It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionGive publishers a bigger cut of the revenue(61 posts)(61 posts)
(61 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
Orkhepaj: EGS doesn't force you to purchase the games, can't you just wait a year? Strange how this reasoning only applied vs Epic and not anybody else, it is like there is an Epic hater cult formed around it.
I can and I had NOT bought a game because of it. Still "force" is a good word I would use in that case, any monopoly even temporary is like that for me. Give me exact examples please which can be applied to Steam, GOG or other digital store for PC market (you may name XBOX, Nintendo or PSN if you really like to). There is indeed an Epic hater cult, there was none before that practice came into place. And for what, for the store which had no user's reviews and a working cart? I did wait for Metro: Exodus, Control and even The Sinking City, however I wasn't happy with their arguments on how my wait (or not) is healthy for the industry, because it was not healthy for me and for the others.

avatar
Orkhepaj: There are plenty of games only available on one store only, those are effectively exclusives, and for more than a mere year. But hey it is not Steams fault by being so huge it is clearly monopolistic.
So what? I have plenty of games, can I want to play one particular game fresh from release or not? Is it so wrong to want something new?

It's definitely Steam's fault for being so huge and successful. I don't believe they paid huge sums of money to make an exclusive deal for a year or more, but prove me wrong so I can hate Steam with all my passion. In my opinion it's the publisher's choice to put their games into Steam in the first place, in addition to their own direct stores which are not nearly that successful. And you know why? Just because the game would sale better there. You call it a monopoly, I think they earned that huge success, and let's not forget that they were among the first to do it, if not the first while others completely ignored the opportunity for so many years to pass.

For the VERY same reason I hate Origin, not only that they HAD their EA exclusive games only there before very recently (though I could not see Syndicate available) but they even FORCE me to play most of the games in Russian or Polish because of my frigging IP! You know, it is like there is an Origin hater cult formed around it.
However I must admit that at least 3 games on Steam are locked in Russian language as well. No store is perfect, but at least some store knows how to be client friendly!

For the very same reason I hate banks which provide their credit services linked with one particular insurance company. For the very same reason I hate some grocery store chain because in order to buy quality milk I have to go to one particular store in my vicinity. For the very same reason I hate any kind of limitation, that applies for everything. I believe the game should be available everywhere.

But please prove me wrong and show me how Steam forced publishers to sale only there and not any other place!

avatar
Orkhepaj: Yeah some good features are missing ,but I would just trade most of steam features for cheaper games.
How are their games any cheaper? It's the same price for me. A friend of mine currently working in Africa and he told me that for some reason prices in USD are indeed cheaper in EGS. Is this the same for you?

But at least for Russia and US the prices are the same.

avatar
mihuk: Here is what Jeff Vogel from Spiderweb Software thinks about the cut that internet stores take:
https://youtu.be/stxVBJem3Rs?t=1615

And here small off-topic, his view on refund policy:
https://youtu.be/stxVBJem3Rs?t=1165
I recommend the whole lecture.
Good stuff, quite interesting really. Thank you for timestamps. Still watching and it's like a cold shower.

avatar
Jiggles262: GOG don't charge 30% either. They used to, but a large amount of that was spent on providing partial credit under the FPP system they had, which had to be scrapped when they reduced their cut.
What's their current cut? Please give source if possible.

Also please give me examples of year exclusivity on Steam.
Post edited August 29, 2020 by Cadaver747
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
akaLuckyEye: Follow in Epic games footsteps & give publishers a bigger cut of the revenue.
Publishers? No

Developers? Yes
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
akaLuckyEye: Follow in Epic games footsteps & give publishers a bigger cut of the revenue.
avatar
rtcvb32: Publishers? No

Developers? Yes
why publishers no? don't they bring you the games you like?
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
rtcvb32: Publishers? No

Developers? Yes
avatar
Orkhepaj: why publishers no? don't they bring you the games you like?
Because most publishers to have them publish it, you have to sign your rights to your game away. The game may never get made but if it does they own it and the devs don't get much more than the time to make it (usually on a limited time window) and don't get to see long term profits.

I want those that MADE the game to actually EARN the money. Call me fickle on that.
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
Orkhepaj: why publishers no? don't they bring you the games you like?
avatar
rtcvb32: Because most publishers to have them publish it, you have to sign your rights to your game away. The game may never get made but if it does they own it and the devs don't get much more than the time to make it (usually on a limited time window) and don't get to see long term profits.

