Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

blogs.windows.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 113 posts

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#81

Post by chipperyman573 »

ductionist wrote: post #5
stephenhuey wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if they are browsing your website, decide they’ll probably purchase it, but then later they open up the Microsoft store and search for it there, you lose money you would’ve had if they’d immediately downloaded it from a link on your website?

If they click your link (that includes the `?cid` parameter) while they're on your website, I believe the `cid` value is cookied/stored with their Microsoft Store profile, and will be respected even if they buy later directly from the Store. If they visit your website but don't click the link, then there's no way for the Store to attribute the sale to your website, so you'll probably be charged full freight (15%).

Can you just include an invisible iframe with that link so the cookie gets placed?

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#82

Post by keerthiko »

lemoncucumber wrote: post #77
keerthiko wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's usually how it is. That's usually how it should be. But if you collect payments through Apple App Store or Google Play because your apps are available on their platforms, even if customers didn't discover it from the stores but through your own marketing methods, the platforms get the full 30%. There are some ways to circumvent this, but not really. [assumed flow is potential customer sees marketing/advertis…

The Mac would be a better comparison than iOS. On the Mac, developers are free to circumvent the Mac App Store entirely and keep 100% of the revenue (minus whatever it costs them to process the payments, distribute the binaries, etc.) And in fact this change specifically excludes Xbox (and, curiously, all games in general), which is the (remaining) Microsoft platform that's closest to iOS in terms of being locked dow…

Mac is not a better comparison because we're talking about the Microsoft Windows Store in particular here, not "all software that can be run on Windows computers."

You are still free to circumvent all royalties to Microsoft by not listing your product on their store at all and marketing externally and keep 100% of the revenue, which is similar to the Mac, but the Windows Store is more akin to iTunes or Google Play.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#83

Post by chipperyman573 »

bitL wrote: post #78

Will this kill Steam? I suspect that's their main adversary as in mobile space they are non-existing, yet they can't dominate gaming space on PC.

Maybe, but from a user perspective steam is incredible. They were the first major game distributor to introduce a 2 week no-questions-asked refund period, in-home streaming works amazingly (even shooting games work at an acceptable level), their DRM isn't egregious (for example, charging back only revokes the licences that were charged back on, it doesn't close your entire account like on Xbox), and the updates Valve releases for the client are consistently good. The only problem I can remember them having is their entire lack of support, and apparently they have great support now. Unless people stop offering games on Steam, I don't plan to buy them anywhere else.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#84

Post by bitL »

chipperyman573 wrote: post #83
bitL wrote: post #78

Will this kill Steam? I suspect that's their main adversary as in mobile space they are non-existing, yet they can't dominate gaming space on PC.

Maybe, but from a user perspective steam is incredible. They were the first major game distributor to introduce a 2 week no-questions-asked refund period, in-home streaming works amazingly (even shooting games work at an acceptable level), their DRM isn't egregious (for example, charging back only revokes the licences that were charged back on, it doesn't close your entire account like on Xbox), and the updates Valve…

It's not about buyers, but publishers. If a publisher gets 95% of revenue by being exclusively marketed by MS, versus 70% on Steam, they might team up with MS instead. Surely if MS dominates the space after some time, they increase fee, but nobody thinks more than a quarter-two ahead in gaming industry.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#85

Post by chipperyman573 »

bitL wrote: post #84
chipperyman573 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but from a user perspective steam is incredible. They were the first major game distributor to introduce a 2 week no-questions-asked refund period, in-home streaming works amazingly (even shooting games work at an acceptable level), their DRM isn't egregious (for example, charging back only revokes the licences that were charged back on, it doesn't close your entire account like on Xbox), and the updates Valve…

It's not about buyers, but publishers. If a publisher gets 95% of revenue by being exclusively marketed by MS, versus 70% on Steam, they might team up with MS instead. Surely if MS dominates the space after some time, they increase fee, but nobody thinks more than a quarter-two ahead in gaming industry.

