I think Galaxy 2.0 is a good idea and the there's many people that dislike having to root through all the launchers. But whether or not its successful is another story. Whatever brings more wallets to GoG, though.

No hard facts, just a financial perspective from the horse's mouth. Maybe they're not at a loss, but Sweeney speculates they might be for the year.
https://twitter.com/TimSweeneyEpic/status/1113500526228975617

Personally, even for STEAM I wouldn't consider a 70/30 split outrages. STEAM has a HUGE user base, and putting your product on STEAM gives you access to that audience. It's like saying displaying your paintings in an art gallery in the middle of a metropolis, should cost just as much as if you were to display it in an art gallery from a third world country.

Could STEAM ask less for the effort they put in their releases? That's a different discussion.

Wish we could put all these sad publishers in a time travel machine and send them to the year 1995 where all games were sold at retail. They wish they had gotten a 70/30 split back then, especially with packing and shipping costs. Hate publishers getting uppity, while consumers have to shut up and put up with a loss of ownership and other consumer rights that came without a significant dip in costs.

Glad he's the FORMER CEO.

The 88%/12% is disingenuous anyway. I ran across a journalist explaining that it is really 82%/18% with an extra 6% over reduced Unreal engine licensing if you use it. So that advertised 12% is just propaganda.

Well dunno - it's easy to say it's outrageous but platforms like Steam, GOG and whatever give you reach and customers a publisher would not have otherwise. I mean the cut is so outrageous why not sell at the own platform with a 10% discount and suddenly all the customer come and go there -.- (not gonna happen). And Epic is not offering that better share out of the goodness of their heart but rather as an aggressive way to get market share and exclusives

IMO being a gatekeeper & having a near-monopoly on a market doesn't make such exploits any less outrageous. If anything I think it's worse.

steam takes their share for a reason. they spent years to create steam API and for money taken they provide complete solutions for Multiplayer, chat, messenger, anti-cheat, many things game needs for multiplayer.

for AAA publishers their cut gets lowered to 20% due to game sales volume. Is it worth to pay 8% more for big publisher to reach steam audience? I believe it does.

it's a lie that lesser cuts will benefit gamers. Some publishers already sell their games on own launchers. Have you seen any good prices from them? No, they still charge you the full market price. From a customer standpoint we won't get any benefit from lowered cuts. Publishers just will have better bonuses for CEO and top managers

Is it more outrageous to have a 70/30 split or to hide the split and offer a different deal to each publisher/developer? I wonder