Valve COO on Epic's Tim Sweeney "you mad bro?" when launching the Epic Store

I'm not going to sit here and say I full heartedly support valve, since steam is DRM after all and quite frankly the client has been pretty crap on linux the past year or so, but if Sweeny thinks he's got the support of gamers or indie-devs he's pretty delusional.

He can complain about the 30% cut all he wants, but despite all his efforts the epic game store has been a flop and a half. Maybe if he wasn't a prick and didn't have the horrible hot-take stances he tends to and didn't make idiotic decisions like pulling their own (older) games off their own store then people would like him more. At the end of the day people are willing to put up with the drm of steam because of all the features and services valve offers in return, and on the dev side people are willing to put up with the 30% cut because of the large customer base valve offers in return; EGS doesn't offer enough value to make spending money on it worthwhile.

Sweeney's point here is that Valve make a lot of money from that 30% cut and goes on to say "If you subtract out the top 25 games on Steam, I bet Valve made more profit from most of the next 1000 than the developer themselves made" and complains that when you add together Valve's cut, marketing and so on that the cut for developers is small.

So his first argument is that Valve is making more money from the games that sell really well than the publisher themselves.

Valve almost immediately reduces their cut of games that sell really well:

It was only a few days later (quite cheekily then), that Valve suddenly publicly announced their plan to reduce their take for the top-selling Steam games.

And then Tim Sweeney complains about Valve not doing it for everyone and only the big publishers benefit (that isn't necessarily true; small developers occasionally ship hits).

If Valve reduced their cut for everyone, what would his next argument be?

I'm trying to take Tim Sweeney's side here because it's true that Valve has a near-monopoly on PC games (I wish they had a monopoly on Japanese VNs too) and monopoly power should not exist, but these arguments don't seem to be coming from a place where I can assume good faith.

What I find even more absurd is that it to me sounds like he actually is quite ok with Valve taking 30% but is having more of a problem with Apple doing it and wants Valve to lower their commission to thus somehow force Apple to lower theirs as well.

I could probably make an argument that Valve does deserve 30% but Apple do not. After all, one thing that's been pointed out repeatedly in this thread is that Valve does a lot more than be a store--they got all these features, community, support for modding, yadda yadda, and the claim many of us have made is that it's this extra stuff that makes Valve worth the 30%. I don't think Apple does any of that stuff, so it would follow they're not worth the 30%.

That I think we all can agree, not sure I follow in Tim:s reasoning that it's up to Valve to change the cut so Apple might be forced to follow (why they now would be forced, I mean there is no law on what cut you can take and Apple have full monopoly on the iPhone app market).

Also not sure how Valve who gets 30% could make more money than the devs that gets the remaining 70% as he claims (and even if we include the typical publisher who:s average cut is 10%-20%, the devs should still get > 30%).

His claim isn't about revenue, but about profit: specifically, that for "most" of the 26 - 1,025 top selling games, (30% - taxes - cost of doing Steam things) is greater than (70% - publisher cut - taxes - cost of doing game-making things). Which is still a pretty incoherent claim (it makes zero difference to anything whether the claim is true or whether the claim is false), and Valve don't take 30% off the biggest games any more anyway.

True that he talked about profits and the devs have quite an investment to pay off before they make a profit, and I guess that it's my non-US perspective that didn't consider that companies over there pay less taxes than a small dev team.


Last edited by F.Ultra on 15 March 2024 at 8:49 pm UTC

I legit think that there are entities that are just mad that Valve is not a public traded company and can't be easily corrupted or remotely influenced/controlled.

We learned this week from Sweet Baby Inc being kicked off Steam for extortion and subsequent GlowFeds going after Valve for it that there are powers who are angry and want to dictate what games you get to play. I wouldn't mid a article or two sourcing these events in a factual fashion.

Absolutely agree with this. IMO the single biggest issue with the "AAA" gaming industry is that they are all publicly traded companies which has drastically shifted everything about the companies. From getting too involved in playing politics to the way they do business and how they treat their employees, these old giants of the gaming industry are nothing like the companies they used to be. May they all die a deserved death.

