• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Embracer says its ‘crazy’ spend on platform fees exceeds its spend on game development

Embracer Group CEO Lars Wingefors has said the company spends more on platform fees than it does on game development.

In a Q&A session during Embracer’s AGM on Thursday, the executive was asked for his thoughts on the recently announced Epic First Run program.

The new exclusivity scheme will allow developers of any size to claim 100% of revenue if they agree to make eligible titles exclusive to the Epic Games Store for six months.

After the six months are up, the game will revert to the standard Epic Games Store revenue split of 88% for the developer and 12% for Epic Games.

In comparison, Valve has traditionally taken a 30% share of game sales on Steam, although in 2018 it introduced a revenue share tier system which offers more to developers if their games meet certain sales thresholds (75%/25% on earnings beyond $10m and 80%/20% on earnings beyond $50m).

“At the end of the day, I think it’s good having competition to Steam, because it puts them on their toes to deliver their best experience,” Wingefors said of Epic First Run.

“Obviously, we would like to pay less fees to platforms. In reality we are paying more fees to platforms than we spend on game development every year, and if you just think about that number, it’s crazy.

“So, there are margins with the platforms that I would preferably have within building more games and some more margins, but I think it’s great that Epic is there trying to build a competitive platform.

 

Shubh_C63

Member
His statements are facts, no judgements from my side.

Also Steam unlike literally every other storefront out there fucking works 10/10 in 95% of the areas.
 

tryDEATH

Member
It's daylight robbery when it comes to platform fee's and Engine fee's. Neither is capped and can rake in hundreds of millions from a single game if its successful. It's no wonder publishers are making their own game clients and refuse to put things on steam. Imaging having to forfeit 30% of your income to just be on a platform that's absurd.
 

Robb

Gold Member
Considering the products they put out I am not surprised to hear they spend less on game development than the fees.
TdBoDkW.jpg
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
It's daylight robbery when it comes to platform fee's and Engine fee's. Neither is capped and can rake in hundreds of millions from a single game if its successful. It's no wonder publishers are making their own game clients and refuse to put things on steam. Imaging having to forfeit 30% of your income to just be on a platform that's absurd.

Imagine hobbling together some shitty storefront/launcher in order to capture 100% profits but then realising nobody wants to use it because it lacks basic features and is a buggy POS.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
If we're just throwing around absurd numbers just make it trillions.
It's not absurd. Each console maker spends billions in R&D for their platforms. There are currently 3 major console players that afford them opportunity to sell their games on. If they had to do it themselves.... then conservatively it would be in the tens of billions.

They have mismanaged and now they're whining about it. In over their heads. Amateurs.
 
Last edited:

GHG

Member
It's not absurd. Each console maker spends billions in R&D for their platforms. There are currently 3 major console players that afford them opportunity to sell their games on. If they had to do it themselves.... then conservatively it would be in the tens of billions.

They have mismanaged and now they're whining about it. In over their heads. Amateurs.

It's a common theme for him, sympathising and making excuses for businesses that point the finger and blame others instead of getting their shit together.
 
Last edited:

SlimySnake

Flashless at the Golden Globes
30% is too much. Physical retailers took 20% and that made sense because they have to run the actual store, and distribute the physical copies everywhere.

Digital servers are much cheaper. You dont need 4 bestbuys, targets and walmarts and 10 gamestops in every city. You need like 1 server farm for like 10 states. The cost of running those server farms is way below running brick and mortar stores and yet they are charging 10% more.
 

RoboFu

One of the green rats
Let me take you youngins on a little sega Saturn dev journey about costs.

Back in 1995…

Saturn Dev cost:
Sega Saturn Dev System I w/Hitachi E7000PC ICE - $30575
Cart.Dev development kit - $4800
Programming Target Box - $7475
Sound Target Box - $4800
Saturn Cart.Dev SIMM Buffer Board - $275
Modified Saturn for Cart.Dev - $700
Saturn Virtual CD Emulator Kit - $ 8100
Mirage Saturn CD Emulation System - $3000
Hitachi E7000PC Kit - $15000
SH2 CPU Board - $200
Yamaha 4x CD Encoder - $2500
Write-once blank CD box of 5 - $75

Total cost: $77,500 1990s money for one dev kit. Lol

They also suggests an SGI Indigo 2 workstation for 3D modeling, which is not included. That, in 1995, was about a $100k rig.

A cd game cost anywhere from $2 - $5 a disc but you also had to buy a certain amount and pay a distributor.

This also doesn’t include misc platform license fees or submission fees. You had to pay for each submission.

And after all that it was still completely up to you to advertise the game. No game banner in a “what’s new “ public digital store list. Lol
 
Last edited:

Braag

Member
Uhhh I want to see the math with which he came into that conclusion.
Either way, Embracer just like Deep Silver is one of those publishers that want to cut their spending as low as possible, thus Tim Sweeney's offer tempts them so much.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Let me take you youngins on a little sega Saturn dev journey about costs.

Back in 1995…

Saturn Dev cost:
Sega Saturn Dev System I w/Hitachi E7000PC ICE - $30575
Cart.Dev development kit - $4800
Programming Target Box - $7475
Sound Target Box - $4800
Saturn Cart.Dev SIMM Buffer Board - $275
Modified Saturn for Cart.Dev - $700
Saturn Virtual CD Emulator Kit - $ 8100
Mirage Saturn CD Emulation System - $3000
Hitachi E7000PC Kit - $15000
SH2 CPU Board - $200
Yamaha 4x CD Encoder - $2500
Write-once blank CD box of 5 - $75

Total cost: $77,500 1990s money for one dev kit. Lol

They also suggests an SGI Indigo 2 workstation for 3D modeling, which is not included. That, in 1995, was about a $100k rig.

