Tim Sweeney has been actively defending the policy of Epic Games acquiring all sorts of exclusives for its new storefront. The most recent comment from the CEO is a bold one this time; he claims that if Valve were to increase the revenue share that developers earn on Steam, Epic would back down from hoarding exclusive titles, and would even consider putting Epic-made games on Steam as a sign of extending an olive branch. Currently, Epic Games offers an 88% cut, as opposed to Steam's 70%, though the latter slightly changed their policy last year, to offer 75% once a game sells over $10 million, and a further 80% for titles that clear a $50 million earnings threshold. While Sweeney is vocal on his policy against storefronts imposing such a large percentage on developers, a 70-30 split tends to be the norm when it comes to the industry--which means unless Valve is willing to take such a massive profit cut, we won't be seeing Sweeney's claims come true any time soon.

If Steam committed to a permanent 88% revenue share for all developers and publishers without major strings attached, Epic would hastily organize a retreat from exclusives (while honoring our partner commitments) and consider putting our own games on Steam.

— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 25, 2019

​

 

[x65943]

This is called a bluff

He knows steam won't call his bluff because it would mean losing tons of revenue

Therefore it is a safe bluff

 

[Justinde75]

They have lied about stuff before, especially how they would never do something like metro again, but they did. I'll trust them when they actually follow with actions.

 

[KnightOfRoses]

This is called a bluff

He knows steam won't call his bluff because it would mean losing tons of revenue

Therefore it is a safe bluff

More than that, if hypothetically steam agrees and gives a bigger share for devs, what would it win? Get games back from Epic Store? It would at best make thing look like before the release of Epic Store, that's not a win, just not losing. What games does epic really habe to offer? Fortnight? Fortnite on Steam would just make it's playerbase bigger. Epic has nothing to lose on this bluff.

 

[Xzi]

Such horseshit. This split isn't even sustainable for Epic, they're absolutely hemorrhaging money from exclusivity pay-outs, and meanwhile they're even failing to properly manage their cash cow, Fortnite. They're desperate and Valve is in a position where they don't need to engage with this nonsense at all.

 

[raxadian]

Yeah Epic... I don't believe you.

 

[Sonic Angel Knight]

So epic games don't have the money to hire a good security team that steam has because of steam giving less of a cut to devs?

 

[sarkwalvein]

Desperate moves are sad, who cares if you give 90% of the revenue when nobody uses your platform. You can bluff you will give 99% and still it doesn't make a difference for a dead platform, 99% of 0 sales is still 0. You really must envy a platform that has actual users, but using this bluff to paint you on a moral pillar is laughable.

 

[jt_1258]

Like, come on, do you really think we would believe you Epic.

 

[Rabbid4240]

lmao stfu steam knock-off

 

[driverdis]

Valve offers a lot in terms of CDN and features for that 30% cut along with clientele. Epic has considerably less in all 3 departments.

 

[Godofcheese]

Hah, that's a good one.
Valve has not responded nor done anything to fight Epic up to this point.
Why should they start now?

Also, 30% is an industry standard, especially when you have the service to back it up with, something Epic does not.

Even Sony, Microsoft and our precious Nintendo takes a 30% chunk.

 

[Konako]

I still feel like the 30% for steam is fair they have forums, sharing libraries with a family member/friends, cloud saves and the in home streaming, the reviews system...
And soon a new networking API that's already gonna be in use in the DLC of A Hat in Time
Failed to fetch tweet https://twitter.com/MekuCube/status/1121530333856456711

So I really feel like they deserve the 70-30 split

 

[NeoSlyde]

Yoooooo!
Thanks Epic Games !

 

[kuwanger]

Yea, I'm probably going to disagree on this. Not that on whether Epic Games is bluffing or not--it's not relevant--or if Steam would lose money on this--they would since they're dominant player. I just disagree on the notion that 30% is a fair cut and a necessary one. What is a fair cut? That's a lot harder to establish, but my gut is that a flat percentage is undoubtedly unfair most to larger studios because it presumes there's proportional cost related to sale price--there likely isn't, even if short term bandwidth costs are high.

Of course, Steam is really its ow enemy with bandwidth--it's easier to just redownload games than to copy, verify, and then hope it won't redownload 99% of it anyways. Also the move towards SteamPlay for Linux users is annoying--even if 99% of data files are shared which make 99% of space, you can't keep a single repository for Linux and Windows. That isn't to say you can't setup your own cache system, but Steam doesn't go out of its way to try to offer such even though it'd probably do a lot more to help defray those sorts of costs. The forums and other stuff? Uh, yea, gbatemp runs something similar without requiring substantial cuts on game sales (the scale matters, but again it's not proportional to sale price).

 

[the_randomizer]

Epic's CEO is a dickweed.

 

[Xzi]

I just disagree on the notion that 30% is a fair cut and a necessary one. What is a fair cut? That's a lot harder to establish, but my gut is that a flat percentage is undoubtedly unfair most to larger studios because it presumes there's proportional cost related to sale price--there likely isn't, even if short term bandwidth costs are high.

Steam's cut isn't a flat percentage, it goes down with higher sales. It also provides far more services and support for developers than what is made apparent to the consumer.

 

[Rahkeesh]

Such horseshit. This split isn't even sustainable for Epic, they're absolutely hemorrhaging money from exclusivity pay-outs, and meanwhile they're even failing to properly manage their cash cow, Fortnite. They're desperate and Valve is in a position where they don't need to engage with this nonsense at all.

This is actually why I think he's being semi-honest. If Steam matched their cut Epic would lose so many exclusivity deals, and the amount they would have to pay to get them back would likely make running the store even more pointless.

 

[Sakitoshi]

I read the comments and is like if people don't want devs to receive money for their hard work.

 

[Deleted_413010]

Tim Sweeny is such a dumbass and only says shit to get publicity for his company. I'd like to see him go over 88% and then come back and talk to me like the horseshit he is and then tell me if he still wants Valve to go higher. He'll probably say yes because he wouldn't know how to run a company if it came up and hit him in his skull.

If Valve were to actually do this then they would have made the world's dumbest business decision in the world. They'll lose a shit ton of profits. What he's saying is to basically go higher than Epic's current "88% cut". 90% or higher is something that no company or even person would go for unless they are the dumbest company or person alive.

And he shouldn't be talking for somebody who's company is currently being buried in a shithole and even possible debt. Fortnite's being fucked like no tomorrow, the Epic Store is an epic failure...oh god I can go on forever.

 

[Xzi]

I read the comments and is like if people don't want devs to receive money for their hard work.

It's mostly publishers making the decision to take money from Epic for exclusivity deals. It doesn't benefit the developers in any way to limit their sales to a single platform. 88% of jack shit is still jack shit, and EGS fails to give games the type of promotion that Steam does.