EA/Publishers has the option to set regional pricing on steam however they wish, the better question you should ask is why they don’t -when they can
My guess is steam/epic lumps your country into a regional group, that differs from each platform respectively, and EA just uses it lazily as a default setting instead of actually setting the regional price (if they are even bothered to be aware)
because it’s not that Publishers can’t give you the same price on steam, they just choose not to /shrug
EA/Publishers has the option to set regional pricing on steam however they wish, the better question you should ask is why they don’t -when they can
I know, I know, but by the time I get around to actually playing it, it will be a great game (hopefully)
Steam puts all these countries in “international”, so that will include both really rich Gulf countries as well as really poor countries
There is not one single regionally priced game on Steam where I live, so it’s not EA’s fault. I think we can all agree that really rich countries shouldn’t be sold these games cheaper.
It’s just one example of things Epic are doing better than Steam atm (and yes, I’ll agree it’s one of the very few things, and Steam is so much better on so many levels; ofc I fully agree, but it seems some ppl can’t ever agree they do a single good thing)
you have the option to put each and every individual country pricing if you want, or use a premade group, you can set individual price or even a catch all price (the latter is what often happens with indie devs that don’t pay attention to regions/individual countries for instance and just enter “20€”-then steam auto converts it to XY currency for the same 20€ output)
the tools are there, publishers just choose to not bother to apply them “correctly”
This is the part I want to comment on.
Firstly, not all companies operate let alone perform the same, it isn’t about believing it. Thinking that way doesn’t make it true. Secondly, a company sadly doesn’t owe anyone anything. They operate on the business model of making money. A steady, healthy profit. When it is damage, they rethink things.
Lastly, you say they “can afford to lose” like they don’t have a right to what they are earning, and they say “you can afford to lose” like you don’t have a right to what you earning. People are people. They will always look out for themselves. That’s just how it sadly works.
Just like the publisher who set the Fallen Order prices in Russia to 3x the price (and probably more in other countries) simply because they could.
Yes, exactly. It works for a few, but not most. And sadly it looks like Epic is figuring out 12% cut, buying out exclusives, regional pricing + absorbing the 25% transaction fees on alternative payment methods isn’t working out for them.
Good god…per week? I’m afraid to even ask what it costs to survive a week.
They definitely choose not to. They did it for Jedi: Fallen Order, purposely jacking up the prices in multiple countries, like Russia. It was somewhere, I believe, around 3500 RUB on Steam, Origin and EGS.
Yep, it definitely was super jacked up on all clients.
If that were the case, though, don’t u think there’d be at least 1 game on the whole of Steam that would use that function? Why would EA and Ubisoft both do it on Epic’s launcher but not on Steam, for example, nor any other publisher ever, at all, worldwide?
I don’t think it’s possible to assume that’s the actual case.
@Gnuffi I might be wrong, but from what i can find online by googling, there’s absolutely no separate pricing option on Steam for publishers for Africa; they can’t change the price for Africa or any specific country within it
“Steam is always working with publishers to adjust prices to be in line with what can be found at local retailers and online shops.At this time, we do not have further information regarding prices or change in currency for your specific region.”
Heh, sigh Steam. I had a talk with customer service lately, that I won’t go into, but finally I stopped getting generic Mail Merge responses, from a human that said: they’d look into the issue, whatever that means, lol.
I don’t consider a 300% markup profit when not paying even paying import taxes, etc, to be anything other than greedy price gouging. The point of a business is to make profit. Yes. Basic. Bleeding people dry, or invoking classicism so that only certain people can obtain x-items, that’s nothing to do with being a business. It’s something else entirely.
I don’t think companies owe me anything. Don’t care if I can’t buy President Choice cookies in the higher brackets supermarkets, but even the regular businesses apply the same principles on what the Financial Minister would call the “Basic basket of goods”. Case in point, the price of Flour is going up next year. Do you know how much more a whole slew of things are going to cost?
I dunno. I thought businesses, though entities in their own right, were owned by human beings. You know, those creatures that are supposed to be above other animals because of such things like conscience, maybe even caring about their fellow man. Stupid me. (Note, lots of sarcasm there)
I hate being misquoted. I never said that. At any point in anything I wrote. You can interpret my post as you like, but please do not misquote me. I super hate it.
12% is perfectly sustainable. Just look at Xsolla: they only charge 5%, and they don’t even have any of that Fortnite money.
Steam definitely and obviously wants to be a monopoly. Not just because that’s the optimal market for any for-profit firm—their actions in response to Epic prove it.
Not on every transaction, just the transactions from one specific payment provider.
Corporations are not people.
Again, that’s an outlier percentage.
No no no, the 12% was not on the charges from all the payment methods. Epic was saying it was up to 25% on every transaction purchase made if they continue to add even more options. The 12% mentioned was a cut is a store cut. Meaning, they take only 12% revenue from its clients. This 12% cut makes them super competitive against others because they net about 5% and have (had) a chance to grow it to 6-7%. Leaving the rest (88%) for those who created the games.
