4 ms·

Weird how this is the exact opposite of Valve's strategy: > For all sales between $10 million and $50 million, the split goes to 25 percent. And for every sale

by Aissen 6y ago

Weird how this is the exact opposite of Valve's strategy: > For all sales between $10 million and $50 million, the split goes to 25 percent. And for every sale after the initial $50 million, Steam will take just a 20 percent cut. https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-gam...

HatchedLake721 6y ago
Why weird? 2 different strategies with completely different goals. Valve's strategy looks like to maximise revenue and get big companies on board that do $10+ mil in sales giving them incentives and discounts to be on the platform. (I think of it as tax break to incentivise high-earners to stay in the state/country) Apple's strategy looks like to put more money into small companies/developers, while still charging the usual rate it had for 10 years to everyone else to access market of 1+ billion users. (tax break for small business to get up and running)
- Aissen 6y ago
  This is a direct effect of a closed platform (iOS) vs an open one (PC).
- syshum 6y ago
  Not weird, but it is an interesting dynamic when you have an open platform that has to compete in the marketplace, vs a closed ecosystem that has to compete in PR / Legal battle. Apple is clearly attempting to reverse some of the bad PR, and divide the Dev Community so the calls for Anti-Trust action is lessened as the "small devs" will consider Apple "on their side" by giving them a competitive advantage over larger shops Clever move, time will tell if anyone buys it for more than what it really is, a PR stunt designed to ensure no real change happens
- the_lucifer 6y ago
  This I can understand because I'd argue most of the creative uses of Apple's ecosystems rather come from smaller indie developers meanwhile meanwhile larger companies also need to look at cross compatibility and sharing codebases.
chrisrhoden 6y ago
You don't need to distribute on Steam. While it can bring legitimacy to an indie, alternatives exist. Not so with the App Store. Steam wants to disincentivize big companies making their own distribution, which is why they have the regressive split.
- mewse 6y ago
  > You don't need to distribute on Steam. [...] alternatives exist. Sure, if you want your business to go bankrupt. Itch? I love the place but good luck supporting your business with the number of sales you’ll make if you’re only available there. Epic? GoG? Humble? Those are curated stores; you have to be invited in; you can’t just choose to sell there. And even if you could, they still don’t have anything even remotely remotely remotely like the number of shoppers on Steam. As a practical matter, today, Steam is the only realistic option for mainstream non-hobbyist digital PC game publishing. You can do other stores plus Steam, but Steam has to be in the mix if you’re hoping to support yourself by your sales. (and yes, you can point to a small handful of digital games which were highly financially successful without primarily selling through Steam, but those are the hyper-viral one-in-a-million exceptions, not representative business cases that you should be betting your business on replicating) (Exception: if one of the other stores is going to pay you to be exclusive to their store (preferably only for a certain duration so that you can get onto Steam right after that period), then that can absolutely make up for losing out on the early Steam sales. But again, that sort of deal isn’t available to everybody)
  - whywhywhywhy 6y ago
    Minecraft didn’t distribute on Steam, they managed just fine. Neither does Fortnite come to think of it.
    - TillE 6y ago
      You're talking about a once-in-a-generation indie hit (which arguably started before Steam was omnipresent), and a game which was made and published by a big company. This is not the norm.
mdorazio 6y ago
Valve's strategy is actually the norm for the business world in general. The more business you do with a supplier/platform, the cheaper your unit costs get. If you're a small business buying 100 widgets, the price per widget is a lot higher than if you're a big business buying 100,000. Same with normal SaaS - try calling Stripe and asking them for a fee discount on your $100 revenue/month app vs. asking them for the same discount on your $1,000,000 revenue/month app. The reason Apple doesn't use this normal model is that the mobile app market is completely screwed up - you get exactly two real choices for distribution if you want to make any money at all as a small developer.

by Aissen 6y ago

HatchedLake721 6y ago

Why weird? 2 different strategies with completely different goals. Valve's strategy looks like to maximise revenue and get big companies on board that do $10+ mil in sales giving them incentives and discounts to be on the platform. (I think of it as tax break to incentivise high-earners to stay in the state/country) Apple's strategy looks like to put more money into small companies/developers, while still charging the usual rate it had for 10 years to everyone else to access market of 1+ billion users. (tax break for small business to get up and running)

Aissen 6y ago
This is a direct effect of a closed platform (iOS) vs an open one (PC).
syshum 6y ago
Not weird, but it is an interesting dynamic when you have an open platform that has to compete in the marketplace, vs a closed ecosystem that has to compete in PR / Legal battle. Apple is clearly attempting to reverse some of the bad PR, and divide the Dev Community so the calls for Anti-Trust action is lessened as the "small devs" will consider Apple "on their side" by giving them a competitive advantage over larger shops Clever move, time will tell if anyone buys it for more than what it really is, a PR stunt designed to ensure no real change happens
the_lucifer 6y ago
This I can understand because I'd argue most of the creative uses of Apple's ecosystems rather come from smaller indie developers meanwhile meanwhile larger companies also need to look at cross compatibility and sharing codebases.

chrisrhoden 6y ago

You don't need to distribute on Steam. While it can bring legitimacy to an indie, alternatives exist. Not so with the App Store. Steam wants to disincentivize big companies making their own distribution, which is why they have the regressive split.

mewse 6y ago
> You don't need to distribute on Steam. [...] alternatives exist. Sure, if you want your business to go bankrupt. Itch? I love the place but good luck supporting your business with the number of sales you’ll make if you’re only available there. Epic? GoG? Humble? Those are curated stores; you have to be invited in; you can’t just choose to sell there. And even if you could, they still don’t have anything even remotely remotely remotely like the number of shoppers on Steam. As a practical matter, today, Steam is the only realistic option for mainstream non-hobbyist digital PC game publishing. You can do other stores plus Steam, but Steam has to be in the mix if you’re hoping to support yourself by your sales. (and yes, you can point to a small handful of digital games which were highly financially successful without primarily selling through Steam, but those are the hyper-viral one-in-a-million exceptions, not representative business cases that you should be betting your business on replicating) (Exception: if one of the other stores is going to pay you to be exclusive to their store (preferably only for a certain duration so that you can get onto Steam right after that period), then that can absolutely make up for losing out on the early Steam sales. But again, that sort of deal isn’t available to everybody)
- whywhywhywhy 6y ago
  Minecraft didn’t distribute on Steam, they managed just fine. Neither does Fortnite come to think of it.
  - TillE 6y ago
    You're talking about a once-in-a-generation indie hit (which arguably started before Steam was omnipresent), and a game which was made and published by a big company. This is not the norm.

mdorazio 6y ago

Valve's strategy is actually the norm for the business world in general. The more business you do with a supplier/platform, the cheaper your unit costs get. If you're a small business buying 100 widgets, the price per widget is a lot higher than if you're a big business buying 100,000. Same with normal SaaS - try calling Stripe and asking them for a fee discount on your $100 revenue/month app vs. asking them for the same discount on your $1,000,000 revenue/month app. The reason Apple doesn't use this normal model is that the mobile app market is completely screwed up - you get exactly two real choices for distribution if you want to make any money at all as a small developer.