行业观点：苹果和谷歌商店是否应该更改70/30分成比例？

原作者：Craig Chapple 译者：Vivian Xue

自App Store出现以来，苹果和谷歌都采取70/30的分成比例，开发商得到70%的收入，剩余归平台所有者。

近来，Facebook在安卓平台上的即时小游戏Instant Games采用与谷歌商店一样收入分成比，这使得开发商只能拿到49%的收入（谷歌平台收取30%，Facebook收取剩余部分的30%，游戏邦注）。与此同时，谷歌和苹果商店已将第二年起的订阅分成比例下调至85/15。

Epic最近宣布虚幻商城采取88/12分成比。（虽然这只针对商城内的素材，并非软件和游戏）。

但随着手游成为一个年收入数十亿的产业，苹果公司如今的市值达到了1万亿，这些旧分成条款是不是该改变了呢？

我们的特约编辑Jon Jordan最近讨论了为什么他认为这一现行的分成模式注定要被废止。不过我们认为还应该听取一些行业专家们的观点，我们向他们提出了以下问题：

你认为应该保留70/30的模式吗？就平台方提供的服务来看，你认为这个比例是否合理？

如果你希望改变这个模式，你认为应如何改变？

Will Luton（Rovio公司游戏监制）：

根据Jon的文章，比70/30更好的模式是让开发商直接把产品卖给消费者。

苹果和谷歌公司减少他们的利润能得到什么好处呢？是能吸引更多的开发商吗？我对此表示怀疑。也许这一举措对于亚马逊或者那些低流量的第三方商店是有意义的。

我认为苹果和谷歌拿走30%合情合理。他们为我们做了很多工作并且他们在商店优化上做的很棒。

Adam Telfer（MobileFreeToPlay顾问）：

我认为除非出现竞争对手给出更丰厚的提成而导致开发者流失的严重危机（这种情况暂时不会发生），否则苹果和谷歌不会改变当前的策略。

订阅分成仅在在用户订阅的第二年起才降低15%。这激励了开发者们提升应用的长期留存率，我认为是一个很不错的模式。

Facebook即时小游戏仍处于早期发展阶段，但在两大平台的叠加下开发者拿到的分成是49%。

谷歌和Facebook都想得到足够的份额。49%也和微信的模式差不多。

微软公司和苹果、谷歌以及Steam背道而行。我认为他们采取的分成比是为了刺激开发商，但在获得足够的用户基础之前，他们对苹果和谷歌产生不了什么压力。

至于区块链，我不太确定我是否能够对它做出评价，但是我怀疑他们是否真的能迫使苹果改变策略。

区块链游戏才刚刚起步，并且用户都是一些小众群体。他们希望在游戏中使用数字钱包，但普及率还不高，我们还没到达那个阶段。

Devin Nambiar （EA亚太地区产品管理主管）：

尽管就应用商店的风险性来看70/30分成比看起来不太合理，但和中国这样的市场的分成对比，我对苹果和谷歌的条款很是怀念。

中国的某些大型发行商有时会提供大大有利于他们的条款，这让开发商感到很艰难并且独立游戏开发者得到的条款往往更糟糕。

这么来看，苹果和谷歌商店的要求并没有那么过分，并且更改订阅分成的举措表明他们正在往好的方向发展。另一方面，改进游戏推荐之类的条款是平衡收入分成很好的方式。

如今游戏推荐能够拓展你的商业联系，以及展示苹果和谷歌是否喜欢你的游戏。有时候制定一些全面统一的标准能够让收入分成更容易让人接受。

Christopher Kassulke（HandyGames CEO及所有者）：

我认识一些愿意提供给我们100%收入的合作方，但如果他们什么都不能为我们做，100%也没有任何意义。许多开发商和发行商都忘了接线员/电信公司时代，当时开发者的收入分成在5%以下。我感觉我老了！

平台的目的永远是赚更多的钱。所有人都希望获得足够的收入以及最重要的——利润。如果开发商没办法盈利，那么市场和终端用户会像过去的JavaME时代一样受到很大的打击。