I want those that MADE the game to actually EARN the money. Call me fickle on that.
but devs chose this, so it can't be that bad for them
Posted August 29, 2020
I do like how Humble gives us the ability to tweak where the money goes and I wish more platforms did that but, let's be honest, publishers and devs get a LOT more money from GOG than they do on Steam. I can't recall the exact rate but I know that GOG takes far less income from the purchases than Valve does.
Posted August 29, 2020
For those anti publisher people out there, it sounds like you don;t even know why they exist, here's why they exist. Your big AA or AAA game that you're producing takes 5 years to make- or more. During that time, who pays the wages of all your programmers so they can eat? Who pays for the advertising campaign and promotion? Who foots the bill for any form of licensing up front? Who has to take all of these massive risks on a game that may not even turn out to make a profit or may get delayed year after year and need even more millions pumped into it without any sign of return? That's the publisher, that's why they exist- they take the big risk and they reap the rewards of their investments. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Those are the reasons why devs sign up to publishing deals, because otherwise their project wouldn't happen and they'd be at the mercy of crowd funding or private investors.
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
rojimboo: Ask any entrepeneur or creative content creator how they feel about handing out a third of your revenue to someone for something fairly simple such as digital distribution (with massive savings at scale by the way).
They're paying for publicity and discovery. Unlike iOS and the Apple store, you don't have to sell your PC game on GOG or Steam or on any specific platform. If you don't feel GOG or Steam is worth 30%, go ahead and host a direct download, or put it on Itch for a 0% cut.

avatar
rtcvb32: Because most publishers to have them publish it, you have to sign your rights to your game away. The game may never get made but if it does they own it and the devs don't get much more than the time to make it (usually on a limited time window) and don't get to see long term profits.

I want those that MADE the game to actually EARN the money. Call me fickle on that.
Clearly the developers expect to benefit from having a publisher that they sign over their rights and risk getting scammed. If they hadn't, they'd have published the game themselves.
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
CMOT70: For those anti publisher people out there, it sounds like you don;t even know why they exist, here's why they exist. Your big AA or AAA game that you're producing takes 5 years to make- or more. During that time, who pays the wages of all your programmers so they can eat? Who pays for the advertising campaign and promotion? Who foots the bill for any form of licensing up front? Who has to take all of these massive risks on a game that may not even turn out to make a profit or may get delayed year after year and need even more millions pumped into it without any sign of return? That's the publisher, that's why they exist- they take the big risk and they reap the rewards of their investments. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Those are the reasons why devs sign up to publishing deals, because otherwise their project wouldn't happen and they'd be at the mercy of crowd funding or private investors.
Well said. Those who are against publishers know little how our economy works. Easy to say oh the worker should get all the profits cause he worked on the project.
Posted August 29, 2020
Publishers are double-edge swords. On one hand, they can finance games that developers otherwise cannot do on their own. However, they can also be unwanted influence on a game's development, veering away from the developer's creative vision.

Unfortuantely, not all developers have a head for business. Tim Schafer, an industry veteran, managed to raise money well above funding goal on Kickstarter, and still ran out of money. This is a situation could have been avoided if a publisher was there to step in make sure the game's development was on the right track.
Post edited August 29, 2020 by SpaceMadness
Posted August 29, 2020
I love it how publishers are now evil middlemen stealing all the profits, but digital distribution platforms get a pass.
avatar
Jiggles262: Also, Epic games are neither the good guy, or bad guy. They do 12% and waives the 5% engine fee for a basic reason, it instantly puts them in small, medium and large publishers good books. 5% of that 12% is also profit according to Tim Sweeney, so not half bad for their side gig.
Actually, it's not 5% of the 12% cut (?), it 5% of your revenue. It's actually a hell of a lot.

But yeah, otherwise I agree - EGS is doing it for the long term as a business. Entice devs and publishers now to increase their own userbase for the future. It's not really evil nor benevolent, just business. Though I personally think the CEO wants game creators to be treated differently due to his history and current actions. But that's just my personal theory.
Post edited August 29, 2020 by rojimboo
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
Starmaker: They're paying for publicity and discovery. Unlike iOS and the Apple store, you don't have to sell your PC game on GOG or Steam or on any specific platform. If you don't feel GOG or Steam is worth 30%, go ahead and host a direct download, or put it on Itch for a 0% cut.
You misunderstand. ALso you present a false dichotomy, that the only options are either a 0% revenue cut for self distribution with tiny market reach, or a 30% cut for massive market access and huge sales.

