crap like Unreal, Gears of war, Bulletstorm, Infinity blade and others.... nah, no one plays crap like that....

I generally agree with your sentiment. As to the last sentence, I think you miss my point.
As it comes to the public and developers, they have a choice where to buy and which storefronts can sell their products. Both Ubisoft and EA have tried to go their own way. Good for them.

But...

When it comes to the public and these developers, crying on Twitter or to journalists in some sort of propaganda campaign to love or hate different storefronts, is unreal. The public should vote with their wallets...end of story. Developers similarly vote with the contracts they sign. All this b.s. trying to get the public to apply pressure to storefronts so the developers can take a bigger cut is just pandering. Maybe developers should instead spend their efforts on getting their games ready at launch and having them content complete and not buggy has heck. 70% would probably do them well if their games didn't suck out of the box so often...they have no one to blame but themselves for the lack of sales for their incomplete and broken games filled with lootboxes and $20 skins...

But in short, storefronts offer what they offer, negotiate or get the heck out. This going public with their complaints convincing the gullible part of the uninformed public comes off in bad taste to the rest of us. Not my fault there are a few people dumb enough to buy into their shenanigans and take their side.

none of those games are even close to what fortnite numbers have, even unreal tournament is on GOG, quake arena was far superior to UT anyways, gears of war is probably there only other game that has slight popularity, bulletstorm sucks and infinity blade cant be that good ive never e ven heard of it. how many people play there other games.

fortnite is the most played game on twitch

all viewers are based on checking while posting this thread.

bulletstorm has 0 people playing
gears of war 4 top streamer has 134 viewers
infinity blade 0 people playing
unreal tournament 0 people playing

yeah loads of people playing there other games right, there only active game is fortnite thats it rest are just dead games

you do know about those games, right? and other games epic made?

The public should vote with their wallets(and also raise a stink on aspects of gaming they dislike in other ways, as well)...I agree. I also dislike the trend of lootboxes/tons of cosmetic DLC and how gullible people gobble it up(which leads to a demand for more of the same).

But as to the original point made(sort of) by the OP: Epic/etc calling for devs to get a bigger cut is self-serving towards their end, but the point is still a good one(imo) overall....regardless of who said it or why.

So speaks the lemming...

No, it is not a good point for all the reasons I have explained in this thread. Yet you continue to ignore them...

Frankly, it's a horrible point because you keep spouting off about this despite clearly knowing nothing about the subject.

For someone supposedly claiming that storefronts deserve to make 10-15% after overhead, you sure seem to contradict yourself over and over again insisting that Steam/Valve should make far less than that...12% minus at least 4% for processing fees minus all the other overhead of employees, server costs, legal fees and anything else...

People spouting off and making a stink about profit margins when they know absolutely nothing about it all at the beck and call of a business competitor are just people being dumb.

Modded, please respect the others when posting.

A quick breakdown of your poor conversation/argument choices, and my replies:

(Stuff that is bolded is what I see as "weak/poor" in each part)

1. Weasel words, not a strong counterpoint.
============================
2. Personal slandering, and as for your reasons: Most are about as substantiated as mine(fact-wise), and others are hyperbolic/possibly hyperbolic(that stores will close somehow if they get a bit less money....you may be right on this, but as we don't have full financial 0.data either way[overhead/profit cuts/etc] neither of us is going to be able to substantiate our claims/opinions as of now)
============================
3. So wait...let me get this straight: You're saying that because I know little on the subject(what each store's fair share should be) factwise, that my point of "A storefront should get it's fair share(after overhead)" is a bad one?

That'd be like saying someone who wasn't a dietician couldn't hold the opinion that diet/excercise were good things to do to stay in shape.
=======================
4. Putting words in my mouth without offering proof. Prove I said that(the part I highlighted in part 4 of your reply), then we'll talk further on that. I did say the first bit, though(that stores should get around 10-15% cut profit after overhead is taken care of.
======================
5. One could also say that those making a stink about other's opinions on store's profit margins are also being dumb.

That said, I only offered my opinion, then you seemingly got upset by it(overly so, I might add) and for the past few replies you've stuck on me as if I kicked your family pet/slandered your personal honor/called for your favorite store to close down. I merely posted my opinion on the matter(at first, before you/my rampant reply ocd sucked me into this reply chain).

===================================

In the end, I just want all stores I like/others like to stay in business as long as possible while also getting a fair share(though not much more than that) of the profits...as long as they also practice fair business practices as well, that is.

You reply to almost every single post anyone makes in your vain attempt to supposedly correct them. You refuse to discuss any of the content of those posts.

