31 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

Regarding all the talk that steam overcharges devs when selling games...

https://www.ign.com/...dustry-standard

Quote

[Jackal Noble]

The other 18% is covered by the back end data harvesting.

[FRAGTAST1C]

Did you read Tim's reply to that article? It was funny as hell.

[Prototelis]

The industry standard is stupid.

[The ImpIication]

And the market never ever changes, right?

[Nightbird]

if you don't understand, then never go into business :shrug:

[Prototelis]

The markup on digital goods being the same as physical goods is some BS.

[Nightbird]

Prototelis, on 11 October 2019 - 07:15 AM, said:

The markup on digital goods being the same as physical goods is some BS.

What mark-up? Physical goods has an additional cost of creating and shipping the boxes, so what the devs get back is 40-50% of retail price. 30% is just what the store takes.

Edited by Nightbird, 11 October 2019 - 07:18 AM.

[Prototelis]

And you're telling me that operating a brick and mortar store doesn't have more overhead than an online distributor?

[Nightbird]

Prototelis, on 11 October 2019 - 07:22 AM, said:

And you're telling me that operating a brick and mortar store doesn't have more overhead than an online distributor?

Mark-up isn't the same as overhead.

B&M has more overhead, but if you're saying that's why devs should sell copies to them for cheaper, so they can make more, you need to take a business class.

[Prototelis]

That's not at all what I am saying.

It makes sense for a brick and mortar to charge more money because it costs more to move the product than an online distribution platform.

The epic 12% seems unrealistically low.

[The ImpIication]

[Redacted]

Edited by draiocht, 11 October 2019 - 12:31 PM.
unconstructive, replies removed

[Nightbird]

You're a dev, you create a game, and you sell it for 40$.

B&M comes, buys for 40$, sells for 60$. Steam comes, buys for 40$, sells for 60$.

Epic comes, says, "we want to buy it for 53$"
Dev: "We're selling it for 40$ to everyone"
Epic: "BUT.. we want to pay 53$"
Dev: "OK... if you really want to, you can pay 53$"
Epic: "Just sign this contract and you cannot ever reveal its terms"
Dev: "....."
You see the problem? It's one thing if Epic bought games for the same 40$ and then sold it for 45$. Devs benefit because when prices drop more people buy, customers benefit from lower prices. It's basic economics. If they wanted to build up their store front, this is all they have to do.

The only reason the Epic wants to pay more than what devs are selling games for is because they want something in return, and they also don't want customers to benefit from it. It's shady as hell.

[Appogee]

And how do you think 30% became 'standard'....?

Circular argument is circular.

Epic is currently buying marketshare to establish critical mass and momentum, in a market dominated by a couple of established players. It's a standard business strategy.

However, unlike other companies currently buying marketshare (eg. Uber) they're probably not even running at a loss during this marketshare acquisition phase.

Edited by Appogee, 11 October 2019 - 04:17 PM.

[John Bronco]

Isn't exclusivity why they're paying more...?

[Nightbird]

Appogee, on 11 October 2019 - 08:51 AM, said:

And how do you think 30% became 'standard'....?

Circular argument is circular.

Epic is currently buying marketshare to establish critical mass and momentum, in a marketing dominated by a couple of established players. It's a standard business strategy.

However, unlike other companies currently buying marketshare (eg. Uber) they're probably not even running at a loss during this marketshare acquisition phase.

Why not just sell games at 45$ then? Why do it in a roundabout way with backdoor contracts so that players can't save a single dollar?

[Nightbird]

BlaizerP, on 11 October 2019 - 08:55 AM, said:

Isn't exclusivity why they're paying more...?

Not all games in the epic store are exclusives, and for non-exclusives their price to consumers is the same as for other vendors (Steam, Amazon, etc)

If you want people to come to your store, and you're willing to live with a smaller profit margin, all you need to do is lower prices and people will come. If they announced they'll give 18% credit back to the customer on all games (Humble Store gives back 10%), then they'll instantly have a lot more people shopping there.

Their exclusive strategy makes no sense if they just want customers, since customers don't drive any benefits from it (via lower prices or more features). Their strategy only makes sense if their intent is to collar game devs, eventually turning themselves into a mega publisher like other publishers with many studios under them. If they succeed, they will essentially gain studios for a lot less than the cost of buying them out, but customers won't see any upsides from this.

[Appogee]

Nightbird, on 11 October 2019 - 09:23 AM, said:

Why not just sell games at 45$ then? Why do it in a roundabout way with backdoor contracts so that players can't save a single dollar?

Because, if they drop the retail price, they will reduce the overall value of the entire game distribution market.

They want to buy marketshare, and still have the market worth a lot when by the time they are fully established as a major player, so that they can then make solid profits.

Edited by Appogee, 11 October 2019 - 04:21 PM.

[Jackal Noble]

0 views on this topic. What kind of ***-hat trickery is this?

[Nightbird]

Appogee, on 11 October 2019 - 04:20 PM, said:

Because, if they drop the retail price, they will reduce the overall value of the entire game distribution market.

They want to buy marketshare, and still have the market worth a lot when by the time they are fully established as a major player, so that they can then make solid profits.

This makes 0 sense. To make more profit, they have to increase their take from 12%, which defeats the whole point of their claims.