Those who said the lower split wouldn't result in consumer-friendly pricing are wrong, at least in this case. It'll be interesting to see if it continues with other games.
I know where I'll be buying if the reviews show it's worthwhile.
Beware "introductory" pricing concepts... Like when a company offers a really low rate but then at the renewal time its back to the same as everyone else.
But maybe not... options are always good.
I highly doubt the developers are going to lower their prices just because they're selling exclusively on Epic's store. They'll pocket whatever the difference is and keep charging the same prices as they were on Steam. The best way to let these companies know that PC gamers aren't cool with exclusives and going the way of consoles is not to buy them. There's plenty of great games that will still be sold on Steam and GoG that you can spend your money on.
Devs / companies price their products a) first and foremost recover their costs; b) make a profit. They will factor in the sellers cut but whether we see it or not ... shrug.
In this case the price had been set at (lets ignore taxes for now) about $45. Add 30% and on Steam this would end up at about $60. Now - ignoring the fact that Epic have made them an offer! - $45 + 12% is about $50. The $10 difference - in this case - is the difference between Steam and Epic's percentage.
Whilst its a long way from supermarket style price competition / offerings / sales its something that has been missing for a long time.
They've ensured that I will be pirating the game instead. Sorry, but that's the truth of it. I simply don't want to build up another library of games somewhere else and that's my choice to make. I'm not waiting a year when I don't have to. My games collection is complicated enough as it is. If it was on Steam I would have bought it in two days when I get paid.
So you are going to steal it?
Gotcha good thing you are sticking to your principals there. Steam or steal!
I've always been open about doing what I think is the best option for myself. I pump way more money into the industry than the average gamer so, trust me, you aren't going to make me feel bad about it.
If I want to make sure games keep featuring on Steam, I need to vote with my wallet, right?
I'm not saying it should only be on Steam.. but I want it on Steam as well.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I just don't get why people whine so much about exclusives on platforms that you can download for free. You don't have to have them all open; just keep the one open you need to communicate with friends (Which is usually Discord anyways) and the one you are playing a game from. It is not that difficult to handle a bunch of different accounts. We have dozens of accounts for different websites, games, services, streaming sites,ect its not gonna be any worse having a single new one.
Also, let's be real here: People are just upset because they can't play their games from one location, but use an argument that makes no sense by that logic. If you are so upset that you can't play all games on Steam...that means you are happy that Steam has all the exclusives. Seems a little hypocritical, no?
Steam has and continues to have an absolute monopoly on PC gaming. We don't need that, we need more competition.
We all win in the end. In this case, a 60$ game is now 50$. Oh so you pre-ordered it on Steam? Cancel your pre-order then pre-order on the ES for 10$ cheaper. Simple. You had store credit on Steam saved up for metro? Also simple, they are honoring pre-orders up to this point so you still get it on Steam. Nothing changes for you.
I wonder if I can charge all the companies rent for installing their e-store on my computer? Too many stores is too many. They're pushing advertising at me and capturing market data on me. Not to mention the possibility of viruses, malware, and tracking software they might accidentally install along the way. All I get out of the deal is the 'privilege' to buy goods from their store.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I don't understand this argument about too many services. I have orgin, Uplay, Epic, and Steam and its easy to jump from game to the another.
I think the argument could come into play when a game is offered on multiple services it could hinder the ability to play together with folks on a different service. If I have it on Steam and my good friend Seamus McCrotchface has it on Epic can we easily join the same game/team/whatever?
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
They've ensured that I will be pirating the game instead. Sorry, but that's the truth of it. I simply don't want to build up another library of games somewhere else and that's my choice to make. I'm not waiting a year when I don't have to. My games collection is complicated enough as it is. If it was on Steam I would have bought it in two days when I get paid.
So you are going to steal it?
Gotcha good thing you are sticking to your principals there. Steam or steal!
I've always been open about doing what I think is the best option for myself. I pump way more money into the industry than the average gamer so, trust me, you aren't going to make me feel bad about it.
If I want to make sure games keep featuring on Steam, I need to vote with my wallet, right?
There is difference in voting with your wallet and theft.
