4 ms·

The alternative is always to offer your content from your own website, and take 100%. The game developers who were around before Steam, know how much that cost

The alternative is always to offer your content from your own website, and take 100%. The game developers who were around before Steam, know how much that costs (promotion wise), and know they get a lot for that 30% cut. The same is true for those other platforms. You seem to be a person that expects all internet platforms offer their stuff for free. And another thing: all of those platforms mentioned have competitors, so calling them monopolies is quite strange. It's not because they are market leaders that there is no alternative (which monopolies don't offer)

pravda 8y ago
>You seem to be a person that expects all internet platforms offer their stuff for free. Oh gosh, no! I expect them to offer their stuff at the profit-maximizing percentage. That's the whole point of having a monopoly, so you can charge monopoly rents. Now I am curious about this "Steam" thing. Looks like there is an about page: https://store.steampowered.com/about/ https://store.steampowered.com/about/
- koonsolo 8y ago
  Please tell me which one of those things you named are a monopoly, and I will name the closest competitor. I'm thinking about Craigslist, Snapchat, Vimeo, Mixer, etc. Don't confuse market leader with monopoly. Before Steam, you had several casual portals (all competing with each other). Do you know which cut they took? 70%. Do you know why platforms nowadays take 30%? Because it's well worth the 30%, that's why. And if you think a platform can live off a 3% cut, please show me the successful on that does that.
  - pravda 8y ago
    > Do you know why platforms nowadays take 30%? Because it's well worth the 30%, that's why. That is not the way things work. Why does Apple take 30% of sales? Because Apple prices at the profit-maximizing percentage and because Apple figures that the profit-maximizing percentage is 30%. Lower, and they leave money on the table. Higher, and sales volume goes down. Ever hear of something called "consumer surplus"? A gallon of gasoline would well be worth $10 to me, but I pay a lot less then that! Why? Because of competition.
    - koonsolo 8y ago
      Price is set by supply and demand, nothing else. 30% is the price, set on the non-monopoly market. I don't get what you are complaining about.
      - bolzano 8y ago
        The point is Apple have a monopoly. Your supply/demand point is facile. For small indie developers 30% is an outrageous cut. That is what the complaint is about.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        Apple has a "monopoly" over the app store as much as Disney has a monopoly on Disney movies.
        gsich 8y ago
        Not an accurate comparison.
        bolzano 8y ago
        I don't think this is a fair comparison. If I had the skills (which I certainly don't), I could make a cool Disney style movie and make it available for anyone, and even charge them whatever I liked. I explicitly cannot do this for iOS apps. There is just no way for me to get my app in front of people's eyes without paying the Apple tax. If I was prevented from distributing my movie somehow by Disney, you might have a point.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        > I could make a cool Disney style movie and make it available for anyone, and even charge them whatever I liked. Disney's not going to put it in their online store, though. In the case of an iOS app, you can sell the source and let people build it on their own Xcode installs, if you like.
        8y ago
hevi_jos 8y ago
You will be taking 100% of nothing… Because no traffic will visit your page versus Google's or Apple's traffic. In the same way you can put a store in a rural place, or you could put in in New York 5th Avenue with warrantied traffic. And of course that 100% does not take into account your cost of hosting, creating or adapting the necessary infrastructure and maintenance.
- koonsolo 8y ago
  Exactly! And then people complain that the prices of real estate on 5th Avenue are outrageous.

pravda 8y ago

>You seem to be a person that expects all internet platforms offer their stuff for free. Oh gosh, no! I expect them to offer their stuff at the profit-maximizing percentage. That's the whole point of having a monopoly, so you can charge monopoly rents. Now I am curious about this "Steam" thing. Looks like there is an about page: https://store.steampowered.com/about/ https://store.steampowered.com/about/

koonsolo 8y ago
Please tell me which one of those things you named are a monopoly, and I will name the closest competitor. I'm thinking about Craigslist, Snapchat, Vimeo, Mixer, etc. Don't confuse market leader with monopoly. Before Steam, you had several casual portals (all competing with each other). Do you know which cut they took? 70%. Do you know why platforms nowadays take 30%? Because it's well worth the 30%, that's why. And if you think a platform can live off a 3% cut, please show me the successful on that does that.
- pravda 8y ago
  > Do you know why platforms nowadays take 30%? Because it's well worth the 30%, that's why. That is not the way things work. Why does Apple take 30% of sales? Because Apple prices at the profit-maximizing percentage and because Apple figures that the profit-maximizing percentage is 30%. Lower, and they leave money on the table. Higher, and sales volume goes down. Ever hear of something called "consumer surplus"? A gallon of gasoline would well be worth $10 to me, but I pay a lot less then that! Why? Because of competition.
  - koonsolo 8y ago
    Price is set by supply and demand, nothing else. 30% is the price, set on the non-monopoly market. I don't get what you are complaining about.
    - bolzano 8y ago
      The point is Apple have a monopoly. Your supply/demand point is facile. For small indie developers 30% is an outrageous cut. That is what the complaint is about.
      - ceejayoz 8y ago
        Apple has a "monopoly" over the app store as much as Disney has a monopoly on Disney movies.
        gsich 8y ago
        Not an accurate comparison.
        bolzano 8y ago
        I don't think this is a fair comparison. If I had the skills (which I certainly don't), I could make a cool Disney style movie and make it available for anyone, and even charge them whatever I liked. I explicitly cannot do this for iOS apps. There is just no way for me to get my app in front of people's eyes without paying the Apple tax. If I was prevented from distributing my movie somehow by Disney, you might have a point.
        ceejayoz 8y ago
        > I could make a cool Disney style movie and make it available for anyone, and even charge them whatever I liked. Disney's not going to put it in their online store, though. In the case of an iOS app, you can sell the source and let people build it on their own Xcode installs, if you like.
        8y ago

hevi_jos 8y ago

You will be taking 100% of nothing… Because no traffic will visit your page versus Google's or Apple's traffic. In the same way you can put a store in a rural place, or you could put in in New York 5th Avenue with warrantied traffic. And of course that 100% does not take into account your cost of hosting, creating or adapting the necessary infrastructure and maintenance.

koonsolo 8y ago
Exactly! And then people complain that the prices of real estate on 5th Avenue are outrageous.