Support NeoGAF

[DeepEnigma]

If they make better products that appeal to the masses and consequently sell more units via Steam, that would mean they'd pay even more platform fees.

And then there are the duds like Gollum with a probably expensive license.

This is all BS fluff for them wanting to fellate EGS. Just as others like GHG have said, just say you want to go to EGS minus all this crap. Good luck with less volume and less features on a lesser storefront and app.

 

[PropellerEar]

I have a industry proven solution for Embracer to make guaranteed profit.

Accountability Margin™

 

[yurinka]

I think console should charge maximum 10-15% because they make their own hardware and sell it often at a loss.

I think there's no reason for PC and mobile stores to charge more than 5-10% to the publishers.

It's an important issue, and the Unity pricing too. But there's a bigger issue: the conditions and revenue share that publishers make to the external dev studios they publish, often getting the publisher 100% of the revenue until the publisher covered their costs and after that (sometimes from the start) having 50%-50% between dev and publisher (this is after removing the platform holder 30% + taxes) and in best case scenarios 70%-30%.

 

[Kdad]

Am i understanding then that your cost of development is 30% of the sticker price? That sounds like you are not selling nearly enough units.

 

[skit_data]

They really come across as if they were somewhat clueless to how the industry worked while at the same time buying up everything within their reach

 

[Kdad]

If they make better products that appeal to the masses and consequently sell more units via Steam, that would mean they'd pay even more platform fees.

That isn't the math you need to look at here...

 

[diffusionx]

if you want to put a business in the middle of Manhattan it is more expensive than to put the business in Topeka. But you get something for that money. Paying Steam gets you access to the biggest vidya store in the world, and a customer base that spends money unlike EGS where most people are either Fortnite zoomers or cashing in the free games.

 

[Woopah]

Make better products that appeal to the masses.

But if they made products that appeal to the masses... they'd be paying more in platform fees.

I think they are just using it as a point of reference, not saying their games aren't selling well.

 

[Dream-Knife]

It's daylight robbery when it comes to platform fee's and Engine fee's. Neither is capped and can rake in hundreds of millions from a single game if its successful. It's no wonder publishers are making their own game clients and refuse to put things on steam. Imaging having to forfeit 30% of your income to just be on a platform that's absurd.

You do realize that all consoles charge 30% too, right?

If they don't want to pay fees, then launch on PC exclusively from your website where you can download the exe.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Use Epic game store as your Alpha phase. Release real game years later.
Just like CP77.

 

[Thirty7ven]

This guy is a moron, how are you paying fees on money you didn’t make? Oh you aren’t right? So the only way you pay a “fee” is if you used somebody’s audience to sell a game, and it actually sold.

The comparison is so ridiculous, no wonder Embracer went to shit in record time.

 

[Braag]

You do realize that all consoles charge 30% too, right?

If they don't want to pay fees, then launch on PC exclusively from your website where you can download the exe.

I would love to see some AAA game do this honestly, Embracer please try this out.
Imagine having to download the installer from the website and every time there's an update you need to go and download a separate install file like it's 2002.
Then they would just complain how expensive it is to keep the servers up and running so people can download their games.

 

[Pagusas]

This is the company that now owns Deus Ex? .... damnit.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

I would love to see some AAA game do this honestly, Embracer please try this out.
Imagine having to download the installer from the website and every time there's an update you need to go and download a separate install file like it's 2002.
Then they would just complain how expensive it is to keep the servers up and running so people can download their games.

Honestly, I'd enjoy that. But I also like watching shit install in terminal/command line, soooo....

 

[StereoVsn]

I don't understand the argument here. Does this mean they undersoend on Dev? Overcharge customers with way too high game prices?

And going to EGS for 6 months while getting almost no revenue with that 100% seems dumb. Don't forget that the whole point in Epic doing this is that they don't have to give cash upfront. So no moneyhats.

It's just seems overall a terrible business decision.

 

[tryDEATH]

You do realize that all consoles charge 30% too, right?

If they don't want to pay fees, then launch on PC exclusively from your website where you can download the exe.

Which is exactly why I don't mind Epic, publishers, and other developers making their own game clients and can't stand whiny gamers that moan that a game didn't launch on steam. Consoles are a bit different and can sort of understand a platform fee, but it should be in low single digits not almost 1/3.

