Bizwas said:
Which intuitively makes sense since they don't need to buy the 3rd party games upfront or store boxes and discs (in their e-shop). |
Legislation how you define a digital store simply trailed reality so therefore we see two different models.
As example when Apple had iTunes it was like a 'brick and mortar store' because there was no alternative concept. When they changed to the Apple store, some years later, they choose the new 'Delivery service' model, because it was available.
This is why you could not transfer any funds from itunes to the apple store or even songs you'd already bought. Not because of a technical reason, but because a legal one. Legally it was a different model, a different entity.
For this exact reason you could not transfer funds from the Wii U/3DS store to the Switch store.
Playstation, Xbox continued the 'old' model because they wanted to ensure continuity of their stores.
A big different is not only how you account revenue, but it is about 'accountability of the product.
A 'Brick and Mortar store' is owner of the product (even if its a split second in the case of a digital product) when selling to a customer and with that is accountable if the product works and matches local legal requirements.
A 'Delivery service' is not the owner of the product and therefore is not accountable for the product, only for the delivery.
Example: In Germany Nazi symbolism is illegal. If a 'Brick and Mortar Store' sells a T-shirt with a Swastika that store is accountable and will get into trouble. A 'Delivery Service' that delivers that exact same T-shirt is not, because not accountable for the content of the package.
This is funnily enough the reason we see more censorship/moderation on Playstation then Nintendo (or Apple/Google)
This is also the reason we see Playstation have an active return service for games that are broken even if third party. When did you ever see Nintendo refunding a third party game? Never, because they where never accountable for the product.
So what about Steam? Steam is a private company and we don't have the financials to be sure. But because they have a very generous return policy, I wonder how they can promise a return of the product if they never technically owned it to sell it to the gamer. So I'm betting the old model applies here too.
Last edited by Tober - on 13 July 2026
