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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @Miraglyth and
and you're aware that steam does not have any of thoses fees, at least not for my country / most if not all latin american countries?
3 replies 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @4Andlu @Miraglyth and
Yes, Steam takes 30% from developers everywhere, no matter how low the payment processing costs are in each territory - such as 2.5% in the US and 3.5% in Western Europe.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @Miraglyth and
how come you can't just pay up the fees if your store only needs 5% of the total rev for upkeep?
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likes -
Replying to @4Andlu @Miraglyth and
We considered that, but two considerations overrode it. One was that we wanted the store to fully cover its operating costs from the very beginning to ensure that operations (payments, bandwidth, customer support) were sound and sustainable.
2 replies 0 retweets 7 likes
Second, several territories had both efficient (sub-6%) and inefficient payment methods in wide use, and we wanted to encourage customers to pay in the most efficient way possible, so that we weren’t subsidizing an inefficient alternative.
-
-
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @4Andlu and
This was especially spurred by one popular international payment method which charged unusually high fees and then rolled them into a huge marketing campaign, beating our more efficient payment methods there.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @TimSweeneyEpic @4Andlu and
That said, there are several territories where we are covering up to 8% of payment processing fees because we’ve studied them and concluded they are as efficient as is achievable given local banking conditions.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes - 26 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.