Lets see this week I do not feel like shopping at x because y had a sale so think I will just shop lift from x because I am entirely to lazy to walk across the hall in the mall to get it at y.
But these days little surprises me.
It makes no difference. If I didn't pirate it then I won't be buying it anyway so they are not losing a sale. It's digital so they aren't losing stock, a digital copy of a game has exactly zero asset value, that's not open for debate. They lose nothing. Since I'm taking something that has no value, I have stolen.. nothing. Technically, I mean. They'd gain a sale on Steam if I could buy it there on Wednesday.
Principally, no, I don't have the right to enjoy the game. But it affects no one and no money or value is lost anywhere.. so I simply don't care.
Post edited by TheDarkrayne on
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I get that publishers need to exist. But if I'm going to spend a given amount of money on a game, I'd prefer that more of it go to developers and less to publishers rather than the other way around.
I don't understand this argument about too many services. I have orgin, Uplay, Epic, and Steam and its easy to jump from game to the another.
I think the argument could come into play when a game is offered on multiple services it could hinder the ability to play together with folks on a different service. If I have it on Steam and my good friend Seamus McCrotchface has it on Epic can we easily join the same game/team/whatever?
As far as I am aware, this is not a problem that I have seen shown anywhere when it comes to PC platform > PC platform. I could be wrong, but regardless; that is not on the platform holder necessarily. That is on the developer first, if the platform holder refuses them the ability to play cross-play, then it is on them.
I just want to be clear here: I am all for there being reasons to be upset about the ES. But most of those reasons have very little to do with the things people are actually complaining about.
Here are a few concerns that are absolutely something that need to be addressed in a pretty reasonable time frame: User reviews(is coming), automated refund system (which is coming, but right now its a mess since you have to email / wait for response), community forums for each game, a better UI for social interaction, ways to invite people directly into games that you are playing, (might be in for some games, like fortnite) a better looking storefront, an authentication option for phones,,regional pricing for all countries that steam has, and modding support similar to the workshop on Steam.
They've ensured that I will be pirating the game instead. Sorry, but that's the truth of it. I simply don't want to build up another library of games somewhere else and that's my choice to make. I'm not waiting a year when I don't have to. My games collection is complicated enough as it is. If it was on Steam I would have bought it in two days when I get paid.
So you are going to steal it?
Gotcha good thing you are sticking to your principals there. Steam or steal!
I've always been open about doing what I think is the best option for myself. I pump way more money into the industry than the average gamer so, trust me, you aren't going to make me feel bad about it.
If I want to make sure games keep featuring on Steam, I need to vote with my wallet, right?
I'm not saying it should only be on Steam.. but I want it on Steam as well.
None of the money you pump into other games is going to be relayed from the devs you pay to EA here.
I can't agree with pirating a game merely because the devs and pub aren't encouraging Steam's shitastic platform monopoly.
They've ensured that I will be pirating the game instead. Sorry, but that's the truth of it. I simply don't want to build up another library of games somewhere else and that's my choice to make. I'm not waiting a year when I don't have to. My games collection is complicated enough as it is. If it was on Steam I would have bought it in two days when I get paid.
So you are going to steal it?
Gotcha good thing you are sticking to your principals there. Steam or steal!
I've always been open about doing what I think is the best option for myself. I pump way more money into the industry than the average gamer so, trust me, you aren't going to make me feel bad about it.
If I want to make sure games keep featuring on Steam, I need to vote with my wallet, right?
I'm not saying it should only be on Steam.. but I want it on Steam as well.
None of the money you pump into the game is going to be relayed from the devs you pay to EA here.
I can't agree with pirating a game merely because the devs and pub aren't encouraging Steam's shitastic platform monopoly.
I'm not asking people to agree with it. I just think it's important that people know these decisions have this kind of effect. More than many think, because most people that will do what I will do will not admit it. They just keep quiet.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Bought it in steam already. I just hope this exclusive store BS doesn't lead us to StoreWars. Forcing costummers SUCKS! So annoying they're bringing their console wars to the PC at the end...
Yes, pre-orders on Steam are being honored. This is competition, which is good, but the timing was awful.
Is not competition is more about the money can't blame them going where the money is. If was competition I would seen a Mac and Linux Metro Exodus so Windows don't have a market hold on the gaming space.