Xsolla may only charge 5%, but others charge far, far more. As Epic learned.
Xsolla is a platform, not a payment provider. Their 5% is equivalent to Epic’s 12%. That’s while supporting 77 payment methods (and regional pricing) in 242 countries.
But they do consider a 300% markup profit. A major one. We consider it evil, but they see big green. S businesses would argue differently. That’s why they do the things they do. Maximizing everything to, well, the max, even if they could sell it for half the price and make a profit. They know they could sell you a 25hr game for $39.99 but force you to pay $59.99 for it instead because they can get even more from you because you want it/there is demand. Because making more $ at the end is always better.
It is just harsh business.
But isn’t the idea that they should be selling at so and so or they should be fair to people is the idea that they owe someone something? Should they be decent people and not do things they shouldn’t have to? Yea, I’m of the mind that they should, but they won’t.
And no, I don’t know, but I suspect it isn’t going to be good.
I’m noting the sarcasm, but still replying.
They are human, but are they usually owned by decent human beings? No. Smaller businesses? Sometimes. But even smaller businesses have to consider a profit, because they have people to pay and other such things to worry about. Sadly the world revolves around money.
It wasn’t with the intent of misquoting you (I even directly quoted you so that you would not think this), it is paraphrasing, for clarity of my point. Your intent is that they can afford to do this, yes? Is that not what you meant? If it is, my point is that they see that you can afford you just as you see they can afford it.
Oh, I never heard of Xsolla before. Could you tell me more? Is this a digital game store like Epic, or some other sort of platform? That is quite a crazy success story.
Oh, a quick google search tells me Xsolla is a payment service company. I don’t really think that compares, but I’ll wait for your reply.
Oh and here I thought you had decided you didn’t want to embarrass yourself when you deleted your first post. They’ve clearly chosen to not pursue the option of being a monopoly by the simple notion that they allow other businesses to sell their keys. They are not a monopoly, has never been one and by every notion has made no moves towards becoming one. Otherwise 3rd party stores would not be able to sell steam keys it’s really very simple, you’re able to buy steam keys where none of the money goes to valve.
What actions in response to epic are you talking about? Steam has done damn near nothing. Epic demanded steam cut their share down to the same as epic, steam didn’t respond. Epic kept pulling exclusives OUT of the steam store, steam did nothing, didn’t try to pay devs to make games steam exclusive. Hell steam even probably had decent grounds for suing both epic and some devs for breach of contract and potentially interfering with contracts but they have not. Steam has just kept on trucking as usual, though it’s possibly I’ve missed something they’ve done in this regard so feel free to make some sort of specific claims.
Take a look at their website and GDC 2019 talks for more info.
I’m not super familiar with Discourse and I’m still figuring out how to use it courteously.
Steam keys actually support Steam’s monopoly—it’s how they get people on the platform. It’s basic free-to-play economy design.
Valve’s statement on the Metro: Exodus page in particular was designed to sic Gamers on Epic. And it worked.
Please cite some relevant legislation or case law.
‘As usual’ has always been good for Valve and bad for most everyone else. That’s why the Epic Store is a good thing for the industry.
You clearly do not understand what the word monopoly means so I wont bother repeating myself when you have made no arguments to respond with.
Notice: Sales of Metro Exodus have been discontinued on Steam due to a publisher decision to make the game exclusive to another PC store.
The developer and publisher have assured us that all prior sales of the game on Steam will be fulfilled on Steam, and Steam owners will be able to access the game and any future updates or DLC through Steam.
We think the decision to remove the game is unfair to Steam customers, especially after a long pre-sale period. We apologize to Steam customers that were expecting it to be available for sale through the February 15th release date, but we were only recently informed of the decision and given limited time to let everyone know.
Yeah can really see the vitriol dripping there. The metro pull was a huge dick move and steam only laid out the basics of what had happened in order to pass on the little information they had to their customers. What would you prefer they did? Not tell anyone and let everyone wonder why their pre-orders never got filled?
You want case law and cited legislation? no. In most countries breaking a contract is illegal, otherwise having contracts is pointless. The metro pull most likely broke contracts the publisher had with steam as steam had already been selling pre-orders for them. I have no doubt steam would have grounds to take that to court had they desired to do it. The only way I can see that not being the case is if their contract, or indeed the sales contract the publisher formed with their customers never specified a release date so that they can say the contract is still fulfilled a year later. This of course neither of us have means to verify.
Just plain no. Steam working as usual is great, they’ve had to change a few things because of new laws forcing them to be even better. Epic has done nothing but throw the state of gaming back 15 years to the height of the console war era. They’re using money to buy a share on the market they don’t deserve and helping to spread China’s interest in controlling the games industry.