I think in most cases you're correct, but store exclusives are somewhat common right now, and users tend to hate it (google "metro exodus controversy" and you'll see what I mean - and that wasn't even exclusive to one store, you just got a discount for buying it from Epic).

That said, I don't have access to any data about sales - it's possible that just as many people buy it regardless of what store it's sold on. But I would suspect that is unlikely given how easy it is to pirate something and gamers' tendencies to believe they're owed a game.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#86

Post by SkyPuncher »

busterarm wrote: post #80
AlexandrB wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? How? Of the services on offer, only payment processing has significant cost to Microsoft. Things like crash reporting are solved problems whose cost should be approximately equal to the cost of hosting the data.

PayPal has established the absolute rock-bottom industry-floor of 2.9% + $0.30 for payment processing + fraud reduction. Fraud reduction accounts for the majority of that percentage. Patreon has established that they will completely go out of business at 5%. Steam is taking 30% and Epic is taking 12%. Salaries, servers and regulation are expensive. Microsoft offering 5% is a steal.

> PayPal has established the absolute rock-bottom industry-floor of 2.9% + $0.30 for payment processing + fraud reduction.

This is neither unique to PayPal or the actual floor.

2.9% + (roughly) $0.30 is pretty much the standard across all public facing credit card processors like PayPal (and their subsidiary Braintree), Stripe, Amazon Pay, Authorize.net, and more. I have heard rumors Stripe offers rates as low as 1.8% for large volume processors. Adyen charges $0.12 + 0.6% + interchange fee making them extremely lucrative for their customers (including Uber, Netflix, Etsy, Spotify).

Given Microsoft's size and expertise, I'd anticipate they are operating close to interchange rates around $0.10 + between 0.8% and 1.6%.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#87

Post by flyinglizard »

busterarm wrote: post #80
AlexandrB wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? How? Of the services on offer, only payment processing has significant cost to Microsoft. Things like crash reporting are solved problems whose cost should be approximately equal to the cost of hosting the data.

PayPal has established the absolute rock-bottom industry-floor of 2.9% + $0.30 for payment processing + fraud reduction. Fraud reduction accounts for the majority of that percentage. Patreon has established that they will completely go out of business at 5%. Steam is taking 30% and Epic is taking 12%. Salaries, servers and regulation are expensive. Microsoft offering 5% is a steal.

Fraud reduction is largely irrelevant on non tangible products though, especially when licenses can be revoked online.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#88

Post by greglindahl »

flyinglizard wrote: post #87
busterarm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PayPal has established the absolute rock-bottom industry-floor of 2.9% + $0.30 for payment processing + fraud reduction. Fraud reduction accounts for the majority of that percentage. Patreon has established that they will completely go out of business at 5%. Steam is taking 30% and Epic is taking 12%. Salaries, servers and regulation are expensive. Microsoft offering 5% is a steal.

Fraud reduction is largely irrelevant on non tangible products though, especially when licenses can be revoked online.

Fraud reduction includes having to refund money, not just revoking licenses if the payment is reversed.

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#89

Post by connicpu »

taurath wrote: post #11
jawns wrote: post #2

Here's how the new payment structure works: > When Microsoft delivers a customer through other methods (tracked by an OCID), such as when the customer discovers the app in a Microsoft Store collection, through Microsoft Store search, or through any other Microsoft-owned properties, then you will receive 85 percent of the revenue from that purchase. > When there is no CID or OCID attributed to a purchase, in the insta…

So it’s worth 10% if someone uses the search bar in the store? Or if it’s on a top100 list? Those top100 are probably the apps that are most likely to push back against a 15% cut though.

Considering it's only half of the cut Apple takes 15% isn't very high

Re: Updated Microsoft Store App Developer Agreement: New Revenue Share

#90

Post by tyingq »

greglindahl wrote: post #88
flyinglizard wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fraud reduction is largely irrelevant on non tangible products though, especially when licenses can be revoked online.

Fraud reduction includes having to refund money, not just revoking licenses if the payment is reversed.

And paying exorbitant chargeback fees.
Post reply on HN