最终市场上只会充满了垃圾游戏。我希望得到更高的分成吗？当然了，我可以得到更多资金投资更好的游戏，雇佣更优秀的开发者，进行更多营销等等。

Tom Kinniburgh (MobileFreeToPlay顾问)：

70/30对我来说很合理。我作为开发者获得了大部分的收入，而你作为分销商也需要一定的分成来帮助我销售产品。

就像之前很多观点中谈到的，我不认为这种分成模式会变化，除非出现一个更大更强的安卓商店，即便真的出现了，想要让苹果公司动摇也需要付出巨大的努力。

另一点值得注意的是那30%的分成，有一些相关费用是包含在内的：

信用卡付款手续费（如今低至0.1%左右，但是过去更高）

报告、付款和退款费用

分销和服务器费用

商店主页、管理员、活动、培训费用。

一些从30%中扣除的促销/附属计划费用。

因此我认为两家平台获得的利润应该在15%左右。不过想想每一笔交易都能获得15%的利润好像也挺可观的。

John Ozimek（Big Ideas Machine联合创始人）;

我感觉我们在比较两种毫不相干的事物。

是的，Epic宣布改变虚幻引擎商城分成比例是一个很棒的PR案例（特别是新的分成比回到了2014年的水平）但这是一个游戏开发素材市场，而市场上创造者活跃性的上升能够提高作为创意平台的虚幻引擎的粘性。

因此这与公平性毫无关系，而是为了保护他们的市场份额。

那么我们来谈谈微软商店的慷慨之举，但是他们对游戏并不采取同样的分成，为什么？因为在手游领域它还被谷歌以及苹果远远地甩在后面。

因此除非消费者认为今年夏天他们必须要买一个搭载Window 10系统的手机，微软所能做的就是向开发者投钱，希望他们能继续支持已死的Windows Phone系统。

因为苹果和谷歌商店的30%分成包含了管理、报告和交易手续费所以它就是合理的，这种观点不太具有说服力，因为所有的应用商店都把这类费用包含在了各自的分成里。

因此我们只能说，苹果和谷歌公司收30%的分成是因为他们有能力收这么高，也因为作为顶级的应用商店，他们为发行商提供的绝佳机会值得这么多回报。

他们可能把比例降到30%以下吗？当然，但是为什么要这么做呢？他们都不想与彼此争锋相对（似乎其中一方下调比例，另一方将不得不采取相应策略），并且双方都拥有大量的收入。此外，目前他们还未遇到什么真正意义上的竞争对手。

真正的问题在于，把UA考虑在内后你的总机会成本是多少？以30%的分成来接触全球最大的玩家群体还无需预付分销费用，是一笔很划算的交易——前提是你还未把70%花在买量和盈利上。

在我看来UA成本才是真正的问题所在，但是苹果和谷歌是大众的首选平台（流量还是很可观的，游戏邦注）。

Toulf Jernström（Tribeflame CEO）:

我也赞成70/30。苹果和谷歌为我们解决了不少麻烦，并且我认为他们值得分到30%。

Richard Hazenberg （Lunagames CEO）

我们真正应该担心的不是70/30，真正的问题是如今要想在应用商店中获得发展，似乎越来越需要依赖谷歌广告或者苹果竞价排名广告。

因此如果你能花钱得到有效曝光，你会瞬间对分成比例有所改观。

Craig Chapple（资深编辑）

Epic的Tim Sweeney考虑过这个问题，他们最终拒绝在谷歌商店上架《堡垒之夜》。Epic的这一做法显然是个特例，只适合他们自己（并且谁知道呢？也许没用呢！），但是Tim对谷歌商店提供的服务发表了一些有趣的看法。（Tim曾表示谷歌商店提供的服务与收取的费用不对等，游戏邦注）

