origin and GOG as well so what's Epic's excuse for not covering it?

The Epic Store is simply very inaccessible to gamers in emerging countries and Asian gamers as the payment providers they have all have fees and it doesn't help that Epic's poor regional pricing makes it cost even more. Asia is large part of where PC gaming's growth is from now and if Epic can't make themselves more convenient for that market it can negatively impact the sales of games they hold exclusively. But they probably won't bother with Asia much anyway since it would come into immediate competition with their 40% shareholder Tencent's WeGame platform which is mostly aiming for China and other Asian markets.

Another reason that be used to justify Steam's 30% cut is that they allow third party key sellers and take no cut of their sales so that means people buying from these sellers give no money to Steam despite using Steam's services. Not to mention developers/publishers themselves can generate their own Steam keys and sell them directly through their own site/store. Humble Bundle which is one of the most popular official key sellers only takes a 5% cut.

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#30 Posted by PC_Rocks (2559 posts) -

@NoodleFighter said:
@vaeh said:

@04dcarraher: If you want access to Apple, Google, Sony, Nintendo userbase you pay 30% you do not have a choice. Arguing about what these companies "deserve" is stupid. The difference is on PC you don't need to pay 30% to have access to the PC audience.

Valve can do what they want, however these are developers responding about how they feel about it.

@pc_rocks said:
@vaeh said:

@pc_rocks: If I cut 30% instead of 10% from your salary it will be ok for you ? They're profiting off of someone else's product.

@mrbojangles25 If EGS can cut less % then why not Valve ?

People: "If devs don't like it, they can sell it elsewhere"

Same People: "If devs don't sell it on steam I WILL NOT purchase it"

That's why they still sell on Steam. Steam charges a high amount because so many gamers are weirdly loyal to Steam.

@NoodleFighter said:

@lundy86_4:

Why aren't any of them complaining about console manufacturers charging 30%

They probably think Sony, MS and Nintendo don't justify the fee either. You just don't have another storefront option on console.

If the job offered to me with 30% cut compared to the rest of the industry's standard of more than 50% cut, I'll take it. Of course I would like it to be 0% but that's not how things work. As I said everyone would like their costs to be as low as possible which is basically the poll was about.

People are loyal to Steam because Steam Didn't abandon PC gaming, Steam made it flourish and Steam provides quality service to its CONSUMERS.

Lastly the cost estimates are grossly misreported. Even in Epic's own words some payment gateways charge as high as 10 to 12% in many countries and they pass this to the consumers compared to Steam.

You are presenting info in such a deceptive manner. Steam charges payment processing surcharges on some transactions too. See https://twitter.com/galyonkin/status/1115600498910846977 for an example. Steam also charge payment fee on my country.

Tim Sweeney responses: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bb66bf/epic_games_store_12_cut_explained_buyer_takes_on/ekgp77f/ (circlejerk downvoted his other comments)

Based on their Roadmap they are working on having additional payment methods in the next 4-6 months.

All of you saying that Steam deserves that cut for all of the benefits that go into improving Steam for the consumer base, I think what needs to be known for that to apply is just how much of that 30 % goes into developing user-side features. Because there's no proof that Valve is really investing the capital they earn from that in such things, regardless of whether or not they exist.

Is it the most common or accessible payment methods in your country being charged? Either way it still doesn't change that Steam covers a lot of transaction fees while Epic doesn't cover any at all. Epic themselves have even stated that if they covered transaction fees they wouldn't be able to maintain a 12% cut and their cut would go up as high as 25% depending on the provider if they were to start covering transaction fees.

I read a post by an Indian gamer talking about how Steam covers the fee of a cash delivery system where someone comes to their home to collect the money and confirm their receipt. Not only that but Steam covers 7-8 domestic payment methods with high overhead fees. I read another post by a German gamer and how PSC is popular payment method better than PayPal that is becoming more popular in Europe.

Here is a comparison pic they took. Not only does Steam cover PSC fees but Origin and GOG as well so what's Epic's excuse for not covering it?

