While Steam continues to do well with it being the most popular games store, it seems CD PROJEKT Group's store GOG is really starting to struggle.
CD PROJEKT recently released their latest financial results, along with a call with investors that went over how the whole business is doing. It's not all bad news for them, since they saw overall 38% more sales revenue compared to the third quarter of last year. On the GOG side though, it posted increasing losses and so it's going to be restructured.
Over the current year to date it appears GOG has seen losses of about $2.21 million, which is pretty bad considering the 1.37 million they gained during the same period last year.
They've said that GOG "should focus more on its core business activity - which means offering a handpicked selection of games with its unique DRM- free philosophy" and so there's going to be some changes to the GOG team, with some moving over instead to CD PROJEKT RED. Additionally, they've "initiated reorganization of GOG’s operations" to focus on the "core business" and they're hoping this will "improve its financial effectiveness in 2022".
It's not really surprising, when you think that Epic Games continue to desperately try and turn a profit by pulling more customers to their store and even they don't expect to turn a profit until at least 2024.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
Quoting: kuhpunktQuoting: MalBut when Epic arrived they felt the pressure to even lowered fees for large publishers. That closes any possible claim of monopoly in front of any court.
Valve never lowered the fees for large publishers. They lowered the fees for EVERYBODY who made a certain amount of money - and that was announced before the EGS was announced. Maybe they heard some industry chatter, but there were no signs of that.
"EVERYBODY who made a certain amount of money" doesn't make it large publishers? Without mass investments into commercials it's hard to consistently make "certain amount of money" in any business. Let alone a overcrowded business like VGs. And that is essentially publishers business and role in the industry.
I remembered that EGS was not open but already announced. I might be wrong. But if they did it before EGS was announced, that would make a monopoly case even weaker: there was already enough competition to put them under pressure even before Tim crusade. Now it might not even be worth considering.
Last edited by Mal on 1 December 2021 at 3:45 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Mal"EVERYBODY who made a certain amount of money" doesn't make it large publishers? Without mass investments into commercials it's hard to consistently make "certain amount of money" in any business. Let alone a overcrowded business like VGs. And that is essentially publishers business and role in the industry.
Stardew Valley
2 Likes, Who?
Quoting: Mal"EVERYBODY who made a certain amount of money" doesn't make it large publishers? Without mass investments into commercials it's hard to consistently make "certain amount of money" in any business. Let alone a overcrowded business like VGs. And that is essentially publishers business and role in the industry.
Valheim or Stardew Valley... no big publishers or whatever. They made enough money to get a bigger percentage of sales numbers. Other big games fail. You say it like it's a default... that big publishers already get a bigger cut, when that's just not the case. Valve made no deals for anybody.
Quoting: MalI remembered that EGS was not open but already announced. I might be wrong. But if they did it before EGS was announced, that would make a monopoly case even weaker: there was already enough competition to put them under pressure even before Tim crusade. Now it might not even be worth considering.
It was before the EGS was announced. Just by a few days, but it was before... as I said, maybe they heard something through the grapevine, but I can't make a judgment there.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition
https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/announcing-the-epic-games-store
Last edited by kuhpunkt on 1 December 2021 at 4:08 pm UTC
1 Likes, Who?
Oh come on. Don't point the exception to the rule and call it the norm. :D
I'm not saying that indies can't sell millions. Most of those who did I bought a copy as well so I know (including stardew). But they are not consistent. It's a combination of having a good game, healthy PR and be a little lucky with network effect. But just a 0.0x% of all of them makes it. They win the lottery.
While for big publishers it's the opposite. They run commercials everywhere and they sell millions even with a broken or boring game. Then they might call "underperforming title" and in extreme cases not even recoup the costs of the commercials. But to not hit the threshold is just a 0.0x% of all the titles they publish. Publishers are consistent, because that's how all business survives the "natural selection".
Lowering the fees for low sales titles would mean that more indies can have another shot to the moon or can have a less hard life while they try their best to make somethign good. Lowering fees for big sales titles may benefit the occasional Barone out there (and I'm happy for him, he deserves), but mostly help investors in large publishers. I don't think I have to come here and enumerate how many exceptional launches of AAA games resulted in mass burnouts and firings in the ranks in the last years.
And I say this with candid honesty. I too work with professionalism (hoping to not burnout or be fired after doing all I can to meet deadlines) and I too invest my little savings (in hope of largest return as possible). I'd hate to be exploited as a worker as much as being exploited as an investor.
