I'm tired of paying 30%

Well GOG is run by CD Projekt, so they have other sources of revenue they can rely on. Similar to Epic, in that way, I guess... only without the infinite supply of money.

 

No, I mean Humble's storefront 99% is Steam keys. They don't have any major expenses to maintain their store. So they are asking for 5% merely just put a bunch of Steam keys on a webpage. Nothing else, no HumbleBundleWorks, no HumbleNetworking, no extensive support systems behind the service. They basically are Steam key retail. With some rare exceptions. 5% for retail is in the ballpark of usual rate AFAIK (I have very limited experience with these things).

What we're doing here is not that. It's a guess-race. Honestly, I will stop this personally, because I really don't see any benefits of it (except to get to know things about your viewpoint and telling mine, but it's really L'art pour L'art).

Well, if you want to play the extension of EPIC's PR-department, who am I to stop you.

1; they're lying
2; if you think you can sell assets more profitable on Marketplace for UE users rather than for Unity users, that's your choice, go for it
3; blindly echoing a visibly, audibly and knowingly hostile party's story is equally harmful because implants (potentially) false information, but again, don't let me stop you, but don't expect me to take this thread seriously (that was the premise of this conversation if you read back a bit)

 

0.I give you this information for free
1.the most common price is 10-20 euros (and complain about high prices)
2.often make big sales with big discount (400-500 packets)
3. many creators have their own stores where you can buy packages at a much lower price (obviously quite lazy to seek information)
4.there are many systems and packages that are free (you are obviously quite lazy to look for)
5.many creators who make weekly or monthly rewards (you are obviously quite lazy to participate)

 

Statistics presented by OnLive back in 2010 suggests that the actual retail cut is 25%.

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/en...010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html

 

That's physical retail. Logistics, storage, physical store front-related and actual physical staff-related expenses apply. I'm not sure it can be applied 1:1 to online retail. Although as I told, I don't have too much experience in this regard.

Also what I forgot to mention that even Humble and also Green Man Gaming does publishing as well, so we cannot be sure how much they cross-finance. And I haven't found anything substantial about GMG's cut or reach, so I won't start to guess it. And admittedly I don't have enough time to look around deeper.

 

Just sell your junk everywhere possible.

Business is a savage venture ruled by bloodthirsty freaks bent on devouring everything in the universe. If you can't beat em, join em. Or humbly live in a cottage in the woods, kept warm by burning your own feces.

 

I was never talking about the Humble Store, I was talking about the Humble Widget from the start. Related, but different. I even said that I don't know what their storefront split is.

This is true, but we also have to ask ourselves: why they would persist with services which run at a loss? If the publishing is profitable but distributing other peoples' stuff is not then why would they keep doing the latter?

Unless it serves some longer term objective it's madness to persist with unprofitable offerings in a business. Cut them and focus on the stuff that is profitable.

 

Humble Store is 25%.

https://humblebundle-a.akamaihd.net.../humble_store_forms_agreement_v2018-08-06.pdf

Spoiler: Section 5 of the Humble License Agreement

 

You seem to have an issue with Epic and you discount what they say as lies. That's fair enough, if you've had bad experiences with them, but I personally haven't. I'm not taking anything they say at face value though, which is why we're having this discussion.

I haven't tried selling on the Marketplace, but my guess is that the market is nowhere near as big as the asset store. Still, it's probably worth trying at some point.

 

I'd rather have a better curated store that accepts less submissions than taking more than 30%.

 

Yeah but that store will earn less money for the store owner once the market gets big enough (it's big enough).

 

That depends on the nature of the competition. It's possible (though I admit unlikely - yet) that opening a highly curated store is more profitable than trying to beat Steam at their own game.

 

I don't mind paying 30% fees if the service returned is worth the value; in handling things out of my knowledge/experience/bandwidth.

I view it in the same way as paying a specialist to perform a task. For example; when my washing machine broke, I paid a plumber to fix it as I didn't have the skills or equipment to do it myself. Of course; I did research to who was best in my apartment's area, how much it cost, customer testimonials, availability etc.

I see lots of comments across various websites that say something like "I don't want to pay X Company any store fees" and my main thought is "You are more than welcome to use any other store (plenty of options!) or make your own store to sell your product on."

 

This still baffles me. Fortnite is basically Unreal Tournament in a different skin. A generic, cookie cutter cartoon fps with some Minecraft-y thing thrown in. How can something so old and bland make so much money? Especially when all the money comes from minor cosmetics?