I figured it out. It is a payment method company (a payment processor to accept a variety of payment methods), which also has it own payment fees on top of its cuts. It isn’t a fair comparison to pit a payment company against a game store front. Especially since they tip themselves on every purchase on top of that cut they make.
It is actually quite bad that a payment processor takes 5% cut from all of these methods (on top of what they themselves [the payment option being processed] may push on the customer) every purchase. They handle hundreds of thousands of purchases a day. Plus, there are still the conversation fees and there are dozens of banks and people reporting it back as a fraudulent company.
And if you don’t believe me, I was quite surprised by what I saw when I googled the company. Pages and pages of it, upon pages and pages.
And since EGS is using Xsolla to process its payment methods and they’re still complaining about the jacky prices per transaction, you know it ain’t good for em.
I think you’re unintentionally mixing up a few things. I paraphrased or quoted M00’s earlier post, but at no point did i say the companies can afford to lose money - because that would be unreasonable of me. That’s not the point of a business - even a small one.
Whether a company can afford to lose money or not is not in my purvey - idk and idc. I said that they can gain less profit. Gaining less is still a gain - not a loss. Even 100& profit is a nice, then you can bump up to 150% or w.e. number is good for you to keep the lights on, not starve, put money back into your business and even pay yourself/save a bit. Again, my bestie is the budgeter, not I, but if you can do those things, that’s a steady, healthy profit.
When you overprice so much that you can buy a Hummer, private jet, etc etc. While that’s nice for you but definitely doesn’t qualify you as a decent human being, lol. Mind, if I’m thinking of Bimshire esp, where you would not want to drive your Hummer on these roads in the first place, lol.
For reference, 100% profit, for instance, is if you get an item for free and sell it.
Here’s another thing. Price Smart is an US firm that opened here. When they first opened, the prices were much closer to what is reasonable for the comparable cost of living here. People were flocking there and ignoring the overpriced, locally owned oligopolies. So then, one of the local dudes, who happens to be a Senator in the government, complained. Price Smart was forced to raise their prices.
That’s what I mean about gaining less. The other supermarkets could have lowered their prices (and truly still been making good profit, but they were accustomed to making SUPER profit),
That is it in a nutshell. Even when Regional Pricing is feasible, reasonable and not difficult to implement, like Geeky said, companies just… don’t.
Okay, maybe I was misunderstanding. If I was, what did you mean here then?
Like M00, I simply don’t’ buy that “they can’t afford to keep up regional pricing”.
What is the intent of “I simply don’t’ buy that “they can’t afford to keep up regional pricing”.”? Is it not to say that they can’t afford to keep up the costs of regional pricing and alternative payment method’s transaction fees/charges to offer the customer these benefits? Isn’t that the same thing as saying they can afford to lose money to offer these benefits?
Saying that they can afford “to gain less” is just the same as saying they can afford to lose some somewhere else. You’re just using a different word for to express the same thing.
We can agree on this. If somehow a gaming store front can figure it out, and sustain it, and publishers choose to do it, it would be great.
Let’s stick with that.
On a personal note, I’ve been involved with many small businesses. I know what they go through compared to companies who have Senators in the Cabinet of Government. A normal citizen versus a guy who’s there firsthand when they budget meetings start, no hearsay.
I know that hotels here owe millions to Light & Power and the Water Authority - they don’t pay. Conversely, if Joe Public misses one bill payment, your service can be cut off. Then you have to pay your bill AND pay a reconnection fee. The local dude is held hostage, while the big boys, count their coins and make Super Profit on every unit of stock they market.
That’s why I don’t believe, generally, that stores can’t afford to do regional pricing. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t default to believing that. That’d be like thinking Valve can’t manage to host a sale without the server/system going down. Apparently they can; they did it this year. It makes one wonder.
I’d prefer a pot as black as Steam didn’t go around calling kettles ‘unfair’. It is Valve’s responsibility to make games available on Steam, not developers.
Everyone who had purchased the game on Steam got it on Steam. Suspending future sales on Steam, while not a decision I’m a fan of, is hardly a ‘dick move’.
Again, all of those pre-orders were fulfilled through Steam.
I have doubt until you cite some grounds.
‘Steam working as usual’ means DRM. It means screwing over indie devs time and time again and then hiding behind ‘the market’ instead of fixing the problems. It means serving as a haven for Nazis and other hate groups. I could go on, but you get the idea.
EGS is not a console. It’s free.
You think Steam deserves their market share? I’m not even sure ‘deserve’ has any useful meaning in this conversation.
40% is not a controlling interest. Why is the U.S. better than China? Why is your beef with Epic, and not with any of Tencent’s other investments?
Where are you seeing that they pass along the payment processing fees, rather than covering them with their 5% cut?
Where are you seeing that EGS process payments with Xsolla?
Where are you seeing credible reports of fraudulent activity?
If you’re going to make claims like these, you should back them up somehow.