I really don't get why anyone would have strong opinions either way about a frikking launcher. Are we that bored?
If you're secure enough with your brand and game name recognition why not keep the 30% you're giving Steam off the top? Makes total sense to me with a Fallout game these days.
Heck I like Steam but that 30% is obvious why Bethesda is doing it.
I'll just do what I did with every other non-steam game like GW2, Diablo 3 etc and add it to steam anyway. They let you add non-steam games and launch them from steam.
I feel better supporting the devs with all my money anyway. Steam isn't exactly doing a ton with that 30% other than LOLing all the way to the bank.
Yeah it makes sense for this game, but not for smaller/niche games like ES:L where steam justifies that 30% fee. Valve probably doesn't need a straight fee for all games, assuming they have that. they should negotiate when it comes to certain titles that don't need them as much
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Mayne. Maybe not.
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Mayne. Maybe not.
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
Base price of Fallout 76 is $59.99, do you think it would cost more if sold on Steam?
Not likely, and as others have said, one day it probably will be sold there once the initial sales fury dies down.
If I was Valve I'd charge them 40% at that time....
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Mayne. Maybe not.
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
Base price of Fallout 76 is $59.99, do you think it would cost more if sold on Steam?
Not likely, and as others have said, one day it probably will be sold there once the initial sales fury dies down.
If I was Valve I'd charge them 40% at that time....
The AAAs will/are dumping steam, it will be a place for indies.
Makes much more sense to spend that 30% on marketing then just giving it to Steam. Today, there isn't much value in Steam for a AAA.
I really don't get why anyone would have strong opinions either way about a frikking launcher. Are we that bored?
If you're secure enough with your brand and game name recognition why not keep the 30% you're giving Steam off the top? Makes total sense to me with a Fallout game these days.
"Too many launchers." The problem I have is some games on Steam have their own launchers so you end up launching Steam, launching a game that starts it's own launcher and often addition third party software. Sometimes you can just start a game directly but often even that starts up Steam and other programs. Not to mention like they said if you buy games from different services you have their launchers also.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Mayne. Maybe not.
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
Base price of Fallout 76 is $59.99, do you think it would cost more if sold on Steam?
Not likely, and as others have said, one day it probably will be sold there once the initial sales fury dies down.
If I was Valve I'd charge them 40% at that time....
You misunderstood what I said.
I described the "base price" as what the developer has to "charge" in order to get their money back. Assuming Steam does not drive sales - and with a big well known game this is likely - then selling through Steam will, absoluitely no question, result in a higher "base" price.
So will it be $59.99 on the Bethseda/Zenimax store and $59.99 if it subsequently gets released on Steam? I wouldn't be surprised.
However we can see the platform charge that exists between PC and consoles. And we are starting to see digital prices offered at a discount to retail box copy prices. So who knows. I suspect though that Steam won't like that - same as bricks and mortar stores historically wanted the same price - so it will either be the same (price) or not offered at all. And I wouldn't be surprised if its "not at all" for some games they do to drive purchasers to their web portal. (Which is what e.g. EA did/does).
Either way - just as with XBox and PlayStation - there is a platform cost.
At the end of the day this is a "big deal" for developers; worth more than 30%.
Historically profit on retail box copies was 20-25% (developers reported these numbers back in the day - stores took a cut, haulage costs, printing costs etc.) With digital platforms like Steam it rose to - its been put at about 50%; Steam etc. takes a percentage. 50% was twice as good as 20-25% though so developers were happy to offer their games on Steam! With their own stores however - well in conference calls companies have talked about a 70% target. (Not 30% higher since they have to bear the platform costs.)
The difference between 70% and 50% is 40% though. So big companies are moving to their own platforms for the same reason digital became popular.
I really don't get why anyone would have strong opinions either way about a frikking launcher. Are we that bored?
If you're secure enough with your brand and game name recognition why not keep the 30% you're giving Steam off the top? Makes total sense to me with a Fallout game these days.
Heck I like Steam but that 30% is obvious why Bethesda is doing it.
