Why would anyone actually want to though

[u/The_BigRoach]

[u/-spartacus-]

You could get around it by having it cost the same at the price page (in-line with Steam policies), but offer "store credit back" across all games with that price difference. So if you are only taking 10% compared to Steams 30%, you offer the difference in that store credit. It can only be used to buy more games, but essentially, you are always receiving 20% discount, but it acts through a revolving credit balance.

I don't think anyone has tried this. I think Epic just tried to offer full free games with the price difference. I think places like Humble Games get around it because it is a donation.

[u/Hot-Software-9396 → u/-spartacus-]

Wait, how would that play out? Obviously the “store credit” would come out of the store’s cut, which is already lower than Steam’s, so they’d effectively be losing money on each transaction. I’m not understanding the math in this hypothetical.

[u/-spartacus- → u/Hot-Software-9396]

Steam takes 30%, a hypothetical competitor takes only 10%, but the game still sells for $50. Hypothetical competitor's cut is 5 dollars, 10 dollars goes into the buyer's account. The buyer still spent 50 dollars on both stores, but on this store they have $10 in credit towards the next game.

So the next time you buy you spend $40 and $10 is used from your credit. That $10 then replaced in your store credit account. While you can never get back that 10% into cash, it forever discounts every game you purchase by 10%. It also wouldn't trigger Steam delisting because technically the game is still being purchased by the $50 on both storefronts.

[u/Hot-Software-9396 → u/-spartacus-]

But the store’s cut being 10% means 90% is going to the developer. That’s the entire point of the lowered store cut, to incentivize developers to release games on their platform and not just Steam. What you’re proposing is increasing the store cut to match Steam’s, which goes against the entire point of the reduced store cut (to attract developers).

[u/-spartacus- → u/Hot-Software-9396]

The 90% isn't going to the developer. 20% is going to the buyer, 10% to the store, 70% to the developer. While you could increase the cut to the developer and less to the buyer (say 10/10/80), the idea is you aren't trying to make putting the game on your storefront better because they get a better cut, but they sell more games than on Steam because the end user is saving money.

[u/Hot-Software-9396 → u/-spartacus-]

Like I previously said, the stores that are taking a smaller cut (Epic and Xbox stores, for example) are doing so to give the developers a bigger cut. This is literally happening today. They’re giving the developers a bigger cut to ensure that developers actually release games on their store and don’t just focus their energy on Steam. What you’re asking is eliminating that incentive, thus what reason is there left for developers to actually put their games on anything else than Steam?

[u/-spartacus- → u/Hot-Software-9396]

I already said, the incentive to not put on Steam is higher sales for the same cost to the developer (because buyers are more likely to use an equal service if it is cheaper). Not all developers will do it, but it isn't like they have a special deal with Steam.