• Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Other people are making good counter arguments, so I’m just going to address one bit:

    You can also look at how despite charging a 12% platform fee, Epic Games Store does not sell games 18% cheaper.

    Epic hasn’t been running their game store for very long, and they’ve been operating it at a loss to secure market share. They lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year on their store. This is mostly due to them buying exclusive rights to games, but my point is that the EGS is not a successful, self sustaining business. Epic taking a 12% cut doesn’t mean that 12% is enough money, because their whole business model is about losing money to attract users.

    You also have to remember that the storefront cut is an upfront cost with an unclear long-term cost. Valve is promising to always host the game and cover the bandwidth for every future download and update, no matter how many updates or how many times someone downloads it. Not to mention that they also will host mods, provide matchmaking, video streaming, and many other benefits.

    • Spedwell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It’s also not about whether 30% is the right number or not. It’s about how Valve has made it impossible to choose a different number at all.

      The argument has little to nothing to do with Epic’s business strategy—it’s 12%, along with the 30% of Steam, is merely a feature of the landscape in which publishers operate. Whether 12% is sustainable for the platform long-term or not, Valve is coercing the market so that publishers cannot take advantage of it.