I just hope that in the future this doesn't all lead to an exclusives divided market.. because they'll monetize it you know... making use pay for access to each platform.. just like the consoles do.
Ideally, what I would like to see are games being released on both Steam and Epic Store. They could be different prices, sales could be different, whatever.. but we all still have the choice. That's the ideal scenario for gamers.
At the moment Epic's plan is to try poach Steam's customers by not giving them any other option. You can bet Epic is actively trying to secure these exclusive agreements, it's possible that a deal like that is the only way to get the best rates on their store. They aren't doing anything for the developer's benefit, not directly.. it's all for themselves so they can compete with Steam.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Bought it in steam already. I just hope this exclusive store BS doesn't lead us to StoreWars. Forcing costummers SUCKS! So annoying they're bringing their console wars to the PC at the end...
Because you had to pay $400 for access to an online game store like you do for a game console?
I say that it's unfair that so many games are exclusive to Steam. So there.
They didn't renege on any deals. For everyone who bought the game on Steam, they'll still honor it. Though if you can cancel the pre-order to get back your $60 and buy it for $50 on Epic, you'll come out ahead by $10. The developer comes out ahead, too, getting to keep $44 rather than $42.
I don't see why so many people are whining about developers wanting to be paid for their games. Of all the ways that they could try to make more money, a smaller cut coming from the publisher has got to be about the least objectionable thing ever.
Steam doesn't have exclusivity deals with publishers. It's just been the de-facto place to sell PC games for years. And it's not about developers wanting to be paid. It's about Epic driving dump truck loads of Fortnite money to the doors of developers and bribing them to go exclusive. One of the reasons I prefer PC gaming over consoles is because (well up until recently, looking at you Microsoft Store) there was none of this "exclusive" bullshit that we see with consoles. The Epic store is also a bare boned shell of a thing compared to Steam. If they're going to try and compete with Steam, then they should at least TRY and have comparable functionality. Yes, yes I know they said improvements will be coming "soon" but there's no timeline or guarantee it will anywhere close to what Steam has.
Also, opt in consumer reviews? Yeah, no. As much as I hate review bombing, it's infinitely better than no reviews at all. I'm willing to bet the opt in reviews will be heavily modded with the developers being given the power to change or delete reviews. They can all get bent and I hope any game that's "exclusive" to Epic crashes and burns.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I say that it's unfair that so many games are exclusive to Steam. So there.
They didn't renege on any deals. For everyone who bought the game on Steam, they'll still honor it. Though if you can cancel the pre-order to get back your $60 and buy it for $50 on Epic, you'll come out ahead by $10. The developer comes out ahead, too, getting to keep $44 rather than $42.
I don't see why so many people are whining about developers wanting to be paid for their games. Of all the ways that they could try to make more money, a smaller cut coming from the publisher has got to be about the least objectionable thing ever.
Steam doesn't have exclusivity deals with publishers. It's just been the de-facto place to sell PC games for years. And it's not about developers wanting to be paid. It's about Epic driving dump truck loads of Fortnite money to the doors of developers and bribing them to go exclusive. One of the reasons I prefer PC gaming over consoles is because (well up until recently, looking at you Microsoft Store) there was none of this "exclusive" bullshit that we see with consoles. The Epic store is also a bare boned shell of a thing compared to Steam. If they're going to try and compete with Steam, then they should at least TRY and have comparable functionality. Yes, yes I know they said improvements will be coming "soon" but there's no timeline or guarantee it will anywhere close to what Steam has.
Also, opt in consumer reviews? Yeah, no. As much as I hate review bombing, it's infinitely better than no reviews at all. I'm willing to bet the opt in reviews will be heavily modded with the developers being given the power to change or delete reviews. They can all get bent and I hope any game that's "exclusive" to Epic crashes and burns.
As @Quizzical made clear, this isn't a hardware platform exclusive. It's not the same. There's no monetary cost to download Epic's launcher. If you don't trust the launcher reviews.... Just read the reviews that will still be done by multiple gaming sites and the experiences described by users who visit those sites.