 

[StereoVsn]

Which is exactly why I don't mind Epic, publishers, and other developers making their own game clients and can't stand whiny gamers that moan that a game didn't launch on steam. Consoles are a bit different and can sort of understand a platform fee, but it should be in low single digits not almost 1/3.

And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Tales from your behind?

- Credit card/payment fees
- Storefront cost, bandwidth, patching
- Free cloud saves (extra with Nintendo and Sony)
- Amazing controller support
- BPM
- Linux support
- Steam works dev support tools for MP

And much more, but sure, tell us why Valve should charge single digits.

Edit: Let's not forget SteamVR which is what Epic recommends games use in their Storefront for VR API.

 

[poppabk]

Make better products that appeal to the masses.

That would increase the amount they paid in platform fees.

 

[DeepEnigma]

That would increase the amount they paid in platform fees.

And it would increase their profits as well. Low dev costs, higher profits = success.

They're being manipulative. Just go to EGS if that's the honeypot. They know it's not so they want to alter more robust platforms that invest more into themselves.

Their costs don't go up on the more they sell. That cut is already never seen to begin with.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

30% is too much. Physical retailers took 20% and that made sense because they have to run the actual store, and distribute the physical copies everywhere.

Digital servers are much cheaper. You dont need 4 bestbuys, targets and walmarts and 10 gamestops in every city. You need like 1 server farm for like 10 states. The cost of running those server farms is way below running brick and mortar stores and yet they are charging 10% more.

You're ignoring that there are still royalties on physical games. So in this case you're combining the retail sales and the royalties. The platform acts as both.

 

[ByWatterson]

If you are paying “a lot” in fees aren’t you also bringing “a lot” of revenue?

Yeah this makes it sound like they're doing fine.

If I spend $100M on a game, and it grosses $100M, I get $70M and pay only $30M to platform holders.

But if I'm paying more in fees, I have to gross at least $300M. Don't understand this complaint.

 

[Kilau]

Yeah this makes it sound like they're doing fine.

If I spend $100M on a game, and it grosses $100M, I get $70M and pay only $30M to platform holders.

But it I'm paying more in fees, I have to gross at least $300M. Don't understand this complaint.

Yeah, I won't pretend to know what the "right" or "fair" fee structure is for each publisher, but it's still entirely based on how much you are selling. These aren't fees they are forced to pay just to be allowed on the platform. This reads like someone complaining about how poorly they manage their business and coming from Embracer, not shocking.

 

[Bitmap Frogs]

Make better products that appeal to the masses.

I have a soft spot for embracer because they are financing a game archive that is going to become an itinerant museum.... but damn they haven't been able to squeeze profits out of their massive developer and ip stash

 

[Wildebeest]

Them keeping 100% of the money means they can pass on savings to the consumer? Right?

 

[EDMIX]

lol nahhhhh they are laying out the foundation of entering the console market.

 

[tryDEATH]

And how did you arrive at this conclusion? Tales from your behind?

- Credit card/payment fees
- Storefront cost, bandwidth, patching
- Free cloud saves (extra with Nintendo and Sony)
- Amazing controller support
- BPM
- Linux support
- Steam works dev support tools for MP

And much more, but sure, tell us why Valve should charge single digits.

Edit: Let's not forget SteamVR which is what Epic recommends games use in their Storefront for VR API.

All of that is not worth anywhere near 30% of a games sale, which still need to host the game on its own servers. It's a PC monopoly that's enabled by entitled gamers that moan at having games exclusive on the Epic store or having to download other clients for specific games that are far more financially beneficial to developers.

 

[tryDEATH]

Them keeping 100% of the money means they can pass on savings to the consumer? Right?

They won't pass it too us, but will be able to keep the hard working developers working and not shutter a studio or cut a lot of employees.

 

[violence]

Blame Steve Jobs for setting the 30% precedent. Maybe Calisto Protocol would have gotten that sequel if it didn't need to sell 5 million.

I like this video of Matt Demon explaining what the DVD market allowed the movie studios to greenlight. Cut to today, Hollywood now only cares about mega franchises.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Btw, saw this tweet earlier and...something's just not right



It's not just about the number of people between 101 and 200 (lmao) thaht are shareholders at Embracer...how can there be 673 kids from 1 to 10 years old that are also shareholders there?