This is why I'm not in marketing. I would have thrown out the idea immediately and moved on to some big, complicated endeavour.

 

Doesn't matter.
If makes money it makes money.
Same as Flappy Birds, or minecraft, or LoL which is more "advanced".

 

And they did. Originally they made some big, complicated endeavour called Fortnite but when PUBG took off they added a mode for Battle Royale and overnight it eclipsed the original so Epic now refer to this part as FNBR, and it's their main cash cow.

They dithered over fortnite for years trying to figure out where to take it. Must be lessons for us to learn in there.

 

LoL is quite complex actually, very much so at the esport level. You need to know the synergy, the strategies etc. For a casual observer or casual player, none of this is relevant. But when you have 2 elite teams facing each other, the complexities of the "sport" reveal themselves. Certainly you do yourself a grave injustice trivialising it.

 

I'm beginning to think... relatable content > original content

Spoiler

 

So uh... you haven't played Fortnite or UT then I guess? The only similarity they share is that they're shooters.

 

Yeah, I can't speak for JohnnyFactor but I don't play shooters, so they all look identical to me. When Overwatch came out I said "Isn't this just Team Fortress 2 with different graphics?"

 

All games are the same, you perform some kind of input and stuff happens. Borrrrrrrring.

I've played UT; I haven't played Fortnite but it really doesn't look like UT at all. I'm mildly annoyed they seem to have cancelled the new UT in favor of Fortnite.

--Eric

 

Poke around not really doing anything decisive until somebody with a good idea pops up, then jump in front of them at the last second and say, "it was my idea all along!"

Is that the lesson?

 

Maybe better they canceled UT. Latest UT wasn't anything like UT from early 2000s. At least I didn't like it. Just profanation

 

I only ever played UT2004. The build I played of the new UT was kind of meh (hence only being mildly annoyed at the cancellation), but there was a lot left to do, so I expected it would improve.

--Eric

 

I played quite few UT iterations, from its inception. In my experience, after UT2004, whole UT Universe went down the drain. Game was offering less and less, dumbing it down and preparing for console entry level. Which is sad for me.

In fact, I even have UT2004 installed, and some servers are still active.

I would much appreciate for EPIC, never to mention UT ever, to leave its glory as past good memories.

They got current gold eggs laying toys, hence they should stick with them

 

@Eric5h5 @Antypodish Unreal single player forevah'!

 

If 30% is what the stores need to stay in business, then I am all for it. But sometimes I get the feeling that, "30% is the standard, so let's go with the flow"...

 

It's not just that it's standard. It's also that droves of developers are clearly willing to pay it, since they're still clamoring to put their games on those marketplaces.

Why would a store change their splits in that scenario? The complaints don't hit their bottom line. Changing the splits would.

 

30% is not a big problem with revenue because revenue depends on the quality of the asset. The problem is the size of the pie. Unity needs to find a way to increase the pie size. Since the creation of Unreal's MarketStore, the pie in the Unity Asset Store seems to have shrunk.

My ideas for this is 3 things. but these may need to be modified the Unity Website and systems.

1. Education-related communities in 'Learn Unity' should be integrated with the Unity Asset Store. Assets sold had educational value as a code sample or an example. It is also the best way to purchase time and money at a reasonable price. This should be used to attract the Unity Asset Store as an educational tool.

2. Unity Asset Store engages and contracts with other stores. Integrate or connect with a portfolio of designers and communities that function as resumes. The gap between the rich and the poor is getting bigger. so I have seen a lot around the sellers avoiding sales at the Unity Asset Store as the poor income. To resolve this, the Unity Asset Store must be able to help sellers. If you want to see any clues about this, refer to 'Artstation' and 'Cubeush'. Although they started later than the Unity Asset Store, the market is active. The reason is that stores have already attracted non-publisher people(employers) from portfolio list.

3. Unity should attract AAA-class games. Mobile games are good, but their limitations are clear, and Unity Asset Store buyers try to solve most of the technology by buying it from Asset Store as an AAA-class developer. so Unity should appeal its history of developing AAA-class games, and should appeal the possibility of developing AAA-class games more actively.

※ I am not an English speaker. I used a translator. I am sorry my poor English.

 

To add something more to this, though entirely anecdotal: I don't buy anything off the asset store anymore. I'll grab free stuff, but I've been buying most of my assets off itch.io lately, and itch.io allows you to set your own revenue split. This is just me though, and an anecdote, so I highly doubt it's a viable alternative.