And if you've played any number of MMORPGs, you've already likely downloaded exponentially more launchers than gamers who haven't. It hasn't cost you much there, and it won't cost you much here.
I say that it's unfair that so many games are exclusive to Steam. So there.
They didn't renege on any deals. For everyone who bought the game on Steam, they'll still honor it. Though if you can cancel the pre-order to get back your $60 and buy it for $50 on Epic, you'll come out ahead by $10. The developer comes out ahead, too, getting to keep $44 rather than $42.
I don't see why so many people are whining about developers wanting to be paid for their games. Of all the ways that they could try to make more money, a smaller cut coming from the publisher has got to be about the least objectionable thing ever.
Steam doesn't have exclusivity deals with publishers. It's just been the de-facto place to sell PC games for years. And it's not about developers wanting to be paid. It's about Epic driving dump truck loads of Fortnite money to the doors of developers and bribing them to go exclusive. One of the reasons I prefer PC gaming over consoles is because (well up until recently, looking at you Microsoft Store) there was none of this "exclusive" bullshit that we see with consoles. The Epic store is also a bare boned shell of a thing compared to Steam. If they're going to try and compete with Steam, then they should at least TRY and have comparable functionality. Yes, yes I know they said improvements will be coming "soon" but there's no timeline or guarantee it will anywhere close to what Steam has.
Also, opt in consumer reviews? Yeah, no. As much as I hate review bombing, it's infinitely better than no reviews at all. I'm willing to bet the opt in reviews will be heavily modded with the developers being given the power to change or delete reviews. They can all get bent and I hope any game that's "exclusive" to Epic crashes and burns.
As @Quizzical made clear, this isn't a hardware platform exclusive. It's not the same. There's no monetary cost to download Epic's launcher. If you don't trust the launcher reviews.... Just read the reviews that will still be done by multiple gaming sites and the experiences described by users who visit those sites.
And if you've played any number of MMORPGs, you've already likely downloaded exponentially more launchers than gamers who haven't. It hasn't cost you much there, and it won't cost you much here.
It doesn't right now but it could lead to there being a charge for each digital platform in the future as things get more competitive. It's possible, is all I'm saying. Really, though, I don't think the PC gaming community would allow them to get away with it.
At the end of the day though, if no one is getting the lion's share, everyone is going to try to get it. Is that positive competition? Because, what it boils down to is how can a digital platform make more money from us, the consumers. It will not simply be about trying to convert customers from the other platform, they will start trying more things.
Post edited by TheDarkrayne on
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I say that it's unfair that so many games are exclusive to Steam. So there.
They didn't renege on any deals. For everyone who bought the game on Steam, they'll still honor it. Though if you can cancel the pre-order to get back your $60 and buy it for $50 on Epic, you'll come out ahead by $10. The developer comes out ahead, too, getting to keep $44 rather than $42.
I don't see why so many people are whining about developers wanting to be paid for their games. Of all the ways that they could try to make more money, a smaller cut coming from the publisher has got to be about the least objectionable thing ever.
Steam doesn't have exclusivity deals with publishers. It's just been the de-facto place to sell PC games for years. And it's not about developers wanting to be paid. It's about Epic driving dump truck loads of Fortnite money to the doors of developers and bribing them to go exclusive. One of the reasons I prefer PC gaming over consoles is because (well up until recently, looking at you Microsoft Store) there was none of this "exclusive" bullshit that we see with consoles. The Epic store is also a bare boned shell of a thing compared to Steam. If they're going to try and compete with Steam, then they should at least TRY and have comparable functionality. Yes, yes I know they said improvements will be coming "soon" but there's no timeline or guarantee it will anywhere close to what Steam has.
Also, opt in consumer reviews? Yeah, no. As much as I hate review bombing, it's infinitely better than no reviews at all. I'm willing to bet the opt in reviews will be heavily modded with the developers being given the power to change or delete reviews. They can all get bent and I hope any game that's "exclusive" to Epic crashes and burns.
And I'm sure that no money changed hands at all to make it so that the "free" game that I got with the Radeon HD 5850 that I purchased in 2009 required accessing the game exclusively through Steam.