I'll just do what I did with every other non-steam game like GW2, Diablo 3 etc and add it to steam anyway. They let you add non-steam games and launch them from steam.
I feel better supporting the devs with all my money anyway. Steam isn't exactly doing a ton with that 30% other than LOLing all the way to the bank.
i don't care if steam "lol's" all the way to the bank because i like the service they provide. I like my Summer & Winter sales, I like there amazing REFUND POLICY no questions asked, I like the fact they are not policing my content like Big Brother telling me what is morally right or wrong. For me its more than just "having one launcher" Steam has been good to me, so I will support them.
Everyone wants me to download their app on my phone. No more I say.
I feel the same with logins and passwords. I'd honestly rather they just email me a secure link to my account so I can log into my email and not have to keep up with a username and password for my mortgage, car loan, electric bill, water bill, internet/TV, student dashboard at college, FAFSA site, phone service, library account... The list goes on and on. And this isn't even starting into individual launcher or game accounts.
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Mayne. Maybe not.
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
Base price of Fallout 76 is $59.99, do you think it would cost more if sold on Steam?
Not likely, and as others have said, one day it probably will be sold there once the initial sales fury dies down.
If I was Valve I'd charge them 40% at that time....
The AAAs will/are dumping steam, it will be a place for indies.
Makes much more sense to spend that 30% on marketing then just giving it to Steam. Today, there isn't much value in Steam for a AAA.
How much of a discount do you suppose they give Walmart, Amazon, and others to sell these games? My guess is somewhere near 30% or more.
As DMKano said, the real reason for avoiding Steam is to pocket 100% of the future GaaS sales, and also let Bethesda market directly to the customer.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Mayne. Maybe not.
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
Base price of Fallout 76 is $59.99, do you think it would cost more if sold on Steam?
Not likely, and as others have said, one day it probably will be sold there once the initial sales fury dies down.
If I was Valve I'd charge them 40% at that time....
The AAAs will/are dumping steam, it will be a place for indies.
Makes much more sense to spend that 30% on marketing then just giving it to Steam. Today, there isn't much value in Steam for a AAA.
How much of a discount do you suppose they give Walmart, Amazon, and others to sell these games? My guess is somewhere near 30% or more.
As DMKano said, the real reason for avoiding Steam is to pocket 100% of the future GaaS sales, and also let Bethesda market directly to the customer.
I'm a manufacturer of a few construction hardware products.
I have wholesale prices, which retailers pay and then they sell the products for whatever they please. There is also the distribution model where you give exclusive rights to a product regionally and in return they guarantee quantity of sales or lose the contract, this model really sucks for the consumer but it's very convenient for the manufacturer for many reasons. In most cases the distributor makes more profit from a product than the retailer or the manufacturer.
Some of the prices I see in my local Home Depot for certain products makes me cringe when I know how much they paid for them.
Bethesda has always directly marketed to the consumer or are you saying that those Elder Scrolls commercials are paid for by Steam. The only marketing Steam does for your product is on their storefront when your logged into their service.
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Mayne. Maybe not.
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
Base price of Fallout 76 is $59.99, do you think it would cost more if sold on Steam?
Not likely, and as others have said, one day it probably will be sold there once the initial sales fury dies down.
If I was Valve I'd charge them 40% at that time....
The AAAs will/are dumping steam, it will be a place for indies.
Makes much more sense to spend that 30% on marketing then just giving it to Steam. Today, there isn't much value in Steam for a AAA.
How much of a discount do you suppose they give Walmart, Amazon, and others to sell these games? My guess is somewhere near 30% or more.
As DMKano said, the real reason for avoiding Steam is to pocket 100% of the future GaaS sales, and also let Bethesda market directly to the customer.
I'm a manufacturer of a few construction hardware products.
I have wholesale prices, which retailers pay and then they sell the products for whatever they please. There is also the distribution model where you give exclusive rights to a product regionally and in return they guarantee quantity of sales or lose the contract, this model really sucks for the consumer but it's very convenient for the manufacturer for many reasons. In most cases the distributor makes more profit from a product than the retailer or the manufacturer.