 

[TheDreadBaron]

They won't pass it too us, but will be able to keep the hard working developers working and not shutter a studio or cut a lot of employees.

Do you think that’s where the money is really gonna go, when they’re crying poverty on the millions they’re already making?

 

[Fbh]

All of that is not worth anywhere near 30% of a games sale, which still need to host the game on its own servers. It's a PC monopoly that's enabled by entitled gamers that moan at having games exclusive on the Epic store or having to download other clients for specific games that are far more financially beneficial to developers.

And who defines this "worth"? You?.

If PlayStation or Steam aren't giving you enough to be worth the 30% cut, then don't release on those platforms

 

[Dream-Knife]

Which is exactly why I don't mind Epic, publishers, and other developers making their own game clients and can't stand whiny gamers that moan that a game didn't launch on steam. Consoles are a bit different and can sort of understand a platform fee, but it should be in low single digits not almost 1/3.

Your conclusion from what I posted makes no sense.

People want steam because epic sucks ass.

 

[justiceiro]

Man, is so funny see people who are unable to deal with two launchers in theirs machine tell people actually paying the fees how to run business. Really insightful.

 

[bender]

Damnit, PhilGabe!

 

[mckmas8808]

It's daylight robbery when it comes to platform fee's and Engine fee's. Neither is capped and can rake in hundreds of millions from a single game if its successful. It's no wonder publishers are making their own game clients and refuse to put things on steam. Imaging having to forfeit 30% of your income to just be on a platform that's absurd.

It's a lie! Only super successful games will do this. They capping.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Btw, saw this tweet earlier and...something's just not right



It's not just about the number of people between 101 and 200 (lmao) thaht are shareholders at Embracer...how can there be 673 kids from 1 to 10 years old that are also shareholders there?

Smells like a laundering or a placeholder takeover front.

Y'all being manipulated and played like simpletons. Of course the MORE THEY SELL the 30% fees will eventually be more than THE AMOUNT THEY SPENT ON DEVELOPMENT... that's a GOOD THING. That means they're being SUCCESSFUL with that 70% profit gains.

Marths is hard.

And... they don't have to spend millions on a client that will do 1/32bd as much or billions on a physical platform that wouldn't sell for shit.

Show us your "investors," something is fishy.

 

[StereoVsn]

All of that is not worth anywhere near 30% of a games sale, which still need to host the game on its own servers. It's a PC monopoly that's enabled by entitled gamers that moan at having games exclusive on the Epic store or having to download other clients for specific games that are far more financially beneficial to developers.

Yeah, again you have 0 knowledge of any cost involved and of course breaking out "entitled gamers" for not wanting to use or pay for Tim Epic's shit emporium. Because of course there games are much cheaper since fees are so much lower and features are clearly plentiful.

And yes, all the publishers like Microsoft, EA and so on are not using Steam anymore. Oh wait...

 

[GHG]

All of that is not worth anywhere near 30% of a games sale, which still need to host the game on its own servers. It's a PC monopoly that's enabled by entitled gamers that moan at having games exclusive on the Epic store or having to download other clients for specific games that are far more financially beneficial to developers.

Fucking laughable.

It's become abundantly clear that you don't have a clue what you're talking about. If it were a "PC monopoly" then they would have the capacity to prevent the EGS from existing and everyone would have no choice but to purchase their PC games directly through steam.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

This only proves that there are extremely few publishers who are competent enough to make and release AAA games.

 

[Sakura]

All of that is not worth anywhere near 30% of a games sale, which still need to host the game on its own servers. It's a PC monopoly that's enabled by entitled gamers that moan at having games exclusive on the Epic store or having to download other clients for specific games that are far more financially beneficial to developers.

Why should consumers give a shit about whether or not something is financially beneficial to developers?

 

[Braag]

Man, is so funny see people who are unable to deal with two over ten launchers in theirs machine tell people actually paying the fees how to run business. Really insightful.

There's Steam, Epic Games Launcher, Ubisoft Connect, EA Launcher, Battle.net, Rockstar Launcher, GoG Galaxy, Microsoft Store (there are exclusive games there too). Then you also have some more niche launchers like Paradox Launcher, Wargaming.net Center, Glyph, 2K Launcher.
There's probably more but those are off the top of my head and I have unfortunately like half of them installed on my PC.