You'd better believe that there are a whole lot of developers who would love to see keeping 88% of sales become the norm rather than the 70% that they can get through Steam. That's why developers are rooting for the Epic store or something like it to either dethrone Steam or make Valve feel forced to match Epic's smaller cut in order to compete. Whatever money Epic may offer to get developers to agree to do things that push players toward Epic's store certainly helps a lot with such deals, but that 88% cut of sales makes developers a lot more inclined to make that jump than they would be otherwise.
And you know how people say that a decreased publisher take won't result in lower prices for consumers? Plenty of developers would be happy to offer a game both for $60 on Steam and $50 on Epic, or some other pair of prices at about that ratio. You know what stops them? Steam does, by saying that you can't have your game on Steam at all if you offer it cheaper elsewhere.
So Metro Exodus isn't on Steam at all, to allow it to be cheaper for gamers without reducing the cut that the developer gets. If you want to cry foul over that, kindly direct your protests toward Valve, not Epic. If Valve had approved of the game being $60 on Steam and $50 on Epic, it would still be on Steam.
I say that it's unfair that so many games are exclusive to Steam. So there.
They didn't renege on any deals. For everyone who bought the game on Steam, they'll still honor it. Though if you can cancel the pre-order to get back your $60 and buy it for $50 on Epic, you'll come out ahead by $10. The developer comes out ahead, too, getting to keep $44 rather than $42.
I don't see why so many people are whining about developers wanting to be paid for their games. Of all the ways that they could try to make more money, a smaller cut coming from the publisher has got to be about the least objectionable thing ever.
Steam doesn't have exclusivity deals with publishers. It's just been the de-facto place to sell PC games for years. And it's not about developers wanting to be paid. It's about Epic driving dump truck loads of Fortnite money to the doors of developers and bribing them to go exclusive. One of the reasons I prefer PC gaming over consoles is because (well up until recently, looking at you Microsoft Store) there was none of this "exclusive" bullshit that we see with consoles. The Epic store is also a bare boned shell of a thing compared to Steam. If they're going to try and compete with Steam, then they should at least TRY and have comparable functionality. Yes, yes I know they said improvements will be coming "soon" but there's no timeline or guarantee it will anywhere close to what Steam has.
Also, opt in consumer reviews? Yeah, no. As much as I hate review bombing, it's infinitely better than no reviews at all. I'm willing to bet the opt in reviews will be heavily modded with the developers being given the power to change or delete reviews. They can all get bent and I hope any game that's "exclusive" to Epic crashes and burns.
As @Quizzical made clear, this isn't a hardware platform exclusive. It's not the same. There's no monetary cost to download Epic's launcher. If you don't trust the launcher reviews.... Just read the reviews that will still be done by multiple gaming sites and the experiences described by users who visit those sites.
And if you've played any number of MMORPGs, you've already likely downloaded exponentially more launchers than gamers who haven't. It hasn't cost you much there, and it won't cost you much here.
It doesn't right now but it could lead to there being a charge for each digital platform in the future as things get more competitive. It's possible, is all I'm saying. Really, though, I don't think the PC gaming community would allow them to get away with it.
At the end of the day though, if no one is getting the lion's share, everyone is going to try to get it. Is that positive competition? Because, what it boils down to is how can a digital platform make more money from us, the consumers. It will not simply be about trying to covert customers from the other platform, they will start trying more things.
I don't see how that's more likely with multiple competitive platforms rather than none. Competition usually drives prices for consumers down, all other things being equal.
We've already seen an example of this: the cost to devs/pubs is less for platforms looking to compete with Steam. That can be passed on to gamers, too. And likely, it will, if the competition continues to grow.
And if you've played any number of MMORPGs, you've already likely downloaded exponentially more launchers than gamers who haven't. It hasn't cost you much there, and it won't cost you much here.
That's the part that amuses me the most. A forum full of MMO players complaining about having to use a different launcher, when practially every MMO has its own(or at least every studio).
I can understand the disdain for the Epic store based on having to worry about financial security or just because of how bare and shoddy their current store version is, but complaining about having to use a launcher is just silly.
My current biggest gripe with Epic is offline mode. And, I find Epic's account security slightly worrisome for the average person.