The Epic Store is simply very inaccessible to gamers in emerging countries and Asian gamers as the payment providers they have all have fees and it doesn't help that Epic's poor regional pricing makes it cost even more. Asia is large part of where PC gaming's growth is from now and if Epic can't make themselves more convenient for that market it can negatively impact the sales of games they hold exclusively. But they probably won't bother with Asia much anyway since it would come into immediate competition with their 40% shareholder Tencent's WeGame platform which is mostly aiming for China and other Asian markets.

Another reason that be used to justify Steam's 30% cut is that they allow third party key sellers and take no cut of their sales so that means people buying from these sellers give no money to Steam despite using Steam's services. Not to mention developers/publishers themselves can generate their own Steam keys and sell them directly through their own site/store. Humble Bundle which is one of the most popular official key sellers only takes a 5% cut.

You're a life saver, Noodle. You saved me from writing a huge wall of text and perhaps still wouldn't be able to articulate it better than you did.

Avatar image for vaeh
#31 Edited by Vaeh (545 posts) -
@NoodleFighter said:
@vaeh said:

@04dcarraher: If you want access to Apple, Google, Sony, Nintendo userbase you pay 30% you do not have a choice. Arguing about what these companies "deserve" is stupid. The difference is on PC you don't need to pay 30% to have access to the PC audience.

Valve can do what they want, however these are developers responding about how they feel about it.

@pc_rocks said:
@vaeh said:

@pc_rocks: If I cut 30% instead of 10% from your salary it will be ok for you ? They're profiting off of someone else's product.

@mrbojangles25 If EGS can cut less % then why not Valve ?

People: "If devs don't like it, they can sell it elsewhere"

Same People: "If devs don't sell it on steam I WILL NOT purchase it"

That's why they still sell on Steam. Steam charges a high amount because so many gamers are weirdly loyal to Steam.

They probably think Sony, MS and Nintendo don't justify the fee either. You just don't have another storefront option on console.

If the job offered to me with 30% cut compared to the rest of the industry's standard of more than 50% cut, I'll take it. Of course I would like it to be 0% but that's not how things work. As I said everyone would like their costs to be as low as possible which is basically the poll was about.

People are loyal to Steam because Steam Didn't abandon PC gaming, Steam made it flourish and Steam provides quality service to its CONSUMERS.

Lastly the cost estimates are grossly misreported. Even in Epic's own words some payment gateways charge as high as 10 to 12% in many countries and they pass this to the consumers compared to Steam.

You are presenting info in such a deceptive manner. Steam charges payment processing surcharges on some transactions too. See https://twitter.com/galyonkin/status/1115600498910846977 for an example. Steam also charge payment fee on my country.

Tim Sweeney responses: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/bb66bf/epic_games_store_12_cut_explained_buyer_takes_on/ekgp77f/ (circlejerk downvoted his other comments)

Based on their Roadmap they are working on having additional payment methods in the next 4-6 months.

All of you saying that Steam deserves that cut for all of the benefits that go into improving Steam for the consumer base, I think what needs to be known for that to apply is just how much of that 30 % goes into developing user-side features. Because there's no proof that Valve is really investing the capital they earn from that in such things, regardless of whether or not they exist.

Is it the most common or accessible payment methods in your country being charged?

Brazil. Here steam transaction are managed by BoaCompra. BoaCompra charges when you use boletos, that are barcode given by banks that you can pay with real money, and it's the main form of payment in the country. From what I remember, other payment methods also charges fee that can be as high as 10%. Not a insignificant amount. When I try to add 10r$ in steam using boleto, I'm redirected to a site that presents me with a 11r$ barcode. It's not that I expect Valve to eat up, is that there is no difference for me to buy on steam or epic at the end of the day. It's only different for the dev.

You didn't read Tim Sweeney comments. The early years of Steam were horrible.

Payment method deployment is a very complex integration task and it takes time.

Games can be sold elsewhere using Steam keys but only if they are also available for sale on Steam. They are still seeing a cut of those games sold on their storefront, which usually accounts for the majority of sales.

Valve does not allow devs to sell steam keys on other storefronts indefinitely. They are limited in number and considering their guidelines if someone tried to sell exclusively offsite Valve would not give them keys. So it’s not actually a viable alternative even getting beyond Steam’s storefront visibility.