 

[crackajack]

No one's stopping them from making their own store or console. Resulting in just another EA and Ubistore, hardly anyone really uses. Maybe make it a joint venture with the other entitiy on an acquisition war path, Tencent, or even get EA, Take2, Konami etc, all on board too. Instead of one publisher doing the platform overloarding, share that responsibility. One publisher trying to push their own store never really worked, even if you are a major one, but as an concerted effort, neither Valve nor Epic could really thrive when all main third parties make their own combined thing.

But complaining, or let me label it explaining, is easier than actually tackling the problem.
If that's not preferable then you have to pay the 30/12/whatever entry fee to the walled gardens of companies that took the risk of building something.

 

[Bonfires Down]

There's Steam, Epic Games Launcher, Ubisoft Connect, EA Launcher, Battle.net, Rockstar Launcher, GoG Galaxy, Microsoft Store (there are exclusive games there too). Then you also have some more niche launchers like Paradox Launcher, Wargaming.net Center, Glyph, 2K Launcher.
There's probably more but those are off the top of my head and I have unfortunately like half of them installed on my PC.

Guaranteed that if Valve charged 10%, most of those would not even exist.

 

[Skifi28]

Why should consumers give a shit about whether or not something is financially beneficial to developers?

I call this consumer greed.

 

[Killer8]

Let's say 30% is platform fees, which is standard. If that's more than development costs, then they must be around 25% or so. Advertising fees are maybe an additional 15-20%, depending on the size of the game (and if they aren't already being counted with development costs). So Embracer should still be walking away with about 25-30% profit per sale.

If they can't get by with that, then the issue is that they aren't selling the numbers they want. And that puts the ball back in Embracer's court.

 

[Lunarorbit]

Shut the fuck up Lars. Your company has always been super shady. I legit thought it was a front for something else cause the speed of acquisitions was way too fast. Plus where did they get their capital?

A horribly managed company. Bragging about having 80 games in development was delusional and a disservice to your staff. There's no way they could release that many games and instead of focusing on a few bangers to make a name for yourself you haven't released anything of consequence.

 

[Mahavastu]

Uhhh I want to see the math with which he came into that conclusion.

It is not hard. The app store usually take 30%. That is A LOT and that number is growing when you sell a lot of copies.
But you save money, because you do not have to print Discs (normally more then you expect to sell in case the game is successful), you do not need huge logistic to bring the discs to the customer... In the end digital seems to be a good deal for most devs...
If you sell a decent number of games development costs should be lower if you do not know if the game is a smashing success and it should not sink the company if case of a fail.

Either way, Embracer just like Deep Silver is one of those publishers that want to cut their spending as low as possible, thus Tim Sweeney's offer tempts them so much.

Deep Silver is a part of Embracer and probably has similar strategy.

 

[lyan]

Let's say 30% is platform fees, which is standard. If that's more than development costs, then they must be around 25% or so. Advertising fees are maybe an additional 15-20%, depending on the size of the game (and if they aren't already being counted with development costs). So Embracer should still be walking away with about 25-30% profit per sale.

If they can't get by with that, then the issue is that they aren't selling the numbers they want. And that puts the ball back in Embracer's court.

There are also administrative expenses and transaction charges and whatever non-profit taxes. If dev cost accounts to 25% of revenue they are probably better off just putting the money in banks as fixed deposits.
Realistically for many games Valve is getting 2x more than the devs.

 

[StereoVsn]

There's Steam, Epic Games Launcher, Ubisoft Connect, EA Launcher, Battle.net, Rockstar Launcher, GoG Galaxy, Microsoft Store (there are exclusive games there too). Then you also have some more niche launchers like Paradox Launcher, Wargaming.net Center, Glyph, 2K Launcher.
There's probably more but those are off the top of my head and I have unfortunately like half of them installed on my PC.

Just going to say that 2K launcher should be burned with fire. Such a pointless and shitty endeavor.l that only serves to bug down older games. Because of course theybhad to retroactively shove that into everything.

 

[Dr_Ifto]

Microsoft is able to offset any "cost" in azure that GP has, to a different department to make GP more profitable, if it wanted to, and its legal.

Azure cost for GP on the azure team
Dev cost for 1st party games on the Xbox team, not gamepass


Think of hollywood math that makes billion dollar movies not profitable, but in reverse.