But, as far as launching it goes... I don't see a difference in clicking the little Steam icon or the EGS one or the Bethesda one, etc. They all just pop up and function largely the same.
I wonder if Epic will have a feature allowing you to insert external games into the library, as Steam does.
I say that it's unfair that so many games are exclusive to Steam. So there.
They didn't renege on any deals. For everyone who bought the game on Steam, they'll still honor it. Though if you can cancel the pre-order to get back your $60 and buy it for $50 on Epic, you'll come out ahead by $10. The developer comes out ahead, too, getting to keep $44 rather than $42.
I don't see why so many people are whining about developers wanting to be paid for their games. Of all the ways that they could try to make more money, a smaller cut coming from the publisher has got to be about the least objectionable thing ever.
Steam doesn't have exclusivity deals with publishers. It's just been the de-facto place to sell PC games for years. And it's not about developers wanting to be paid. It's about Epic driving dump truck loads of Fortnite money to the doors of developers and bribing them to go exclusive. One of the reasons I prefer PC gaming over consoles is because (well up until recently, looking at you Microsoft Store) there was none of this "exclusive" bullshit that we see with consoles. The Epic store is also a bare boned shell of a thing compared to Steam. If they're going to try and compete with Steam, then they should at least TRY and have comparable functionality. Yes, yes I know they said improvements will be coming "soon" but there's no timeline or guarantee it will anywhere close to what Steam has.
Also, opt in consumer reviews? Yeah, no. As much as I hate review bombing, it's infinitely better than no reviews at all. I'm willing to bet the opt in reviews will be heavily modded with the developers being given the power to change or delete reviews. They can all get bent and I hope any game that's "exclusive" to Epic crashes and burns.
As @Quizzical made clear, this isn't a hardware platform exclusive. It's not the same. There's no monetary cost to download Epic's launcher. If you don't trust the launcher reviews.... Just read the reviews that will still be done by multiple gaming sites and the experiences described by users who visit those sites.
And if you've played any number of MMORPGs, you've already likely downloaded exponentially more launchers than gamers who haven't. It hasn't cost you much there, and it won't cost you much here.
It doesn't right now but it could lead to there being a charge for each digital platform in the future as things get more competitive. It's possible, is all I'm saying. Really, though, I don't think the PC gaming community would allow them to get away with it.
At the end of the day though, if no one is getting the lion's share, everyone is going to try to get it. Is that positive competition? Because, what it boils down to is how can a digital platform make more money from us, the consumers. It will not simply be about trying to covert customers from the other platform, they will start trying more things.
Not going to happen. Can you think of any Internet commerce site that makes people pay money just to access the site and see what they have to offer? Quite the opposite; the only thing that stops them from paying you to browse their goods is that people with no interest in buying anything would pocket the money without really shopping. Indeed, advertisements basically consist of paying money to put some small portion of your store in front of people who might not otherwise see it.
I say that it's unfair that so many games are exclusive to Steam. So there.
They didn't renege on any deals. For everyone who bought the game on Steam, they'll still honor it. Though if you can cancel the pre-order to get back your $60 and buy it for $50 on Epic, you'll come out ahead by $10. The developer comes out ahead, too, getting to keep $44 rather than $42.
I don't see why so many people are whining about developers wanting to be paid for their games. Of all the ways that they could try to make more money, a smaller cut coming from the publisher has got to be about the least objectionable thing ever.
Steam doesn't have exclusivity deals with publishers. It's just been the de-facto place to sell PC games for years. And it's not about developers wanting to be paid. It's about Epic driving dump truck loads of Fortnite money to the doors of developers and bribing them to go exclusive. One of the reasons I prefer PC gaming over consoles is because (well up until recently, looking at you Microsoft Store) there was none of this "exclusive" bullshit that we see with consoles. The Epic store is also a bare boned shell of a thing compared to Steam. If they're going to try and compete with Steam, then they should at least TRY and have comparable functionality. Yes, yes I know they said improvements will be coming "soon" but there's no timeline or guarantee it will anywhere close to what Steam has.
Also, opt in consumer reviews? Yeah, no. As much as I hate review bombing, it's infinitely better than no reviews at all. I'm willing to bet the opt in reviews will be heavily modded with the developers being given the power to change or delete reviews. They can all get bent and I hope any game that's "exclusive" to Epic crashes and burns.
