Does anyone else take 12%? They have made that their identity. If you're just asking a totally unrelated hypothetical that coincidentally used a number used by another store, then I'll answer with a hypothetical too... 1/2
-
-
Replying to @Miraglyth @ahlipedang and
I'd prefer my distribution partners take 0% and do all the distribution legwork for free! In fact, make it -30%, have them pay me on top of letting me have all the revenue! That's a hypothetical. It is of course not realistic. Better service costs more. Do you understand now?
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Miraglyth @4Andlu and
It's not totally unrelated question. Hell, the original question was not even addressed to you. But I know your kind love to jump in and distort the discussion. So I play along. "Better services cost more". We know that isn't true at all.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ahlipedang @Miraglyth and
Because if it is, gog would take less than 30% since they dont have drm, microsoft will take less for their broken store, etc. Hell if that's even true, steam would take 5%, when they have barebone store the 1st year it launched than scale up to 30% today.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ahlipedang @Miraglyth and
But NO, steam took 30% from the start means store feature/service have nothing to do with revenue cut. I doesn't even need egs 12% argument to prove your stupid argument wrong.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ahlipedang @Miraglyth and
12% as cut is not proven to be sustainable with profit. EGS was in loss in 2019 subsidied with Fortnite money. We will see if EGS will be healthy profitable to support all released games for years, to cover neccessary store development etc. without shrinking Fortite money bag.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Krolmar1 @ahlipedang and
We know that in some territories where taxation is higher than 12%, EGS passes on the excess cost direct to the customer. The 30% storefronts just absorb it. In a hypothetical future of EGS wiping Steam out, I can easily imagine the 12% rising because "costs have changed since".
4 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @Miraglyth @Krolmar1 and
As we’ve said all along, 12% is our permanent revenue sharing rate and won’t go up in the future, and that our direct operating costs are in the 5-7% range, hence it’s a sustainable business.
4 replies 0 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @Miraglyth and
why do we have to pay fees then in some countries?
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @4Andlu @Miraglyth and
The payment processing fees in several developing economies cover the extraordinary cost of payments there, which are often very high overhead, cash card based systems.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
Over time, we are working to bring more efficient payment mechanisms online in developing economies and replace these high overhead payment methods.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.