在主機遊戲產業中，任天堂、Sony與微軟向遊戲公司收取的所謂「權利金」，實際上並不是單一、固定且透明的數字，而是一套由多種收費機制所組成的複合型商業模式。雖然外界與業界長期流傳「30% 抽成」這個說法，特別是在數位商店銷售方面確實具有代表性，但它更多是一個歷史基準值，而非放諸四海皆準的最終答案。實務上，實際比例會依照合作條款、遊戲規模、銷量預期、是否為平台獨佔、以及廠商談判能力而出現相當大的彈性區間。

以數位商店抽成來說，這仍然是平台方最核心、也最穩定的收入來源。過去十多年來，包含Nintendo Switch eShop、PlayStation Store與Xbox Store在內，主流主機平台大多維持約30%的銷售抽成，也就是遊戲售價中，平台自動保留三成，其餘七成才分配給發行商或開發商。這個模式與Apple App Store、Google Play幾乎一致，某種程度上已成為數位內容平台的「產業慣例」。然而，隨著市場競爭加劇與反壟斷壓力升高，各大平台近年開始出現調整。

Sony在PS4與PS5世代，面對跨平台遊戲（如《要塞英雄》）時，曾引入所謂的「跨平台收入分攤機制」，如果某款遊戲在PlayStation平台的消費比例，與該平台玩家數占比不成正比，Sony可能要求額外分潤，以彌補生態系流失的價值。這顯示Sony並非只看單一遊戲銷售，而是從整體平台黏著度與用戶消費行為來計算收益。

微軟則在策略上相對積極調整。近年來，Xbox推出針對獨立遊戲開發者的優惠方案，將數位商店抽成比例降至約12%，大幅低於傳統30%水準，目的在於吸引更多中小型工作室優先選擇Xbox生態。同時，微軟透過Xbox Game Pass訂閱制，改以預付授權費、下載量或遊玩時數來補償開發商，讓「抽成」不再是唯一的收益分配方式。

在硬體層面，各家平台的策略差異也深刻影響整體權利金結構。任天堂長期以來被視為硬體端較具利潤能力的公司，從Wii、Switch到後續產品，市場普遍認為任天堂往往能在主機銷售本身就取得合理利潤，而非完全仰賴軟體回收成本。這使得任天堂在某些時期，對軟體分潤的依賴度相對較低，也讓其在商業談判中擁有更大的彈性空間。

相較之下，Sony與微軟在過往世代常採取「硬體接近成本甚至虧損、後端靠軟體與服務賺回來」的策略。PlayStation Plus、Xbox Game Pass、DLC、微交易與數位遊戲銷售，都是彌補硬體初期虧損的關鍵來源。在這樣的商業模式下，對第三方遊戲的抽成比例，自然成為支撐整個生態系的重要支柱。

此外，還不能忽略授權與版權相關的費用結構。歷史上，例如《大金剛》（Donkey Kong）相關的法律案例，就顯示任天堂對自家IP的掌控與授權收費極為重視。當第三方廠商移植、使用或改編平台方擁有的角色與作品時，往往還需另行支付版權授權費，這部分並不包含在一般所認知的「30% 抽成」之內。

綜合來看，任天堂、Sony 與微軟向遊戲公司收取的「權利金」，實際上是一個動態且高度策略化的體系。30%只是長期形成的市場基準，而非硬性規則。隨著獨立遊戲崛起、訂閱制擴張、跨平台競爭與政策壓力增加，各大平台都在持續調整抽成結構與合作模式。對遊戲公司而言，真正需要評估的早已不是單一比例，而是整體合作成本、曝光資源、用戶規模與長期生態價值的綜合交換。

In the console gaming industry, the so-called “royalties” charged by Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are not a single, fixed, or fully transparent figure. Instead, they form a composite business model made up of multiple revenue mechanisms. While the widely cited “30% cut” is indeed representative—especially for digital storefront sales—it is better understood as a historical benchmark rather than a universally applied final rate. In practice, the actual percentage varies considerably depending on contractual terms, game scale, expected sales volume, platform exclusivity, and the bargaining power of the publisher or developer.

When it comes to digital storefront revenue sharing, this remains the most central and stable source of income for platform holders. For more than a decade, major console platforms such as the Nintendo Switch eShop, PlayStation Store, and Xbox Store have generally maintained a roughly 30% sales commission. In other words, about thirty percent of a game’s retail price is retained by the platform, with the remaining seventy percent distributed to the publisher or developer. This model closely mirrors that of Apple’s App Store and Google Play and has, to some extent, become an industry convention for digital content platforms. However, as competition has intensified and antitrust pressure has increased, all major platform holders have begun to introduce adjustments in recent years.

During the PS4 and PS5 generations, Sony introduced what is often referred to as a “cross-platform revenue sharing mechanism” in response to the rise of cross-play titles such as Fortnite. If a game’s spending on PlayStation does not align with the proportion of PlayStation players in the overall user base, Sony may request additional compensation to account for perceived ecosystem value loss. This approach shows that Sony evaluates revenue not solely on individual game sales, but also on broader platform engagement and user spending behavior.

Microsoft, by contrast, has been more proactive in revising its strategy. In recent years, Xbox has launched incentive programs aimed at independent developers, lowering the digital store revenue cut to around 12%, significantly below the traditional 30%. The goal is to attract more small and mid-sized studios to prioritize the Xbox ecosystem. At the same time, Microsoft has expanded the Xbox Game Pass subscription model, compensating developers through upfront licensing fees, download targets, or playtime metrics, thereby reducing the importance of a single, fixed revenue-sharing percentage.

Hardware strategy also plays a critical role in shaping the overall royalty structure. Nintendo has long been regarded as having stronger profit margins on hardware itself. From the Wii to the Switch and beyond, it is widely believed that Nintendo often earns a reasonable profit directly from console sales, rather than relying solely on software revenue to recoup costs. This reduces its dependence on software revenue sharing and gives Nintendo greater flexibility in commercial negotiations.

Sony and Microsoft, on the other hand, have historically adopted a different approach. In earlier console generations, hardware was often sold at cost or even at a loss in order to rapidly build a user base, with profits recovered later through software sales and services. Subscriptions such as PlayStation Plus and Xbox Game Pass, along with DLC, microtransactions, and digital game sales, have been essential to offsetting early hardware losses. Under this model, revenue sharing from third-party games naturally becomes a crucial pillar of the platform’s overall profitability.

In addition, licensing and intellectual property fees must not be overlooked. Historically, cases such as those involving Donkey Kong have demonstrated Nintendo’s strong emphasis on IP control and licensing enforcement. When third-party publishers port, use, or adapt platform-owned characters or properties, additional licensing fees are often required, and these are not included in the commonly referenced “30% cut.”

In summary, the royalties charged by Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft constitute a dynamic and highly strategic system rather than a simple, uniform percentage. The 30% figure serves as a long-standing reference point, not a rigid rule. As independent games continue to grow, subscription models expand, cross-platform competition intensifies, and regulatory pressure increases, all major platforms are continually adjusting their revenue-sharing structures and partnership models. For game companies, the real calculation is no longer about a single percentage, but about the total cost of cooperation, access to user bases, marketing exposure, and the long-term value of being part of a particular platform ecosystem.