Some of the prices I see in my local Home Depot for certain products makes me cringe when I know how much they paid for them.
Bethesda has always directly marketed to the consumer or are you saying that those Elder Scrolls commercials are paid for by Steam. The only marketing Steam does for your product is on their storefront when your logged into their service.
Hmm, not quite sure what you are asking based on what I wrote, I'll rephrase my point for clarity.
Bethesda sells the base game to every retailer at a wholesale price, and I'm assuming unless they are like Nintendo give larger retailers better discounts.
Very likely Walmart, Amazon and Gamestop are pocketing the same 30% Steam does when selling at full retail.
Difference is post release content such as small DLC mods aren't sold through traditional retailers so those who bought from them head directly to Bethesda to buy them at full list.
Steam however gets 30% of this traffic as well and that's what Bethesda is trying to stop.
I think some big publishers have confirmed there is far more money to be made in post sales than from the initial release and their greed is showing.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Good, I try to avoid steam. I don’t like what it’s become. I hope more publishers go this route.
I wouldn't mind them not going the Steam route, but object to each one of them having their own personal game client which they expect me to install on my PC.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have to agree with a lot of the ones mad about it not coming to steam. When you start loading up on some many launchers to play games it gets a little annoying having to switch launcher to launcher when you want to play your flavor of the week. I like how steam keeps track of your play time as well, not to many other launchers do that (Uplay I think does tho)
Bethesda has so many of there games already on Steam, so i'm not sure what the deal is with them not wanting to do so. Regardless my frustration lays (lies?) with the rest I would like to keep the amount of launchers installed and on my desktop to a small minimal.
Seems a high price to pay for a convenience. Because like it or not, we're paying that 30%
You are paying it anyways, the price isn't going down because its not going to be on Steam, only difference is Bethesda will pocket the money themselves.
This is just Bethesda's next move into Gaming as a Service (GaaS)
Mayne. Maybe not.
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
Base price of Fallout 76 is $59.99, do you think it would cost more if sold on Steam?
Not likely, and as others have said, one day it probably will be sold there once the initial sales fury dies down.
If I was Valve I'd charge them 40% at that time....
The AAAs will/are dumping steam, it will be a place for indies.
Makes much more sense to spend that 30% on marketing then just giving it to Steam. Today, there isn't much value in Steam for a AAA.
How much of a discount do you suppose they give Walmart, Amazon, and others to sell these games? My guess is somewhere near 30% or more.
As DMKano said, the real reason for avoiding Steam is to pocket 100% of the future GaaS sales, and also let Bethesda market directly to the customer.
I'm a manufacturer of a few construction hardware products.
I have wholesale prices, which retailers pay and then they sell the products for whatever they please. There is also the distribution model where you give exclusive rights to a product regionally and in return they guarantee quantity of sales or lose the contract, this model really sucks for the consumer but it's very convenient for the manufacturer for many reasons. In most cases the distributor makes more profit from a product than the retailer or the manufacturer.
Some of the prices I see in my local Home Depot for certain products makes me cringe when I know how much they paid for them.
Bethesda has always directly marketed to the consumer or are you saying that those Elder Scrolls commercials are paid for by Steam. The only marketing Steam does for your product is on their storefront when your logged into their service.
Hmm, not quite sure what you are asking based on what I wrote, I'll rephrase my point for clarity.
Bethesda sells the base game to every retailer at a wholesale price, and I'm assuming unless they are like Nintendo give larger retailers better discounts.
Very likely Walmart, Amazon and Gamestop are pocketing the same 30% Steam does when selling at full retail.
Difference is post release content such as small DLC mods aren't sold through traditional retailers so those who bought from them head directly to Bethesda to buy them at full list.
Steam however gets 30% of this traffic as well and that's what Bethesda is trying to stop.
I think some big publishers have confirmed there is far more money to be made in post sales than from the initial release and their greed is showing.
It's simply Bethesda no longer seeing any value in selling their product through Steam.