For example, you accuse me of slander rather than dispute anything about what I said, that it's completely wrong to simultaneously say storefronts have a right to 10%-15% profit, yet also argue that siding with Epic and their 12% before expenses is reasonable. Pick a lane!

But the truth is, you have done no research, you don't listen to anything anyone else says.

Epic games and Tim Sweeney are playing you. Just because they claim 12% can still be profitable doesn't mean it is true. Furthermore, there are a lot of legitimate reasons to believe it is not true. Namely that no other storefront has found a profitable way to go substantially under the 30% standard, but Epic Games says it can be done for 2.5x less. That Epic Games is clearly biased as a competitor. And that even Epic Games admits they will be taking a loss this year with their barren storefront which lacks forums and features.

You talk about "weasel words", you are calling a 2.5x cut in revenue "a bit less money", the same as going from making $20 an hour down to $8 an hour would be "a bit of a pay cut"...but we are being "hyperbolic"? Do you know what that word even means?

What do you do for a job? Can't you do it for "a bit less"? How about you take a 60% pay cut and tell me how minor a change that is...that is the problem here. It's not Epic undercutting the competition, it's Epic trying to blow up the pay structure. And why would they want to do that? Oh yeah, they "just happen" to also be a developer who would profit greatly off that...

Modded, please respect the others when posting.

FYI: Humble and Itchi.io takes less. Itch substantially so.

Humble takes out 25% AFTER deducting for processing fees which they say is about 5%. That leaves 71.25% for developers...not substantially any better. It's less but hardly less. Unless you are confused about the Humble Widget...

For all intents and purposes, it's still 30%...

Itch.io hardly counts as a real storefront...they suggest 10% again AFTER processing fees and do none of the work...

1. I reply mostly because I find posts others write to be interesting and I want to reply/add my two cents. Some of these are me providing a counterpoint to other's points. In doing so, I often provide my views on each post section in turn & try to discuss what they contain when possible/applicable.

2. I believe I accused you of a few things: Weasel words(using certain terms when talking about me/my opinions to paint them in a worse light), personal criticisms(as in attacking my integrity/character for saying what I say in some parts of your posts instead of sticking solely to what I actually said), and possibly overreacting to what I said/using hyperbolic statements.

I wasn't trying to slander you, but show you the poor debate style you seem to be employing and trying to urge you to stay on topic while not getting too emotionally invested(taking it so personally) when you reply.....all so the debate/discussion between us can be as productive as possible.

As for "siding with epic": I was trying to say/meant to infer that I agree with the CORE/basic principle epic is trying to say(not the percentage they quoted perse)...that ALL stores should get a fair cut and no more. I didn't side with epic or agree with their percentage in any way/shape/form, or try to.

3. You say i've done no research, so I guess that means I cannot and should not have an opinion on it because why? Just because someone else says so? If anything is silly, that is.

I never claimed I knew much on the subject, btw, but it doesn't take a genius level intellect to comprehend/support such a concept as I posited earlier(several times)....and everyone is entitled to their opinion. If you like how things are now, fine, but just because someone else says something different doesn't mean you have to become so upset over it. You do you, and I do myself, and we each have our own opinions while agreeing to disagree.

Heck, if it weren't for my ocd addled need to reply to things I wouldn't even be replying this much on this reply chain.

4. Who said I advocate for epic/Tim Sweeney? And as for the cut: How do we know if the figure I quoted(10-15% AFTER overhead) isn't what they make AFTER their overhead while still getting a 30% share? We don't know as we(either of us) don't have the financial data.

5. There's a difference between a person working a job getting a massive pay cut and a corporation losing net(after overhead) profit to a small-middling degree,imo.

Also, again I wasn't saying they should take a massive pay cut, just that they should only get a certain amount AFTER overhead(depending on store size/scope/amount of overhead/etc). I never singled out a particular store(so no epic fanboyism here), and again only posted it as an opinion. Not as fact.

In the end, we agree on something: Variety of stores is good to a degree, and we both want those stores we like to remain around as long as possible. We just disagree on how much they should be paid/if they should take a pay cut or not(and if they should, to what degree.). This doesn't mean we don't/can't agree on other things, or that we should let this one disagreement get so far out of hand.
So since itch hardly counts as a storefront, would that mean you wouldn't mind if they took a pay cut? :|

Quite frankly, every single one of your posts are disingenuous. You don't respond to anything said, you distort the argument essentially arguing a strawman.

For example, "How do we know if the figure I quoted(10-15% AFTER overhead) isn't what they make AFTER their overhead while still getting a 30% share?" has NEVER been the argument. They likely do. The point was that making 10-15% AFTER overhead is absolutely impossible on a 12% cut before just the processing fees.

Talk about people using "weasel words", you are the king...

luxury bedroom sets

Good point. I agree with that.