If a store offered 12% and the features I'd definitely want to provide AND didn't tell me not to sell the game on other fronts gamers want to buy it on, I'd be all in favour! But EGS are actually further from that combination than the others. 1/2
-
-
Replying to @Miraglyth @ahlipedang and
Unless that happens, I'd prefer to take a relative 20% reduction in revenue (70/88) to satisfy the vision anything I make would be. Doing right by my audience would actually just be a bonus.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Miraglyth @4Andlu and
Did I mentioned about egs here? My question is simple would you rather steam and gog took 12% or 30% from your sales? It's a binary question, you don't need two tweets just to answer that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ahlipedang @4Andlu and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
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
I’m referring to payment processing costs, not taxes. All digital stores handle tax the same; it’s ultimately added to the price paid by the consumer and isn’t covered by Steam’s 30% store fee or Epic’s 12% store fee.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @Krolmar1 and
Ah you're saying they're added to the regional pricing? 20-30% as always by the way. I know you're playing a game of how many times you can mention one part of a statistic but that doesn't stop it being misleadingly incomplete.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Miraglyth @TimSweeneyEpic and
Im confused as to the point you are trying to make. Are you saying that Steam just absorbs taxes beyond 12% into the overall sale? And that in turn, thats coming out of their pocket and not the publishers? AFAIK, regional pricing affects publishers the most, Valve still gets 30%
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.