Here, have a multi-paragraph ramble about Epic.

I have trouble believing Epic and Tim Sweeney give even one iota of a shit about the little guy, given his track record supporting non-Windows PC gaming. Epic took their game off macOS, a platform where you aren't limited by the App Store like iOS is, for petty reasons. Now, all macOS users that used to be able to play Fortnite just fine can only play a neutered version from three and a half years ago. They told a chunk of their audience, people who might have sunk money into Fortnite back in the day, to piss off.
I think the only reason they talk about lower cuts is because Fortnite made a boatload of money, but Timmy wants more. If Fortnite didn't explode in popularity, Epic wouldn't care. Epic's self-proclaimed "champion of the little guy" title is laughable.

And another thing, pretty much everyone who plays games on PC, myself included, hate using Epic's store, because EGS is just a straight-up horrible service. I have to go play some game, and it's on a completely different and much worse service all my other games are on. The interface is so sluggish, it makes the Wii U on launch day blush (and at least the Wii U had an excuse). The only user feedback you can give is a random question about Fortnite every now and then.
I pretty much only use EGS when I need to, and to freeload and promptly forget about whatever game they're giving away.
It kind of reminds me of Origin back in the day, an annoying, unneccesary service I only used to grab its free games.

All that being said though, I'm not really that big of a fan of Steam, but it typically does things right and that's where I'll buy most games. I'll buy games from other storefronts, like Itch and GOG, but I make a point to never purchase a game through Epic. I would rather just wait for it to come out on a platform I actually want to use.

If Steam did reduce their cuts across the board, it'd be nice. Epic doesn't genuinely care about that from what I see of them, though.


Last edited by pilk on 15 March 2024 at 9:15 pm UTC

That I think we all can agree, not sure I follow in Tim:s reasoning that it's up to Valve to change the cut so Apple might be forced to follow (why they now would be forced, I mean there is no law on what cut you can take and Apple have full monopoly on the iPhone app market).

Epic doesn't care about "30%". At all.

Sweeney said that if Apple had given Epic special favourable terms that left everyone else in the lurch, they'd have taken it.

What they are bothered by is Apple's control of Apple's platform, so that when, say, legislators in a country say "you've got to take these applications off your platform" then Apple can. And have. For Epic's applications.

What they wanted was for the other platform controllers to collude to drop prices so that Apple would be standing alone & vulnerable when Epic sent the regulators knocking on Apple's door. Humble went along with it, and it's pretty much killed their business. Microsoft went along with it (but only for Windows, not Xbox) because they really want the Windows Store on iOS and Android. They didn't disturb Sony because Epic is so reliant on PlayStation Fortnite money. Google wouldn't go along with it. And Valve wouldn't go along with it, so Epic decided to use their Fortnite money to open their own store to (fail to) compete with Steam.

I will say this:

The antitrust lawsuits against Apple and Google can only help in limiting the duopoly on mobile and making the experience better for both Android and iOS users. Especially iOS users.

That I think we all can agree, not sure I follow in Tim:s reasoning that it's up to Valve to change the cut so Apple might be forced to follow (why they now would be forced, I mean there is no law on what cut you can take and Apple have full monopoly on the iPhone app market).

Epic doesn't care about "30%". At all.

Sweeney said that if Apple had given Epic special favourable terms that left everyone else in the lurch, they'd have taken it.

What they are bothered by is Apple's control of Apple's platform, so that when, say, legislators in a country say "you've got to take these applications off your platform" then Apple can. And have. For Epic's applications.

What they wanted was for the other platform controllers to collude to drop prices so that Apple would be standing alone & vulnerable when Epic sent the regulators knocking on Apple's door. Humble went along with it, and it's pretty much killed their business. Microsoft went along with it (but only for Windows, not Xbox) because they really want the Windows Store on iOS and Android. They didn't disturb Sony because Epic is so reliant on PlayStation Fortnite money. Google wouldn't go along with it. And Valve wouldn't go along with it, so Epic decided to use their Fortnite money to open their own store to (fail to) compete with Steam.

ah, that makes so much more sense!

I will say this:

The antitrust lawsuits against Apple and Google can only help in limiting the duopoly on mobile and making the experience better for both Android and iOS users. Especially iOS users.

Agreed here. Apple and Google are both pretty horrible on all the things they do to control their respective platform/monopoly.
The duopoly is clearly secured when you try to find any sort of alternative; linux on mobile (outside of android) is basically a joke at best at this point, and realistically the best de-googled option of android is grapheneos which is only developed for google's devices.
And android is the "open" platform of the two.

linux on mobile (outside of android) is basically a joke at best at this point

That's a bit harsh. I've been happy with Sailfish OS on my phones for years, and the wife isn't complaining either. If you're into mobile gaming or something, sure, it's not a realistic option, but it's certainly not a joke for those of us with simpler needs.

linux on mobile (outside of android) is basically a joke at best at this point

That's a bit harsh. I've been happy with Sailfish OS on my phones for years, and the wife isn't complaining either. If you're into mobile gaming or something, sure, it's not a realistic option, but it's certainly not a joke for those of us with simpler needs.

I've owned a Pinephone for a few years now. I never use it and would never rely on it for even my simple needs with a phone. For reference, those are:

• Maps


• Messages


• Calls


• Email


• 2FA device


• Banking (can do it in the browser, I guess)

The first time I received the phone, the modem was completely dead and I needed to RMA it. I needed to completely disassemble the phone and then re-assemble it when the replacement part arrived (thankfully free-of-charge). It seemed to be working after this.

Once I finally managed to get the SIM card into the phone (contender for "least fun experience ever"), it was...okay. I can't run Signal on it, so I can't message anybody. The touch/gestures registration leaves a lot to be desired. It's very slow. The battery life is awful unless I carry around an extra Li-on battery in my pocket to swap when it's getting low (I'm reminded of traveling with a DSLR). I can't trust it to be able to handle calls when I need them. It's the flakiest thing I've ever owned. I consider myself willing to put up with a lot, but the experience is going to need to become a lot more reliable before I consider revisiting it and relying on it again.

And, well, it may not matter anyway, as Linux-based operating systems are considering dropping support for the Pinephone after only a few years.

Perhaps the experience is better on Android phones that have been flashed with a Linux-based operating system. I'd rather just run GrapheneOS right now, to be honest.

30%? Now, let's talk about Audible....

linux on mobile (outside of android) is basically a joke at best at this point

That's a bit harsh. I've been happy with Sailfish OS on my phones for years, and the wife isn't complaining either. If you're into mobile gaming or something, sure, it's not a realistic option, but it's certainly not a joke for those of us with simpler needs.

I've owned a Pinephone for a few years now. I never use it and would never rely on it for even my simple needs with a phone. For reference, those are:

• Maps


• Messages


• Calls


• Email


• 2FA device


• Banking (can do it in the browser, I guess)

Yeah, I couldn't do banking on my phone. I wouldn't even want to, but I'm sure that's a blocker for many people. The rest of the stuff on your list (and calendar events, alarms, etc.) are fine.

I can't run Signal on it, so I can't message anybody.

Signal's official Android app worked fine on my Sailfish phone (using the inbuilt Android compatibility layer) when I tried it, except that it couldn't access my contacts. There's also a native client called Whisperfish that's still a bit janky but it mostly does the job. Same goes for Telegram: The official Android app works fine, and so does the slightly stripped down version on F-Droid, but I use a native FOSS client called Fernschreiber to chat to my Telegram contacts. But only if I'm not near a computer. I like a proper keyboard.

Perhaps the experience is better on Android phones that have been flashed with a Linux-based operating system.

We've got a couple of Sony Xperia 10 III phones with paid Sailfish X licenses, and the OS installation was a manual process. There are currently no phones available with Sailfish OS pre-installed.

Before these I had the original Xperia 10, and before that the original Jolla phone from 2013 (a developer version that I got for free). As you can see, I don't really like phones, and I don't buy new ones until I absolutely need to.