正如Richard所提到的，我认为当你为了让游戏获得曝光而向平台所有者支付过多的钱时，这种分成比例就显得有些不合理了。

我认为起码像Facebook这种目前在谷歌商店中发行自己的平台（比如Messenger上的Instant Games）并且商店排名靠前的公司，从平台中再抽取30%是毫无意义的。

在我看来这对开发者是不利的（需要提一下Facebook之前说过这个比例不是固定的，他们会持续评估。）。

Nicolas Godement-Berline ( Asmodee Digital运营主管)：

看到Epic推出自己的安卓商店来发行《堡垒之夜》真是令人惊喜。

他们说过“内容才是王道”，而Epic此次大胆的举动充分表明了他们认为30%所应带来的价值，以及他们巨大的影响力。

Epic认为《堡垒之夜》如今的玩家群体是如此之大，安卓用户会涌入他们的商店下载游戏。

虽然Epic面临自制下载渠道、失去谷歌商店的流量以及说服玩家使用新的付费方式这些额外的麻烦，但是为了30%的收入，这些付出是值得的。对于《堡垒之夜》这种大型热门游戏来说，我认为Epic做出了正确的选择。

因此，我认为未来越来越多的发行商会选择直接销售他们的安卓游戏。而如果苹果和谷歌开始多样化他们的分销服务并降低费用或者提供类似付费推广这种额外服务，我也不会感到意外。

与此同时，Epic在致力于创建安卓版的Steam。让我们拭目以待吧。

Jani Kahrama （Secret Exit创始人）：

我很乐意回答这个问题，以下是我对合理性的看法：

和Steam比起来，苹果和谷歌商店的30%抽成是不合理的。Steam为开发者提供了社区论坛、游戏工坊（Steam workshop），数据管理，这些服务都是极具价值的。

售卖竞价排名广告和收取30%抽成绝对是冲突的。我个人认为这种由甲方控制的支付可见性属于黑暗的Java游戏时代。

一个对公平的设想：平台方从他们带来的安装量中抽取30%的收入，再从剩余的安装量中抽取10%？平台方自然能够追踪并得知由商店首页推荐产生的安装量。

Jas Purewal （Purewal & Partners的律师和合作人）

我支持70/30。我们很容易认为平台为我们所做的一切是理所当然的，人们永远不会知足。

对我来说最有趣的变化不是抽成比例，而是游戏平台数量的扩增，这很大程度上是因为一些大型发行商不愿意向第三方分销商支付任何的抽成。

Avtivison、EA、如今PC上的Bethesda、Epic，会有越来越多的开发商加入。

推测：什么时候King或者Machine Zone这种规模的公司（或者其他竞争者）也开始朝这个方向发展呢？

游戏市场将容纳多少以最大化游戏个体收入为名义诞生的碎片化分销渠道？

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Since the dawn of the App Store, Apple and Google have adopted the 70/30 revenue share, with 70 per cent of sales going to developers and the rest going into the platform holders’ coffers.

More recently, Facebook Instant Games on Android adopts the same revenue share after Google Play’s, leaving developers with a minority share in revenue (49 per cent). Google and Apple have meanwhile already cut their revenue share for subscriptions after one year to 85/15.

Epic recently adopted an 88/12 revenue split on the Unreal Marketplace (though that deals with assets rather than apps and games).

But with mobile marketplaces making billions of dollars a year, and Apple now worth $1 trillion, is it time for a change to the terms?

Our contributing editor Jon Jordan recently said why he thinks the current model may be doomed. We thought we’d take the question to our Mobile Mavens, specifically asking:

Do you think the 70/30 model still works and is fair for what platform holders provide?

If you’d like to see change, what would you like to see happen?

Will Luton (Executive Producer Rovio)

In Jon’s article, the better than 70 per cent examples are all where developers can direct sell to consumers.

What incentive do Apple and Google have to reduce their margin? Would it draw more developers? I doubt it. Maybe this move would make sense for an Amazon or low traffic third-party stores as an incentive.

I think Apple and Google deserve their 30 per cent. We owe a lot to them and they do a great job on improving the store in my honest opinion.

