> 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-gam...
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)
Steam wants to disincentivize big companies making their own distribution, which is why they have the regressive split.
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
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)
Neither does Fortnite come to think of it.
This just isn't true, Steam had almost no competition in 2008. Microsoft didn't even have an app store till 2012, Epic certainly didn't, EA Origin is 2011.
> 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
I'm not arguing that either is good, but I think there is a fundamental difference. Apple is reacting to the threat of regulation, which is at least theoretically aimed at protecting small business owners. Valve is fundamentally competing for the business of large companies that actually can afford to forego the exposure Steam offers.
I'm not sure that the App Store's position is as stable as Steam's, either. I don't really have a clear sense of what impact it would have on their sales if Humble Bundle could sell iOS games.
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.