I'm saying the 30% cut that was arbitrarily set in stone from the beginning of time to the benefit of digital distributors, needs some reviewing and revising. Steam is completely bloated at this point, but it can afford (and then some) to do that in addition to the dozens of non-distribution related activities it does. I feel bad for GOG if they have to compete with their revenue fee and cut, as my understanding is it didn't go so well for them last time. But maybe all of the distributors could try a less drastic cut or trim their operations and re-think their product goals a bit. This applies to Steam especially.

Pretty much all gamers want more games, that are better and more creative. They don't want mountains of cash for the distributor to spend it on things like... more servers. Or more self-promotion or advertising swamping our spaces. Or more Facebook-like features for nerds on their client software. And a massive revenue based fee diverts away a hell of a lot from the creative content creation, meaning leaner margins and riskier ventures leading to fewer games and less creative and original games.
Posted August 29, 2020
Or, you know, don't
Posted August 29, 2020
avatar
Starmaker: They're paying for publicity and discovery. Unlike iOS and the Apple store, you don't have to sell your PC game on GOG or Steam or on any specific platform. If you don't feel GOG or Steam is worth 30%, go ahead and host a direct download, or put it on Itch for a 0% cut.
avatar
rojimboo: You misunderstand. ALso you present a false dichotomy, that the only options are either a 0% revenue cut for self distribution with tiny market reach, or a 30% cut for massive market access and huge sales.

I'm saying the 30% cut that was arbitrarily set in stone from the beginning of time to the benefit of digital distributors, needs some reviewing and revising.
First, this is not a false dichotomy because it's not a dichotomy at all.
The platform's market reach is not a choice; it is what it is.
As for the revenue share, I propose a spectrum from 0 to 100%. Take your pick and start your service.

I'm saying sustaining any B2C system is a huge undertaking, especially if it involves commerce. I wanted to make a free social service for the local community, it immediately got spammed with SEO spam, prostitution, nastier things and such. I didn't even get to properly advertize it and took it down. And that was a free completely noncommercial social service for a good non-political cause.

Steam is accepting input from the public in the form of intellectual property and money from all the different legislations (the big ones) and (not important to me personally) online gaming activities (also steam marketplace trading, but screw that). This is hard. Why can't you do it, why can't you found a platform with whatever revenue share you think is fair? Because it costs an ocean of money, obviously. That's what the 30% share has to pay for (unless you're a global superpower asserting your cultural hegemony, in which case go wild).

Why do you think it's unfair to pay for the platform's reach? If your game can sell itself, you can sell it anywhere and it will have "huge sales" (or, you know, huge sales. Imagine Elden Ring on itch). If you want it advertized to a platform's audience that they worked hard to get and retain, pay up.

edit, inb4 it's hard to start, the market is full:
look at Facebook. Facebook the company isn't going anywhere, but Facebook the website is slowly dying. There were myspace and livejournal, then there were facebook and tumblr, now it's tiktok and discord. If you think the no steam, no sale people aren't going anywhere from Steam, recall that the average Steam user only has a few games in his/her account. The no steam, no sale is about quality. People don't believe there's anything better, and for games not on GOG, there actually isn't. If you build a better service, you will have that audience.
Post edited August 29, 2020 by Starmaker
Posted August 29, 2020
low rated
avatar
SpaceMadness: Publishers are double-edge swords. On one hand, they can finance games that developers otherwise cannot do on their own. However, they can also be unwanted influence on a game's development, veering away from the developer's creative vision.

Unfortuantely, not all developers have a head for business. Tim Schafer, an industry veteran, managed to raise money well above funding goal on Kickstarter, and still ran out of money. This is a situation could have been avoided if a publisher was there to step in make sure the game's development was on the right track.
Like Scam Citizen , no publisher->no deadlines -> never finished scammy public funding. Clearly not good for us gamers.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionGive publishers a bigger cut of the revenue(61 posts)(61 posts)
(61 posts)