Those other retailers are selling physical copies, correct? There is a lot more costs involved in moving/stocking physical copies, especially for a brick and mortar where some will even market your product in multiple venues. I think 30% would be much more justifiable in those instances.
I'd wager that when/if Bethesda see's no more value in physical copies that they will probably drop those retailers too.
Comments
We pay a price.
Developers will have a bottomline profit target - to cover development costs as an absolute minimum and get what they could have got by keeping the money in the bank.
If they believe that Steam will generate few additional sales then basically the base cost is going to have to be 30% or whatever higher if they are to hit their minimum target.
Now the sale price - it will be higher. And probably the same either way - maybe means that gamers have gotten use to paying the Steam premium! That extra cost will have driven prices up. Only have to look at Humble Bundle, Greenman, GoG etc. to see that.
Not likely, and as others have said, one day it probably will be sold there once the initial sales fury dies down.
If I was Valve I'd charge them 40% at that time....
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Makes much more sense to spend that 30% on marketing then just giving it to Steam. Today, there isn't much value in Steam for a AAA.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I described the "base price" as what the developer has to "charge" in order to get their money back. Assuming Steam does not drive sales - and with a big well known game this is likely - then selling through Steam will, absoluitely no question, result in a higher "base" price.
So will it be $59.99 on the Bethseda/Zenimax store and $59.99 if it subsequently gets released on Steam? I wouldn't be surprised.
However we can see the platform charge that exists between PC and consoles. And we are starting to see digital prices offered at a discount to retail box copy prices. So who knows. I suspect though that Steam won't like that - same as bricks and mortar stores historically wanted the same price - so it will either be the same (price) or not offered at all. And I wouldn't be surprised if its "not at all" for some games they do to drive purchasers to their web portal. (Which is what e.g. EA did/does).
Either way - just as with XBox and PlayStation - there is a platform cost.
At the end of the day this is a "big deal" for developers; worth more than 30%.
Historically profit on retail box copies was 20-25% (developers reported these numbers back in the day - stores took a cut, haulage costs, printing costs etc.) With digital platforms like Steam it rose to - its been put at about 50%; Steam etc. takes a percentage. 50% was twice as good as 20-25% though so developers were happy to offer their games on Steam! With their own stores however - well in conference calls companies have talked about a 70% target. (Not 30% higher since they have to bear the platform costs.)
The difference between 70% and 50% is 40% though. So big companies are moving to their own platforms for the same reason digital became popular.
This is just the final evolutionary step.
Aloha Mr Hand !
It's become ridiculous.
As DMKano said, the real reason for avoiding Steam is to pocket 100% of the future GaaS sales, and also let Bethesda market directly to the customer.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I have wholesale prices, which retailers pay and then they sell the products for whatever they please. There is also the distribution model where you give exclusive rights to a product regionally and in return they guarantee quantity of sales or lose the contract, this model really sucks for the consumer but it's very convenient for the manufacturer for many reasons. In most cases the distributor makes more profit from a product than the retailer or the manufacturer.
Some of the prices I see in my local Home Depot for certain products makes me cringe when I know how much they paid for them.
Bethesda has always directly marketed to the consumer or are you saying that those Elder Scrolls commercials are paid for by Steam. The only marketing Steam does for your product is on their storefront when your logged into their service.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Bethesda sells the base game to every retailer at a wholesale price, and I'm assuming unless they are like Nintendo give larger retailers better discounts.
Very likely Walmart, Amazon and Gamestop are pocketing the same 30% Steam does when selling at full retail.
Difference is post release content such as small DLC mods aren't sold through traditional retailers so those who bought from them head directly to Bethesda to buy them at full list.
Steam however gets 30% of this traffic as well and that's what Bethesda is trying to stop.
I think some big publishers have confirmed there is far more money to be made in post sales than from the initial release and their greed is showing.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Those other retailers are selling physical copies, correct? There is a lot more costs involved in moving/stocking physical copies, especially for a brick and mortar where some will even market your product in multiple venues. I think 30% would be much more justifiable in those instances.
I'd wager that when/if Bethesda see's no more value in physical copies that they will probably drop those retailers too.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee