[dkonofalski]

That's not true in the slightest, though. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Steam all take 30% for distribution and hosting, same as Apple. It's not artificially high if it's in line with the rest of the tech industry and if you want to try and claim that it's because of some monopoly, vertical or otherwise, then you have to explain why the other storefronts are also monopolies.

It's not a monopoly. Other phones and ecosystems exist.

[freetanga]

On consoles I can buy a digital copy, and I believe the 30% does not apply.

On Windows I can buy a digital copy on the devs website and MS gets nothing.

On Steam, I could buy the game in another storefront (GOG), or Direct, and Valve would get nothing.

On Android I could use a separate AppStore and Google would get nothing…

In other words, in all those platforms devs can opt in to participate on a centralized store taking 30%, or keeping an alternative channel with higher revenues. On iOS, not so much.

Years ago, Apple had a loving relationship with Devs. Now Apple is an over demanding Karen yelling over her alimony payments every end of the month.

[etchalon]

Digital copies on consoles still get 30%, and console agreements may include additional royalties beyond that.

There is no way, on any major console, to "opt out" of the fee.

Mac has the same options available to developers as Windows.

Steam's third-party redemption mechanic is notable, and awesome.

On Android, different third-party stores have different fees. Samsung, for instance, charges the same 30% as Google. Epic's store charges 12%.

[arrosenberg]

> Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and Steam all take 30% for distribution and hosting, same as Apple.

> It's not a monopoly.

I believe you have accurately described a cartel, however.

[ribosometronome]

I believe you're arguing in bad faith. Are you just becoming aware of these companies 30% cuts? Why were you calling Apple a monopoly if you think this is a cartel issue? What evidence do you have of cartel behavior other than that people followed suite in setting rates?

[arrosenberg]

You shouldn't make that assumption without significantly more proof. Why can't it be both? In the App space Apple has the dominant position in a duopoly, and in the software distribution space more broadly there is cartel-like behavior occurring regarding commissions because distribution has become a major chokepoint (I'm guessing thanks to DRM, but that's probably oversimplifying).

[s1artibartfast]

Cartel =/= same rate. It requires more than just price matching. this is why gas stations and grocery stores aren't cartels either.

[arrosenberg]

There are absolutely antitrust issues with grocery stores - Kroger/Albertsons is being contested right now! It's a major contributor to food deserts. It's not a cartel because the main players aren't acting in concert, but they are attempting to monopolize regionally. Walmart has also concentrated way too much power, but that's the 800 lb gorilla no one wants to touch.

That said, gas stations and grocery stores deal in commodity products. The video game companies are much more integrated with many games that will only run on one system, stores will only run on one type of hardware, and games are not transferrable between competitor systems. Competition is extremely restrained because of these exclusive and limited distribution agreements. The fact that they all maintain the same line on prices is a very clear signal of cartel behavior when you take the context into account - they are using control of a distribution chokepoint to control competition and pricing power. That's the essence of why antitrust laws passed in the first place.

[s1artibartfast]

I dont have an opinion on regional monopoly, just the cartel issue, because I almost never hear it used correctly.

[selectodude]

Epic has a game store charging 12 percent and nobody seems to care much about it.

[etchalon]

Because developers go where the users are. That's all that matters.

Epic had to pay developers, a lot, to bootstrap the Epic store so that there were games there that mattered. And even now, with a decent selection, most PC gamers still use Steam. Because all their games are on Steam already. And every game they care about is on Steam.

So Steam can charge 30% and Epic can charge 12% and nothing really changes.

[arrosenberg]

Probably has to do with market power. For my money, none of these companies should be allowed to own a game marketplace. The distribution channels should be stand alone from the hardware and software producers.

[kevingadd]

This is not accurate. Do more research. Steam has a tiered cut they introduced to keep big players on their store, for example. Google and Apple both offer a lower rate for small business. And alternative stores on PC successfully operate with much lower cuts (EGS, GOG, itch, humble). It's not "in line with the rest of the industry", it's "no higher than the other bad ones".

Steam also doesn't collect 30% for distribution (ie developer issued keys for things like bundles)