286
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jun 2024
286 points (100.0% liked)
Games
32521 readers
1398 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
As evidenced by games costing less on stores where the cut is lower!
Oh... wait...
Why would they lower their price if the same game needs to be sold for more on another platform in order to see a RoI?
But it doesn't need to be sold for more? As evidenced by not being sold for more despite the cut Valve takes? If that were an issue the games would cost say 70 on Steam but 60 elsewhere?
It needs to be sold for 70 on Steam in order to bring in the revenue per copy they need for their RoI, why would they go and sell for less elsewhere if Steam with their 30% share sets the bar? People won't feel ripped off, the price is the same, what they don't realize is that the only reason the price is that high in the first place is that Valve gets 21$ from each sale! The company needs 49$/copy in their pockets, if the distributor's share had always been 15% instead of 30% we would be buying games for 58$ instead of 70$ right now.
I find it absolutely wild that you seem to think Steam's 30% cut is the sole reason AAA games cost $70. Have you ever looked into how much it costs to sell a game at a retail store? From what I've seen Steam takes roughly the same cut as most retailers do and then the publisher still has to produce the physical copies and distribute them. They would make the same amount on Steam if and only if they printed, burned, packaged, and distributed their physical copies for free, not to mention the promotional materials they're sending out to retailers.
Everything I'm seeing indicates that compared to a physical copy (which is given for a majority of AAA games) a major publisher would earn far more money per copy on Steam than at GameStop, Target, Walmart, or any other retailer where they're charging the same $70 price at. But Steam is the real problem that's hurting their RoI, apparently.
I'll agree I think Steam's cut is high and they could earn a lot of favor by turning it down a bit, but your argument seeming to insinuate that their 30% cut is the sole reason games cost $70 is absolutely wild to me.
This discussion is about Steam, they have control over the market, all distributors are in the wrong and take too high of a cut, I'll talk about the other distributors when we have a discussion about them.
So companies made due with the same cut from retailers for decades, Steam comes along and offers the same cut with none of the other expenses associated with those retailers (thereby giving them a better RoI than the same retailers they made due with for decades) and suddenly Steam is the reason games are so expensive.
For all of your talk that Steam's awful cut sets the bar for the price or else they won't make their RoI on games sold there, you suddenly don't seem to care very much about the very many retailers these AAA publishers still regularly sell through that cost them a significantly larger percentage per game sold than Steam does.
Oh, is it other retailers the article is talking about? No, it's not.
Oh is that because Steam exists in isolation and can't be compared to any other platform? If so, tell me what about Steam makes it an apples to oranges comparison with Epic, GOG, Origin, and Battle.Net? If they're up for discussion then why is it that physical game distribution isn't allowed to be talked about? If an average consumer is only really concerned about getting the game then why are some forms of getting their game not allowed for discussion? Why should retailers be exempt from this discussion?
You also didn't seem to mind slashing their cut percentage in half, but how can we know that's a feasible percentage if we're not allowed to talk about other distributors and see if they're able to make 15% work? If we're not considering other distributors at all then who's to say if 30% is unreasonable? Should it be increased or decreased and by how much?
Suppose we were instead talking about Nintendo selling games for too much, how would we decide it's too much if we couldn't compare it to other studios, distributors, or platforms that demonstrate they can still run a business and charge less?
Face it, talk about and comparison to any other distributor or distribution method is fully relevant and required if you want to have any meaningful discussion. You just don't seem to want to discuss retailers because they're hurting your weak argument.
I'm against all retailers taking a 30% cut and therefore leading us to overpay, this discussion was about Steam.
Are you guys unable to compute that just because someone is talking about company X, it doesn't mean they it's the only company they are angry with?
It sounds to me like you've already started with the conclusion that 30% is too much considering you're against all retailers taking 30%, seemingly without any regards to the context any of these retailers might have. How is it that you've determined that 30% is too much, and don't forget that you're the one who argued that other distributors are not relevant in this discussion.
Is the company generating enough profit that its owner is at least a multimillionaire while people (especially in their own country) can barely afford to pay for basic needs?
No > Not a problem
Yes > There's a major fucking problem, they're overcharging their customers and something must be broken in your brain for you to defend them instead of your own interests
That applies to every single company in existence.
Question: Does that not mean that Epic is a company that has no standing to complain against Valve, considering they're in the same boat? As in, the decision should if anything be to force both companies to lower their consumer prices from 60 to 40-50, paying the difference out of their own pockets?
Because if not, this naturally creates the exact same issue, just on the other side of the pond. And we'd be back here in half a year with another set of lawyers.
Baseline law change: Cannot charge more than 10% fee on digital storefronts no matter what, price to consumer cannot go above, say, €45.
That'd solve it, no?
This discussion was about Valve but all big companies are in the wrong here. The accumulation of wealth is always done at the expense of the less wealthy.
Great, you have a simple rule that's wholely unrealistic and as poorly construed as pretty much everything else you've been saying so far. Such a rule could so easily be worked around that it may as well already exist for all that it would matter.
I'll again reiterate that I agree with what you want to argue. I agree that I think Steam could probably take a smaller cut, still be profitable enough to stay in business at the same scale they are, afford more smaller businesses a better cut of the money they're generating for themselves and for steam, and give the option to charge less to consumers. I agree that there are too many mega corporations, making way too much money, screwing too many of their clients, customers, and employees. I agree that too many executives are making genuinely fuck loads of money that are inhumanly excessive.
I'll still say again though, that pretty much everything you've argued so far is wildly unrealistic, unfounded in reality, barely thought through at all, and comes across as the absurd ramblings of a middle schooler who passed an economics elective.
I'll also point out the hypocrisy of you attacking Steam (and to your credit other distributors retail or otherwise) but defending the publishers that by your arguments simply must charge more or else they don't make money back on their investment. Your argument defends AAA publishers such as EA churning out games year after year with the exact same code just different stats for sports games (FIFA, NBA, whatever the current football games are), games exploiting gambling addictions (pay to win, FOMO, loot boxes), and games exploiting the efforts and attention of children (Roblox).
Also "something must be broken in your brain for you to defend them instead of your own interests" is rich coming from the person who's very visibly experiencing double-think seemingly genuinely arguing "of course publishers aren't going to charge less for their titles on other digital marketplaces because if they need a $49 RoI on Steam then they're going to charge the same $70 price on other platforms" at the same time as "well if Steam didn't charge a 30% cut then you would pay $50 for an otherwise $70 title!" as if you don't believe in your own argument that they would charge the same exact price on Steam as they do elsewhere.
Under capitalism it is.
That is addressed by the lawyer:
But I thought those are only for steam keys? That's always been what devs found out when trying to vary their prices on storefronts: Sell the game standalone, Valve sleeps. Sell a steam key or use the steam backend, real shit.
Epic is good at making it sound like it applies to sales in general though, while technically not being wrong from how they word it: You do sign a price parity obligation, yes. And it does prevent you from offering lower prices on other stores. For, well, steam keys. But they're not mentioning that last part as that makes it sound like Epic just sells stuff for the same end-user price because they can.
I've seen some comments agreeing with you and others citing examples of individual developers being told not to sell at lower prices. Don't know if the prosecutor is citing those cases or they're just a chancer who hasn't done their research properly.
They're also the prosecutor, they can word it like that if they so desire. It's on the opposing attorney to correct them.
And possibly demand sanctions if they can convince the bar that it was willful omission of details.