I'm not saying that indies can't sell millions. Most of those who did I bought a copy as well so I know (including stardew). But they are not consistent. It's a combination of having a good game, healthy PR and be a little lucky with network effect. But just a 0.0x% of all of them makes it. They win the lottery.
While for big publishers it's the opposite. They run commercials everywhere and they sell millions even with a broken or boring game. Then they might call "underperforming title" and in extreme cases not even recoup the costs of the commercials. But to not hit the threshold is just a 0.0x% of all the titles they publish. Publishers are consistent, because that's how all business survives the "natural selection".
Lowering the fees for low sales titles would mean that more indies can have another shot to the moon or can have a less hard life while they try their best to make somethign good. Lowering fees for big sales titles may benefit the occasional Barone out there (and I'm happy for him, he deserves), but mostly help investors in large publishers. I don't think I have to come here and enumerate how many exceptional launches of AAA games resulted in mass burnouts and firings in the ranks in the last years.
And I say this with candid honesty. I too work with professionalism (hoping to not burnout or be fired after doing all I can to meet deadlines) and I too invest my little savings (in hope of largest return as possible). I'd hate to be exploited as a worker as much as being exploited as an investor.
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: MalOh come on. Don't point the exception to the rule and call it the norm. :D
Even if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestWell, I hope everyone here is aware that the problems GOG has have absolutely zero to do with the (non)existence of a Linux client. The percentage of Linux users there is unlikely much different from the Steam one, and a 1% unhappy customers won't cause such a loss....True enough. I think people are just sort of saying "I know I ought to be upset about the no-DRM store having problems, but this is why, from a Linux perspective, I don't much care."
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: kuhpunktEven if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.
Fine. I'm out.
Last edited by Mal on 2 December 2021 at 12:14 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: kuhpunktQuoting: MalOh come on. Don't point the exception to the rule and call it the norm. :D
Even if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.
But they did. In 2018, they reduced their fees for big publishers (technically any game over $10M sales is reduced). What am I missing here?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition
Edit:
Wait, just re-read - are you (kuhpunkt) suggesting that it's technically not a price reduction for big publishers because like 2 indies managed to make $10M of sales!?!
Haha - okay then. Yeah, I'm with Mal. They reduced their prices for big publishers, make no mistake. The fact that a couple of indie lottery winners benefited as well is of no relevance. It was done to appease the big guns and honestly, it's probably the only reason we're seeing Origin games back on Steam. I also believe it's the only reason we're seeing some Sony titles on there too. Their motivation here was clear. I'm gobsmacked you're arguing such a technicality.
Last edited by scaine on 1 December 2021 at 11:59 pm UTC
3 Likes, Who?
Quoting: scaineQuoting: kuhpunktQuoting: MalOh come on. Don't point the exception to the rule and call it the norm. :D
Even if true - it still has nothing to do with your claim that Valve lowered the fees for big publishers. They didn't. They still have a 30%/70% share.
But they did. In 2018, they reduced their fees for big publishers (technically any game over $10M sales is reduced). What am I missing here?
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/30/18120577/valve-steam-game-marketplace-revenue-split-new-rules-competition
Edit:
Wait, just re-read - are you (kuhpunkt) suggesting that it's technically not a price reduction for big publishers because like 2 indies managed to make $10M of sales!?!
Haha - okay then. Yeah, I'm with Mal. They reduced their prices for big publishers, make no mistake. The fact that a couple of indie lottery winners benefited as well is of no relevance. It was done to appease the big guns and honestly, it's probably the only reason we're seeing Origin games back on Steam. I also believe it's the only reason we're seeing some Sony titles on there too. Their motivation here was clear. I'm gobsmacked you're arguing such a technicality.
It's not a technicality. There is a 30%/70% cut for everybody. If they had reduced the fees for big publishers like you say, they would have a 20%/80% cut as a default. That is not the case. How can you claim that they reduced the fees when they didn't?
If anything, you could say that they introduced a tiered system that favors big publishers - but they still have to earn that higher tier.
Last edited by kuhpunkt on 2 December 2021 at 8:05 am UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestThen Humble. OK, they're not dead, they still lurk around like a Zombie, selling Steam keys. Pitiful fate for a former spearhead of DRM-free and platform-independent gaming....
Slightly OT - This change didn't happen because of Steam actually, Humble sold themselves to IGN in late ~2017 which is when things started to change with them.
1 Likes, Who?
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me