As @Quizzical made clear, this isn't a hardware platform exclusive. It's not the same. There's no monetary cost to download Epic's launcher. If you don't trust the launcher reviews.... Just read the reviews that will still be done by multiple gaming sites and the experiences described by users who visit those sites.
And if you've played any number of MMORPGs, you've already likely downloaded exponentially more launchers than gamers who haven't. It hasn't cost you much there, and it won't cost you much here.
It doesn't right now but it could lead to there being a charge for each digital platform in the future as things get more competitive. It's possible, is all I'm saying. Really, though, I don't think the PC gaming community would allow them to get away with it.
At the end of the day though, if no one is getting the lion's share, everyone is going to try to get it. Is that positive competition? Because, what it boils down to is how can a digital platform make more money from us, the consumers. It will not simply be about trying to covert customers from the other platform, they will start trying more things.
I don't see how that's more likely with multiple competitive platforms rather than none. Competition usually drives priced for consumers down, all other things being equal.
We've already seen an example of this: the cost to devs/pubs is less for platforms looking to compete with Steam. That can be passed on to gamers, too. And likely, it will, if the competition continues to grow.
It's just that it happened on consoles, that's why it seems likely.. not likely; possible. We all know that Sony and Microsoft don't need to charge for online play, but they do.. to lock in customers by forcing them to make a financial commitment to their service and dissuading them from thinking about using the other as well. Subscription MMOs do a similar thing or one's with VIP, Patron or whatever. Server costs and such used to be a concern but that's irrelevant these days. Even Nintendo joined in eventually.
There was a time when online play was free on all the consoles.
But like I said, I don't think PC gamers would let them get away with it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
It's just that it happened on consoles, that's why it seems likely.. not likely; possible. We all know that Sony and Microsoft don't need to charge for online play, but they do.. to lock in customers by forcing them to make a financial commitment to their service and dissuading them from thinking about using the other as well. Subscription MMOs do a similar thing or one's with VIP, Patron or whatever. Server costs and such used to be a concern but that's irreverent these days. Even Nintendo joined in eventually.
There was a time when online play was free on all the consoles.
But like I said, I don't think PC gamers would let them get away with it.
Game consoles are a totally different business model. They sell you the console up front for minimal profit or even a loss, then try to make it up later by taking a cut of software sales. That's sometimes called the "razor and blades" model, and famously used for printers and ink cartridges. It's also similar to getting a "free" cell phone when you sign up for a two year plan at an inflated price.
PC game stores can't do that because you're not getting hardware at a subsidized price from them. You can just go download someone else's game store for free and use that if you don't like the one you were using before. With game consoles, the physical hardware has a considerable cost. The cost to a game store for someone to download their store application is a fraction of a penny, not hundreds of dollars.
But to speak more directly to your example, there was a time when you weren't charged for online play on consoles because there was no online play on consoles.
But to speak more directly to your example, there was a time when you weren't charged for online play on consoles because there was no online play on consoles.
Original XBox and PS2 had online play with no costs. PS3 had no online costs, of course, but they eventually joined Microsoft's example with the PS4. And all the Nintendo ones had no online costs until the.. Wii U.. I think? So, what happened is.. one of them did it, eventually all the others wanted a slice of that pie.
The rest of your reply I don't disagree with. Totally makes sense. But I said each time, I don't really think it will happen. I think it's just as unlikely as you do.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Comments
In this case the price had been set at (lets ignore taxes for now) about $45. Add 30% and on Steam this would end up at about $60. Now - ignoring the fact that Epic have made them an offer! - $45 + 12% is about $50. The $10 difference - in this case - is the difference between Steam and Epic's percentage.
Whilst its a long way from supermarket style price competition / offerings / sales its something that has been missing for a long time.
If I want to make sure games keep featuring on Steam, I need to vote with my wallet, right?
I'm not saying it should only be on Steam.. but I want it on Steam as well.
Also, let's be real here: People are just upset because they can't play their games from one location, but use an argument that makes no sense by that logic. If you are so upset that you can't play all games on Steam...that means you are happy that Steam has all the exclusives. Seems a little hypocritical, no?