A cd game cost anywhere from $2 - $5 a disc but you also had to buy a certain amount and pay a distributor.

This also doesn’t include misc platform license fees or submission fees. You had to pay for each submission.

And after all that it was still completely up to you to advertise the game. No game banner in a “what’s new “ public digital store list. Lol
Adjust for inflation please.
 

tryDEATH

Member
It's not absurd. Each console sends billions in R&D for their platforms. There are currently 3 major console players that afford them opportunity to sell their games on. If they had to do it themselves.... then conservatively it would be in the tens of billions.

They have mismanaged and now they're whining about it.
Their "platforms" revolved around hardware primarily when it comes to R&D not software development for their stores. All 3 platforms have their games developed almost the same way with just newer versions of engines for decades. Selling games on steam and giving them 30% is insane, MS themselves have lowered that insane 70/30 split that only Sony and Steam still hold, it's basically developer robbery as this point. Having gamers twerk for platforms/clients when it comes to profit splits is even worse than console warring.
 

DeepEnigma

Gold Member
Their "platforms" revolved around hardware primarily when it comes to R&D not software development for their stores. All 3 platforms have their games developed almost the same way with just newer versions of engines for decades. Selling games on steam and giving them 30% is insane, MS themselves have lowered that insane 70/30 split that only Sony and Steam still hold, it's basically developer robbery as this point. Having gamers twerk for platforms/clients when it comes to profit splits is even worse than console warring.
Ok.
 

GHG

Member
Having gamers twerk for platforms/clients when it comes to profit splits is even worse than console warring.

Have you ever thought that gamers will simply "twerk" for the storefront/platform that gives them the best overall experience and that those storefronts/platforms just so happen to be the ones that charge the higher fees?

If you don't like it then look towards those charging lower fees and ask them to up their investment in their storefront/platforms in order to improve the user experience for their prospective customers.

This whole situation is not coincidental. Some storefronts are willing to drop their pants as far as fees are concerned because there is next to zero reinvestment and/or ongoing development for their platform.
 
Last edited:

TheUsual

Gold Member
In reality we are paying more fees to platforms than we spend on game development every year, and if you just think about that number, it’s crazy.
Embracer...do you know how to do budgeting?

Also, if you're spending more on fees than game development yearly, what are you doing with your revenue stream from games sold?
Quit being pissy that your $2 billion cash deal failed at the last minute and you can't hide money mismanagement as easily now.
 

Jinzo Prime

Member
Uhhh I want to see the math with which he came into that conclusion.
Either way, Embracer just like Deep Silver is one of those publishers that want to cut their spending as low as possible, thus Tim Sweeney's offer tempts them so much.
Embracer owns Deep Silver. They spent way too much on acquisitions and now that money isn't cheap, have to find ways to drastically reduce overhead or risk going under.
 

ulantan

Member
Imagine hobbling together some shitty storefront/launcher in order to capture 100% profits but then realising nobody wants to use it because it lacks basic features and is a buggy POS.
Lol no one would ever do that...lol
 

Kilau

Member
30% is too much. Physical retailers took 20% and that made sense because they have to run the actual store, and distribute the physical copies everywhere.

Digital servers are much cheaper. You dont need 4 bestbuys, targets and walmarts and 10 gamestops in every city. You need like 1 server farm for like 10 states. The cost of running those server farms is way below running brick and mortar stores and yet they are charging 10% more.
It’s also much cheaper to upload your game to the server one time and sell it forever with no worries about product or shipping.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
Their "platforms" revolved around hardware primarily when it comes to R&D not software development for their stores. All 3 platforms have their games developed almost the same way with just newer versions of engines for decades. Selling games on steam and giving them 30% is insane, MS themselves have lowered that insane 70/30 split that only Sony and Steam still hold, it's basically developer robbery as this point. Having gamers twerk for platforms/clients when it comes to profit splits is even worse than console warring.
Hello Mr. Wingefors. Hows that restructuring going?
 

El Muerto

Member
I guess they were really hoping for the Saudis to bail them out after spending too much acquiring studios. (E)mbr(A)cer is trying to become the next EA.
 

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
“So, there are margins with the platforms that I would preferably have within building more games and some more margins, but I think it’s great that Epic is there trying to build a competitive platform.

Epic’s actually watered down their old exclusivity deal. Now instead of paying big bucks up front for timed exclusivity, you get an extra 12% of crappy sales for six months.
 
Last edited:

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
If you spend $100 million on game development.

And are getting charged $150 million in fees (aka the store took their cut)

That means you received around $500 million in revenue from your sales, meaning you got a return of 5x.

Even if you had $101 million in fees you still made $200 million or 2x profit lol

This is the dumb logic that makes companies create their own expensive to maintain storefronts and then go running back to Steam years later.
 
Last edited:

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
If they make better products that appeal to the masses and consequently sell more units via Steam, that would mean they'd pay even more platform fees.

The more units you sell, the less Steam takes.
Plus people buy games on Steam. Nobody buys anything on Epic.

On consoles it’s a flat 30% regardless of how many units you sell.
 
Last edited:

NickFire

Member
If you spend $100 million on game development.

And are getting charged $150 million in fees (aka the store took their cut)

That means you received around $500 million in revenue from your sales, meaning you got a return of 5x.
I think DeepEnigma DeepEnigma nailed it. Clowns are overspending thinking its easy, and trying to spin how the problems are outside of their control / someone else's fault.
 
Top Bottom