Adam Telfer (Consultant MobileFreeToPlay)

Unless there’s a serious risk of a competitor coming in and stealing devs using a better share (which will not happen any time soon) I don’t see Apple or Google budging.

Keep in mind for subscriptions, it only drops to 15 per cent after a user renews a yearly subscription. This incentivises developers to drive strong long-term retention which I think is a good model.

Facebook Instant Games is still an early marketplace, but negotiating with two platforms stacked on top of each other leads to the 49 per cent split.

Both Google and Facebook want a substantial cut to make it worthwhile for them. 49 per cent is similar to the WeChat messenger model as well.

Microsoft is on the back heel against Apple, Google and Steam. I think the split they have is to try to incentivise developers, but until there is a substantial user base it doesn’t really create any pressure to Apple or Google.

Blockchain I’m not sure I can really comment on, but I doubt it will pressure Apple to change their policy.

The games for blockchain are still very early and are for a niche of users. We’re not at the stage with a mass adoption of people having crypto wallets that they want to use in games.

Devin Nambiar (Head of Product Management, Asia-Pacific Electronic Arts)

While the 70/30 split may seem steep given the risk profile of the app stores, comparing with the revenue splits of publishing in places like China leaves me nostalgic for the days of Apple/Google terms.

Certain large publishers in China will sometimes offer terms that skew much more in their own favour, which is tough for developers and can border on untenability for indies that generally get worse terms.

What Apple and Google demand is not all that bad, and the step-up share from subscriptions is a move in the right direction. On the flip side, it would be nice to see some better terms on things like consistent featuring to justify the revenue split.

Right now featuring is often a function of your BD relationship and whether Apple & Google like your game. Something more standard across the board would make the rev share a bit easier to stomach.

Christopher Kassulke (CEO / Owner HandyGames)

I know Partners which offered us even 100 per cent revenue share, but 100 per cent of nothing is still nothing. So many developers and publishers do not remember the time of operator/telcos which kept the dev with partly under five per cent of revenue share. Feeling old now!

Greed is always the end of a platform. Everyone needs to generate enough revenues and more important – profits. If a developer cannot be profitable anymore the market and the end consumers will suffer like in the old JavaME days.

And only shitty games will flood the market. Would I love to get a better revenue share? Of course, as I can invest that money in better games, hire more devs, more marketing, etcetera.

Tom Kinniburgh (Consultant MobileFreeToPlay)

70/30 always feels good to me. It says, I the creator take home the lions share, but you the distributor have the incentive to help me sell my product.

As some of the other comments have mentioned, I don’t see this changing unless a strong and large competitor made a rival app store for Android and even then it would have to take a lot for Apple to change.

It’s also worth noting that of the 30 per cent, there are some fees associated with it that initially covered:

Credit card processing fees (now very low around 0.1 per cent, but they used to be higher)

Reporting, payments and refunds

Distribution and server costs

Store front, managers, events, training

Promotions/affiliate scheme come out of the 30 per cent portion.

So being fair I’d probably assume it’s around 15 per cent profit to both companies. Still not half bad considering that’s on every single purchase.

John Ozimek (Co-founder Big Ideas Machine)

It feels like we are comparing apples with oranges here.

Yes, the Epic announcement about the Unreal Marketplace is a great PR story (especially the fact that the new revenue share will be backdated to 2014) but this is a marketplace for game assets, and increased activity by creators in the marketplace improves the stickiness of Unreal Engine as a creative platform.

So this is nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with protecting market share.

Then we have the generosity of the Microsoft store, but not for games. Why? Because as a mobile ecosystem it is miles behind Apple and Google.

So unless consumers decide that a phone that runs Windows 10 is the new must-have accessory of the summer, all Microsoft can do is throw money at developers and hope that they have forgotten what happened with Windows Phone.

Suggesting that the Apple and Google 30 per cent is justified because it includes hosting, reporting and payment fees doesn’t really work, as all the stores include such costs within the respective revenue share.

So we can only conclude that Apple and Google charge 30 per cent because they can and because it’s an acceptable payoff for the incredible opportunity the leading app stores give to publishers.