Steam has and continues to have an absolute monopoly on PC gaming. We don't need that, we need more competition.
We all win in the end. In this case, a 60$ game is now 50$. Oh so you pre-ordered it on Steam? Cancel your pre-order then pre-order on the ES for 10$ cheaper. Simple. You had store credit on Steam saved up for metro? Also simple, they are honoring pre-orders up to this point so you still get it on Steam. Nothing changes for you.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Principally, no, I don't have the right to enjoy the game. But it affects no one and no money or value is lost anywhere.. so I simply don't care.
I just want to be clear here: I am all for there being reasons to be upset about the ES. But most of those reasons have very little to do with the things people are actually complaining about.
Here are a few concerns that are absolutely something that need to be addressed in a pretty reasonable time frame: User reviews(is coming), automated refund system (which is coming, but right now its a mess since you have to email / wait for response), community forums for each game, a better UI for social interaction, ways to invite people directly into games that you are playing, (might be in for some games, like fortnite) a better looking storefront, an authentication option for phones,,regional pricing for all countries that steam has, and modding support similar to the workshop on Steam.
I can't agree with pirating a game merely because the devs and pub aren't encouraging Steam's shitastic platform monopoly.
I just hope this exclusive store BS doesn't lead us to StoreWars.
Forcing costummers SUCKS!
So annoying they're bringing their console wars to the PC at the end...
Ideally, what I would like to see are games being released on both Steam and Epic Store. They could be different prices, sales could be different, whatever.. but we all still have the choice. That's the ideal scenario for gamers.
At the moment Epic's plan is to try poach Steam's customers by not giving them any other option. You can bet Epic is actively trying to secure these exclusive agreements, it's possible that a deal like that is the only way to get the best rates on their store. They aren't doing anything for the developer's benefit, not directly.. it's all for themselves so they can compete with Steam.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
And if you've played any number of MMORPGs, you've already likely downloaded exponentially more launchers than gamers who haven't. It hasn't cost you much there, and it won't cost you much here.
At the end of the day though, if no one is getting the lion's share, everyone is going to try to get it. Is that positive competition? Because, what it boils down to is how can a digital platform make more money from us, the consumers. It will not simply be about trying to convert customers from the other platform, they will start trying more things.
You'd better believe that there are a whole lot of developers who would love to see keeping 88% of sales become the norm rather than the 70% that they can get through Steam. That's why developers are rooting for the Epic store or something like it to either dethrone Steam or make Valve feel forced to match Epic's smaller cut in order to compete. Whatever money Epic may offer to get developers to agree to do things that push players toward Epic's store certainly helps a lot with such deals, but that 88% cut of sales makes developers a lot more inclined to make that jump than they would be otherwise.
And you know how people say that a decreased publisher take won't result in lower prices for consumers? Plenty of developers would be happy to offer a game both for $60 on Steam and $50 on Epic, or some other pair of prices at about that ratio. You know what stops them? Steam does, by saying that you can't have your game on Steam at all if you offer it cheaper elsewhere.
So Metro Exodus isn't on Steam at all, to allow it to be cheaper for gamers without reducing the cut that the developer gets. If you want to cry foul over that, kindly direct your protests toward Valve, not Epic. If Valve had approved of the game being $60 on Steam and $50 on Epic, it would still be on Steam.
We've already seen an example of this: the cost to devs/pubs is less for platforms looking to compete with Steam. That can be passed on to gamers, too. And likely, it will, if the competition continues to grow.
There was a time when online play was free on all the consoles.
But like I said, I don't think PC gamers would let them get away with it.
PC game stores can't do that because you're not getting hardware at a subsidized price from them. You can just go download someone else's game store for free and use that if you don't like the one you were using before. With game consoles, the physical hardware has a considerable cost. The cost to a game store for someone to download their store application is a fraction of a penny, not hundreds of dollars.
But to speak more directly to your example, there was a time when you weren't charged for online play on consoles because there was no online play on consoles.
The rest of your reply I don't disagree with. Totally makes sense. But I said each time, I don't really think it will happen. I think it's just as unlikely as you do.