30%? Now, let's talk about Audible....

Amazon takes 75%, for those curious, and 60% if you agree to make your audiobook exclusive to Audible. This is before the publisher even takes their cut.

Yeah, I couldn't do banking on my phone. I wouldn't even want to, but I'm sure that's a blocker for many people. The rest of the stuff on your list (and calendar events, alarms, etc.) are fine.

I can't carry around enough cash for all possible purchases (besides, the number of stores even accepting cash is decreasing), so I need an easy way to transfer money quickly. Notifications for unexpected transactions also help me notice fraud more quickly.

The NFC payment feature in my banking app is also handy for reducing fraud, and isn't tied to Apple, Google, Samsung, or god forbid, Meta. Only to my bank, who has all my details and transaction history anyway. Not a requirement, but definite value add.

My phone is also a lot more secure than my computers (my GrapheneOS phone anyway, not my Pinephone), so I can't blame anybody for wanting to do their banking on a phone. Despite my distaste for phones, that's not a point I can even debate.

Signal's official Android app worked fine on my Sailfish phone (using the inbuilt Android compatibility layer) when I tried it, except that it couldn't access my contacts. There's also a native client called Whisperfish that's still a bit janky but it mostly does the job. Same goes for Telegram: The official Android app works fine, and so does the slightly stripped down version on F-Droid, but I use a native FOSS client called Fernschreiber to chat to my Telegram contacts. But only if I'm not near a computer. I like a proper keyboard.

The problem is, Signal requires me to have one phone and only one phone. You can only have one primary phone, and you can't transfer message history (easily), and it's all a big pain. I've heard Waydroid takes upwards of 7 minutes to startup on a Pinephone. Even if it worked (I tried Axolotl a few years ago, it did not work), I'm just not willing to disable one device so I can only use it on another. And the fact that I even feel I need a "backup phone" is reason enough not to do it. That's Signal's fault, but it is the biggest blocker for me. I'm glad it works for you.

I despise typing on a phone. Everything about it is awful. But, well, sometimes I don't have a keyboard near me, or need to call someone when I'm out.

We've got a couple of Sony Xperia 10 III phones with paid Sailfish X licenses, and the OS installation was a manual process. There are currently no phones available with Sailfish OS pre-installed.

Before these I had the original Xperia 10, and before that the original Jolla phone from 2013 (a developer version that I got for free). As you can see, I don't really like phones, and I don't buy new ones until I absolutely need to.

If you wanted to run Linux on a phone, that would be the way to do it. Definitely don't buy a Pinephone...unless you just want something to play with for a few hours.

I'm not a fan of phones either. That's why I bought a Google Pixel when my iPhone went EOL (longest life of all Android phones, comparable to iPhones, for much cheaper), flashed GrapheneOS on it, installed as few apps as possible, and leave it plugged into the charger most of the time. It's precisely because I don't like phones that I want something with minimal fuss. GrapheneOS is as good a compromise between free software and usability I think I'm going to get right now. Only three of my apps are from Google Play; the rest I get from Github and the like via Obtainium.

And just for some levity: https://youtu.be/qBHgJx_rb8E

Amazon takes 75%, for those curious, and 60% if you agree to make your audiobook exclusive to Audible. This is before the publisher even takes their cut.

It's actually generally considered pretty good deal, the audiobook stuff is.
You come off pretty well. You may earn a little bit less. […] The money is not as good as print but that's because they also have to hire all these people to do these wonderful audiobooks and a lot of money is going to them as deservedly so. So, you can expect to earn around 2 bucks an audiobook. And that's good money.

Brandon Sanderson on Audible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C59eOLX2K-A&t=2106

If I was doing all the work then I'd take more money, too. Whether it's generally a fair deal is a different question (the lecture is almost ancient) but it's also not generally unfair.

/edit: Published too soon by mistake.


Last edited by poiuz on 17 March 2024 at 2:27 pm UTC

Yeah, I couldn't do banking on my phone. I wouldn't even want to, but I'm sure that's a blocker for many people. The rest of the stuff on your list (and calendar events, alarms, etc.) are fine.

I can't carry around enough cash for all possible purchases (besides, the number of stores even accepting cash is decreasing), so I need an easy way to transfer money quickly. Notifications for unexpected transactions also help me notice fraud more quickly.

The NFC payment feature in my banking app is also handy for reducing fraud, and isn't tied to Apple, Google, Samsung, or god forbid, Meta. Only to my bank, who has all my details and transaction history anyway. Not a requirement, but definite value add.

Yeah, I don't carry cash either. I pay with my debit card, mostly with its contactless (NFC) payment feature. But I'm sure available payment methods vary by country.

My phone is also a lot more secure than my computers (my GrapheneOS phone anyway, not my Pinephone), so I can't blame anybody for wanting to do their banking on a phone. Despite my distaste for phones, that's not a point I can even debate.

So I won't debate. I simply have a hard time trusting a phone any better than I trust the browser on my Linux desktop.

Signal's official Android app worked fine on my Sailfish phone (using the inbuilt Android compatibility layer) when I tried it, except that it couldn't access my contacts. There's also a native client called Whisperfish that's still a bit janky but it mostly does the job. Same goes for Telegram: The official Android app works fine, and so does the slightly stripped down version on F-Droid, but I use a native FOSS client called Fernschreiber to chat to my Telegram contacts. But only if I'm not near a computer. I like a proper keyboard.

The problem is, Signal requires me to have one phone and only one phone. You can only have one primary phone, and you can't transfer message history (easily), and it's all a big pain. I've heard Waydroid takes upwards of 7 minutes to startup on a Pinephone. Even if it worked (I tried Axolotl a few years ago, it did not work), I'm just not willing to disable one device so I can only use it on another. And the fact that I even feel I need a "backup phone" is reason enough not to do it. That's Signal's fault, but it is the biggest blocker for me. I'm glad it works for you.

Yeah, Signal can be inconvenient, even if most people only use one phone at a time. The Alien Dalvik Android layer on Sailfish X is pretty seamless though. If apps work, they work pretty well. And most apps I've tried (from F-Droid, mostly) have been fine. Although currently the only Android app I use regularly is an eBook reader.

I despise typing on a phone. Everything about it is awful. But, well, sometimes I don't have a keyboard near me, or need to call someone when I'm out.

Same. I actively avoid chatting and writing emails on a phone. I also actively avoid phone calls, but that has nothing to do with the operating systems. I just don't like talking on the phone.

Amazon takes 75%, for those curious, and 60% if you agree to make your audiobook exclusive to Audible. This is before the publisher even takes their cut.

It's actually generally considered pretty good deal, the audiobook stuff is.
You come off pretty well. You may earn a little bit less. […] The money is not as good as print but that's because they also have to hire all these people to do these wonderful audiobooks and a lot of money is going to them as deservedly so. So, you can expect to earn around 2 bucks an audiobook. And that's good money.

Brandon Sanderson on Audible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C59eOLX2K-A&t=2106

If I was doing all the work then I'd take more money, too. Whether it's generally a fair deal is a different question (the lecture is almost ancient) but it's also not generally unfair.

/edit: Published too soon by mistake.

Those are revenue shares for any audiobooks you do that you want to put on Audible, including your own. I don't know what the deal is with Audible Originals. There's an argument to be made that there are much larger files involved than ebooks (about 100-200 times larger, in some cases), but that's still incredibly cutthroat. Audible can demand that because everyone uses Audible for audiobooks. Where else are you going to go?

The publisher that pays for the audiobook to be done (either in-house or contracted out from a studio Audible has no ties with) gets 25-40% of the revenue, as compared to 70% on Kindle. You have more options for ebooks. Way more options. Apple Books is probably the most profitable store, actually.

Edit: I've watched the bit of the lecture you linked. Yes, Brandon's argument that you have a captive audience is a good one. Audible's monopoly on audiobooks means that, despite earning a lot less, you can expect to make more sales than selling direct on your publisher's site, for example.