Avatar image for GarGx1
#32 Posted by GarGx1 (10929 posts) -
@whatafailure said:

"Dad, what was it like during the Epic vs. Valve Wars?"

"It was weird, unexpected, and weird, son. Now go stream Borderlands 5 on your VR headset"

Fixed that for you :)

Avatar image for oliversnyders
#33 Posted by OliverSnyders (163 posts) -
@pc_rocks said:

You're a life saver, Noodle. You saved me from writing a huge wall of text and perhaps still wouldn't be able to articulate it better than you did.

lol you got owned by OP.

@vaeh said:

@schu: It's not the first time Epic is giving grants to devs. They're somehow hidden publisher.

lol same engine is dominating the gaming industry.

Epic for a reason. Respawn’s Jedi Fallen Order is also an Unreal Engine game.

Avatar image for vaeh
#34 Posted by Vaeh (545 posts) -
@oliversnyders said:
@pc_rocks said:

You're a life saver, Noodle. You saved me from writing a huge wall of text and perhaps still wouldn't be able to articulate it better than you did.

lol you got owned by OP.

@vaeh said:

@schu: It's not the first time Epic is giving grants to devs. They're somehow hidden publisher.

lol same engine is dominating the gaming industry.

Epic for a reason. Respawn’s Jedi Fallen Order is also an Unreal Engine game.

Bu... but same engine

Avatar image for NoodleFighter
#35 Posted by NoodleFighter (10464 posts) -

@vaeh said:

Brazil. Here steam transaction are managed by BoaCompra. BoaCompra charges when you use boletos, that are barcode given by banks that you can pay with real money, and it's the main form of payment in the country. From what I remember, other payment methods also charges fee that can be as high as 10%. Not a insignificant amount. When I try to add 10r$ in steam using boleto, I'm redirected to a site that presents me with a 11r$ barcode. It's not that I expect Valve to eat up, is that there is no difference for me to buy on steam or epic at the end of the day. It's only different for the dev.

You didn't read Tim Sweeney comments. The early years of Steam were horrible.

Payment method deployment is a very complex integration task and it takes time.

Games can be sold elsewhere using Steam keys but only if they are also available for sale on Steam. They are still seeing a cut of those games sold on their storefront, which usually accounts for the majority of sales.

Valve does not allow devs to sell steam keys on other storefronts indefinitely. They are limited in number and considering their guidelines if someone tried to sell exclusively offsite Valve would not give them keys. So it’s not actually a viable alternative even getting beyond Steam’s storefront visibility.

Interesting I was reading a reddit post from a Brazilian gamer that said that they do get some fees for some payment providers such as Boleto Boncario on Steam.

There is a difference in you getting it on Steam vs Epic store which is the amount of features you get, for example the Epic Store doesn't have cloud saving which makes it very inconvenient for people that game on more than on PC such as me and many others.

Obviously and rightfully Valve won't allow a dev to use Steam keys while not allowing the game to be purchasable through their store but it doesn't change that a dev can get a good amount of their sales outside of Steam while still using it as their platform. Ars Technica did an article recently estimating the possible amount of people that don't buy a game through Steam and instead buy a Steam key elsewhere by looking at it's review settings which display which people got the game directly on Steam and which people used a key. While the ratio is done through reviews so it's not completely accurate they figured that on average 72% of games are bought on Steam while 28% is bought from key sellers. It can widely range for individual games between 50-80% buying directly through Steam.

Yeah the early years of Steam were bad but it still had more features than the Epic Store plus services like Steam at the time were completely new so Valve had to pioneer their way through. Meanwhile the Epic Store has Steam and other platforms to follow as a standard and instead releases a barebone platform. Have you read the recent comments of Tim Sweeney saying that the Epic Store won't have internal forums and trading cards. This already goes to show that they intend on doing the bare minimum with the Epic Store. I don't care for trading cards personally but internal forums are a big deal as I and many others use them. Epic Store users flooding Steam discussions is going to be common since the Steam forums are very effective in finding and solving problems along with talking to developers directly.

