Paradox Interactive: "The 70/30 revenue split is outrageous"

From GameIndustry.biz: "The 70/30 revenue split offered to developers by most platform holders is "outrageous," according to Paradox Interactive's Fredrik Wester, who praised Epic Games' efforts to offer a more reasonable alternative with its own store.

Speaking as part of a panel at Gamelab last week, which was hosted by GamesIndustry.biz, Wester did not mince his words when talking about the deal that the industry's biggest distribution platforms offer to developers."

[shuvam09]

Not gonna lie, it IS outrageous...
But f*ck Epic...

[YodaCracker]

Cognitive dissonance

[Reefskye]

Its not even 30/70 anymore it's something like 25/75 now, yes it's is outrageous but your publishing on a platform with the biggest install base on PC, I buy loads of paradox games, i buy all their 30 odd DLCs for all their games (which is alot) but let's be honest steam is more viable reliable has more security features and has tons and tons and tons of features that Xbox live and PSN, epic etc, can only dream of. Yet do paradox pass any sort of saving on to me if they published in epic? No so I don't give a damn how outrageous it is because no other developer has so I highly doubt paradox would either, it's why they make their own launcher.

Developers can talk all they want if they want me to buy their games form other places where they make money then pass them savings on to me but no developers does so steam can keep having its % cos it's launcher surpasses any of the other shit launchers I use on a daily basis. I won't even install epics anymore cos why should I give my money to some publisher who takes away my choice of deciding to where buy my game from.

[ReelBigMike]

Completely agree with them. Anyone who would not buy a game b/c they put it on Epic Store instead of Steam is lacking the common sense needed to see that if you're a developer, and you have one option where they take a 30% cut, and another option where they take a 12% cut, you'd be insane not to go with the one that lets you keep more of your revenue.

[SamPao]

Unless nobody wants to use your shop because its not user friendly, no features, nothing.
Then I rather go to the other one. Common sense.

[rainslacker]

Common sense is that people will go buy the game where it's being sold. Despite the hate for EGS on forums, the vast majority of PC gamers don't really care that much about store front loyalty. I can understand some may want the features of Steam, but in the end, most people just want to play a game, and not get involved in all the politics. As hardcore gamers, sometimes i feel we get too involved, and maybe try too hard to take a stand which isn't necessary....although I can empathize with some of the concerns surrounding the EGS debate.

[SamPao]

@BayAreaBird I dont expect EGS to have all the features, I am just giving a reason why its not popular right now. ITS common sense. Also, neither Valve nor Epic are making games anymore that I would like to support, so to me they both are ALL IN for the money and not the games. At least epic still makes a widely used gameengine :P

[TK-66]

"Do you really expect a new online store to have all the features Steam has had time to do, all 15+ years of work in 6 months?"

So you're saying we should just act as though the two services are on par with with other because one day epic might have all of those features? Point is that RIGHT NOW they don't so RIGHT NOW they don't get our money.

[SegaGamer]

Why would I want to buy my games from an inferior platform?

I'll just wait six months to a year until they are available on a platform that is actually good.

Also, the only reason why games are going exclusive on Epic's store is because Epic are throwing money at these companies. Not a single game has gone exclusive on Epic's store because of the revenue cut, not one. Another point, why would I, or you, give a damn about the revenue cut? What are we getting out of it? It's not like we are getting a better deal, games are still just as expensive on Epic's store, and in many cases, more expensive than Steam, and with less features.

The way I see it, there is no incentive to sign up to Epic's store, even if they do buy timed exclusives. I would be still be buying the game on an inferior platform, so I may as well just wait.

[Hungryalpaca]

Of course from a developer stand point it makes sense. How many sales are they losing though? Does it make up the losses? I’m willing to bet it doesn’t.

No one likes the EGS because it’s terrible. I’m not going to buy something on EGS because I don’t like EGS. If they stepped up their game on the launcher I wouldn’t mind using it but it’s awful. Oh and if they stop buying exclusives. Until then they can fuck off.

[Kostche]

and? developers went from Video game cases, manuels, disk to digital, and did gamers see fucking drop in price as all these cost was removed? NO,but yet we should feel bad for developers when they get punked

developers and publishers are both filthy grubbers, that will nickle and dime gamers at drop the hat if they can

[WelkinCole]

70% to publisher to 30% platform holder is fair especially for consoles

We are talking about billions of dollars in investment in R&D, manufacturing, service, sales, distribution, marketing etc.

It ain't cheap and it is super risky being in the console biz. Why not many got into it until now that streaming is starting to get some traction.

Apple and Google as big as they were never got into the the physical console space for a reason even though the console gaming industry is a huge industry

MS got in and the xbox was a huge loss initially. If it was any other company they would have gone bankrupt.

[rainslacker]

The 30% on consoles also includes the per game licensing cut that the console maker charges publishers, which is typically between 10-12% of the selling price. It's not really a direct 70/30 comparison because the publishers have to pay that cut on physical copies as well. The licensing cut is higher on the digital front due to it not being charged until the game is sold, whereas in physical, the publisher has to pay for every copy shipped to distribution, and the game may not sell, so they could end up selling a lot more copies than they actually have players. The licensing cut per copy can also be negotiated, and there are different tiers one can buy in early. This is true for MS as well, and I'd imagine Nintendo although I'm not sure about that.

It's rather a complex thing with consoles.

With Steam, it was a direct 30% cut of the revenues. This was not too bad for publishers, because they didn't need to do much work. But for indie games funded by a publisher who put them on Steam, the dev didn't usually see any return from the game until the initial payout from Steam exceeded the production cost of the game. So, when you take 30% of the total revenue off the top to see what the publisher is taking in, that's all that gets credited towards finally paying out to the developer....and then after that is met, a bonus may be paid, or a revenue split again based on the 70% the publisher took in. That amount could vary based on the cost of the game, or the publisher.

[Iamnothuman12]

Let see Epic maintain that 12% cut while having the same quality of life/security/reliability features that steam has. If they can do that then they deserve whatever praise comes their way.

[eddvdm]

Says the 200 DLC packs/game publisher.