Could they drop it beneath 30 per cent? For sure – but why would they? Neither company wants to get into an arms race with the other (as if one dropped, the other would have to match it immediately), and both are making a tonne of cash, thanks very much. Plus, there is no effective competition putting revenue or market share pressure on them.

The real question is what the total opportunity cost is once you add in UA. Access to the world’s biggest game-buying audience for a 30 per cent revenue share and no upfront distribution costs is an incredible deal – as long as you haven’t already spent 70 per cent on installs and monetisation.

It seems to me that UA costs are the real issue, but Apple and Google are the visible targets.

Torulf Jernström (CEO Tribeflame)

Another vote for keeping the 70/30 split. Apple and Google take care of a huge hassle for us, and, in my opinion, they are worth their share.

Richard Hazenberg (CEO Lunagames)

The worry shouldn’t really be the 70/30, the real issue is that the app stores seem to be increasingly engineered to require Google Ads or Apple SearchAds usage for any fair chance to gain momentum.

So if you are effectively paying for discoverability with the app store, the revenue share suddenly feels somewhat different.

Craig Chapple (Senior Editor)

Epic’s Tim Sweeney has weighed in on this with his thoughts, with Fortnite bypassing Google Play. Now obviously Epic and Fortnite are their own special case (and who knows, maybe this won’t work!), but Tim makes some interesting points about what Google offers on an open platform.

I think the revenue share starts becoming a bit rich when, as Richard says, you could end up giving more money to the platform holder to get your game noticed.

I think at the very least, for companies like Facebook that are currently releasing their platforms (like Instant Games on Messenger) on top of storefronts like Google Play, it doesn’t make sense to take yet another 30 per cent cut.

That does not strike me as favourable for developers. (I should note Facebook has previously said it may not stay with the 70/30 split).

Nicolas Godement-Berlin (Head of Operations Asmodee Digital)

It’s fascinating to see Epic rolling out their own Android store to distribute Fornite.

‘Content is king’, they say, so this bold move speaks volume to the value Epic feels it is getting for its 30 per cent and the power play at work here.

Epic believes Fortnite is so big right now that Android users will flock to its store to download it.

To Epic, discarding the 30 per cent cut is well worth the additional trouble of building their own infrastructure, losing visibility on Google Play and forcing players into another payment method. For such a big title as Fortnite, I think Epic is right.

As a result, I think we will see more publishers distribute their Android games directly in the future. In return, I wouldn’t be surprised if both Apple and Google started diversifying their distribution service menu with reduced rates or additional offers such as paid promotion.

Meanwhile, Epic is off “pulling a Valve” and building its own Android version of Steam. Warm up your popcorn, this is going to be good.

Jani Kahrama (Founder Secret Exit)

Since the question is what I’d like to see and what I’d personally consider fair, here goes:

A 30 per cent royalty is not justified on Google Play and the App Store when you compare it to Steam. The services Steam provides to games developers, from community forums to Steam Workshop, including the data hosting, are of significant value.

Selling Search Ads is definitely at odds with taking a 30 per cent cut. Personally, I consider first-party controlled paid visibility something that belongs to the dark ages of Java games.

How’s this for fair: the platform provider takes a 30 per cent cut for the installs it has driven and 10 per cent on the rest? Platform providers certainly track and know the installs generated by the front page feature slots.

Jas Purewal (Lawyer & Partner Purewal & Partners)

I’m for 70/30. It’s easy to take platforms for granted, grass is always greener etcetera.

The more interesting development for me isn’t the platform cut, it’s the proliferation of game platforms we seem to be witnessing, in large part because some major publishers don’t want to pay any cut to a third-party distributor.

Activision, EA, now Bethesda on PC, Epic, there’ll be more.

Speculative: at what point does a King or Machine Zone-size business (or challenger thereto) think about that direction too?

How much distribution fragmentation in the name of individual game revenue maximisation would the market bear?（source：Pocketgamer.biz ）