Also reading Tim Sweeney's other comments, Epic have had a long history of disdain over PC gaming and PC gamers. Tim Sweeney has also said that it will be the "developers" not the consumers that decide the victor of the store wars. With a comment like that if Epic were to reach number one spot do you thing they'd be as competitive and push out features and benefits as consistently as Valve have done over the years? Especially when Epic are public company and most likely ran by a bunch of suits that have never touched a game in their life and want to put in as many practices as possible that will maximize their profits regardless of the toll it'll take on consumers. Do you honestly think a 12% cut will make games get cheaper and have less anti-consumer practices? For developers that self publish their own games I'd believe but for every other developer working with a publisher for their games, hell no. The publishers will just pocket that money and continue on as normal.

Avatar image for kali-b1rd
#36 Posted by Kali-B1rd (2242 posts) -
@GarGx1 said:
@whatafailure said:

"Dad, what was it like during the Epic vs. Valve Wars?"

"It was weird, unexpected, and weird, son. Now go stream Borderlands 5 on your VR headset"

Fixed that for you :)

I would actually be very happy with that future when the technology matures :)

Avatar image for pc_rocks
#37 Posted by PC_Rocks (2559 posts) -

Also can some one tell why do I give a rats a$$ about how Steam was when it started? Why the heck would I accept this excuse from Epic, Tim Sweeney or any one else? It's not 2004 anymore, is it? You're competing with a fully featured store NOW in 2019. It's the most stupid and ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. It's like saying give me this senior level job without me having any credentials to have it but I'll improve it over time and go to college to get those credentials once you start paying me salary.

The people giving this excuse, will they be okay if they were to use Dialup internet or some shitty E-commerce platform in place of Amazon, Ali Baba etc or some barebones search engines instead of Google or feature phones instead of current smart phones? Then why the heck should we treat Epic any differently?

Avatar image for GarGx1
#38 Edited by GarGx1 (10929 posts) -
@kali-b1rd said:
@GarGx1 said:
@whatafailure said:

"Dad, what was it like during the Epic vs. Valve Wars?"

"It was weird, unexpected, and weird, son. Now go stream Borderlands 5 on your VR headset"

Fixed that for you :)

I would actually be very happy with that future when the technology matures :)

You know now that I've thought about I'm not entirely against the idea either but only as long as I can get performance similar to my desktop PC. Otherwise I'll stick with user end hardware.

@pc_rocks said:

Also can some one tell why do I give a rats a$$ about how Steam was when it started? Why the heck would I accept this excuse from Epic, Tim Sweeney or any one else? It's not 2004 anymore, is it? You're competing with a fully featured store NOW in 2019. It's the most stupid and ridiculous excuse I have ever heard. It's like saying give me this senior level job without me having any credentials to have it but I'll improve it over time and go to college to get those credentials once you start paying me salary.

The people giving this excuse, will they be okay if they were to use Dialup internet or some shitty E-commerce platform in place of Amazon, Ali Baba etc or some barebones search engines instead of Google or feature phones instead of current smart phones? Then why the heck should we treat Epic any differently?

Apparently for the industry to give them a by on customer support all Epic had to do is wave their chequebook around and the industry collectively sings Epic's praises.

Avatar image for vaeh
#39 Posted by Vaeh (545 posts) -

@NoodleFighter: Epic is a private company too. A company can have ownership or take investment from outside the company without being public.

Trading cards was just Valve's way of monetizing profiles. I can count the times on one hand that I've used the forums on Steam. I'm fine with no forums, as long as there is a specific game forum, Discord, official sub-reddit and it's clearly visible and easily accessible from the game's store page. Eventually I think Epic would add forums.

Unlike Valve publishers are funding games. Just picked up Metro Exodus on Epic store this week. Happy to support the developers, let them make some more money than Steam would. Maybe they’ll use it to make more awesome games...

Valve do no advertising whatsoever. I noticed Epic was advertising Satisfactory on Twitter. For a game dev, I could definitely see how you might go "Why are you taking 30% when you don't market my game".

Avatar image for Gatygun
#40 Edited by Gatygun (1564 posts) -

Dunno why people are defending valve.

30% was to much everybody said this before. They do nothing for it. The cut is based around physical vs digital concept which is no longer a thing on PC.

Epic store and any other store only appeared because valve is to greedy and takes a to large cut.

At the end of the day a store front is nothing more then a store front. You buy a game and you are done. Everything else is just a bonus and nothing more.