If you had the marketing budget, would it be more effective advertising on Amazon to get more Audible sales, or more effective driving traffic to your own site and getting 100% of the revenue? Would advertising on Amazon get you 4 sales for every 1 sale you get driving traffic to your site? Bit of a tough question without analytics, but i don't think it's quite 4 times as much in most cases. But if you exclusively sell on Amazon and get the 60-40 revenue share? Well, then Audible starts to make more sense...

The downside, of course, is that you can't sell DRM-free audiobooks on Audible. So you could screw over your customers by taking the exclusive deal and not offering them a DRM-free version on the publisher's site, and possibly make more money, reinforcing Audible's monopoly.


Last edited by pleasereadthemanual on 17 March 2024 at 3:04 pm UTC

30%? Now, let's talk about Audible....

Amazon takes 75%, for those curious, and 60% if you agree to make your audiobook exclusive to Audible. This is before the publisher even takes their cut.

When it comes to concentrated evil, it is hard to beat Amazon. They seem to work very hard at it.

Amazon takes 75%, for those curious, and 60% if you agree to make your audiobook exclusive to Audible. This is before the publisher even takes their cut.

It's actually generally considered pretty good deal, the audiobook stuff is.
You come off pretty well. You may earn a little bit less. […] The money is not as good as print but that's because they also have to hire all these people to do these wonderful audiobooks and a lot of money is going to them as deservedly so. So, you can expect to earn around 2 bucks an audiobook. And that's good money.

Brandon Sanderson on Audible, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C59eOLX2K-A&t=2106

If I was doing all the work then I'd take more money, too. Whether it's generally a fair deal is a different question (the lecture is almost ancient) but it's also not generally unfair.

/edit: Published too soon by mistake.

Those are revenue shares for any audiobooks you do that you want to put on Audible, including your own. I don't know what the deal is with Audible Originals. There's an argument to be made that there are much larger files involved than ebooks (about 100-200 times larger, in some cases), but that's still incredibly cutthroat. Audible can demand that because everyone uses Audible for audiobooks. Where else are you going to go?

The publisher that pays for the audiobook to be done (either in-house or contracted out from a studio Audible has no ties with) gets 25-40% of the revenue, as compared to 70% on Kindle. You have more options for ebooks. Way more options. Apple Books is probably the most profitable store, actually.

Edit: I've watched the bit of the lecture you linked. Yes, Brandon's argument that you have a captive audience is a good one. Audible's monopoly on audiobooks means that, despite earning a lot less, you can expect to make more sales than selling direct on your publisher's site, for example.

If you had the marketing budget, would it be more effective advertising on Amazon to get more Audible sales, or more effective driving traffic to your own site and getting 100% of the revenue? Would advertising on Amazon get you 4 sales for every 1 sale you get driving traffic to your site? Bit of a tough question without analytics, but i don't think it's quite 4 times as much in most cases. But if you exclusively sell on Amazon and get the 60-40 revenue share? Well, then Audible starts to make more sense...

The downside, of course, is that you can't sell DRM-free audiobooks on Audible. So you could screw over your customers by taking the exclusive deal and not offering them a DRM-free version on the publisher's site, and possibly make more money, reinforcing Audible's monopoly.

The basic problem comes down to monopoly. Something should be done about that problem. On this topic a good read is Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow's "Chokepoint Capitalism".

The basic problem comes down to monopoly. Something should be done about that problem. On this topic a good read is Rebecca Giblin and Cory Doctorow's "Chokepoint Capitalism".

I'm a fan of Cory Doctorow. Unauthorized Bread has been my favorite of his since pretty much when it was out. I'll have to get to Chokepoint Capitalism eventually.

Cory Doctorow has also written about Audible: https://www.brandonsanderson.com/guest-editorial-cory-doctorow-is-a-bestselling-author-but-audible-wont-carry-his-audiobooks/

I see that the chapter I listened to was actually an excerpt from Chokepoint Capitalism. All the more reason to buy that book sometime soon (I'm still listening to Little Brother).