The difference is $7.20 on epic and $18 on steam. 100k copies sold on a platform means $1M difference in earnings for the company making the title. A $60 title on epic store would have to cost $75 for the same copy on steam.
If you want to pay less to the people actually making the game you now have to wait 6-12 months so you can get it on steam.
No, it would still cost $60 on Steam. We're not seeing the price difference so why should consumers care?
Just because you don't understand economics doesn't mean that it doesn't affect you.
The relevant concept here is called "tax incidence". The 30% fee is partially paid by game developers or publishers or whoever most directly gets the 70% cut, and partially paid by consumers. Exactly how much of the burden falls on which side is complicated. Which side nominally pays the fee is irrelevant.
To pick some round numbers, suppose that Steam took a 20% cut of all game sales. And suppose that a particular game developer decided to charge $50 for their game, so that you pay $50, the game developer gets $40, and Valve takes $10.
Suppose that instead, Valve had set up Steam so that developers can choose most directly the price that they get paid. Valve would set a 25% fee that was nominally collected from the gamer who buys the game. In that world, the developer would set the game price as $40. The 25% fee would mean that you still pay $50, the developer still gets $40, and Valve still takes $10.
If Valve's 30% cut were to vanish overnight for whatever reason for whatever reason but they kept selling games through Steam, the price you pay would tend to decrease, and the amount that developers get would tend to increase. How much goes where is complicated and depends on elasticity.
But more money going to game developers also benefits you, at least if you want them to develop more games in the future. More money going to game developers will lead to more money being spent on game development in the anticipation of getting more revenue for the games that they could develop. That means either more games get created, the games that are developed have larger budgets to be able to do more, or both.
More money going to game developers will lead to more money being spent on game development
Yeah, because we've seen developers invest money into development for years now haven't we...... They would never just fire and lay off people and ride out the income till their next money heist.
More money going to game developers will lead to more money being spent on game development
Yeah, because we've seen developers invest money into development for years now haven't we...... They would never just fire and lay off people and ride out the income till their next money heist.
Compare how much is spent on game development today to the situation thirty years ago. It's not a small difference. What changed is that a lot more money goes to game developers today than did thirty years ago, which makes it profitable to spend a lot more money on game development.
I don't understand why people get so upset over Steam charging 30%. They normalized digital distribution and allow developers to save money that would otherwise have been spent on physical production. Providing companies with a place to sell their products will always cost something and I fail to see how 30% is unreasonable. Especially considering how Steam offers a multiplayer framework for any developers that want to use it. Breaking news, company tries to make money and services have a cost, film at 11.
As for the data collection, clearly the point is being missed here. Steam will spy on what you do with Steam and check how good your hardware is. Epic will dig into your install of a competitor's software and take the information the competitor collected. For me that crosses a very distinct line. You don't touch other people's stuff.
Oh please. How can you talk about making money being normal but be surprised about another company trying to take business away from another! Keep watching that news at 11!
And the data collected you are talking about is 100% the users data. If another company leaves that lying around in a form others can take who is the wrong party here?
The fact that the guy commenting is a FORMER employee of Steam might give more insight into why he is making these comments. I do not find them to be legit.
The fact that the guy commenting is a FORMER employee of Steam might give more insight into why he is making these comments. I do not find them to be legit.
Gonna have to agree with Richard here. I have played games on really inferior platforms for years just to experience them. It really makes no difference to me where I play a game. Steam might have the best application, but I don't really care about that. If I am in the game and it is working just fine; why should I care about if the application I use to launch my games has a bunch of extra features? As long as it plays the games I want it to; I am fine with it.
Ok, I'm beginning to see a trend here of certain individuals avoiding the obvious problems.
Epic Store versus Steam
#1 - Which platform is better? Steam #2 - Which platform has better deals? My guess is, neither. #3 - Which platform takes less of developer / publisher costs? Epic
Based off those 3 key things, I'd love for one of you Epic ponies to please explain the advantage of being FORCED to use Epic as beneficial to players / gamers? I certainly don't see any advantage to being FORCED to use Epic.
The obvious outcome being, if developers / publishers offered their games on every platform and let players decide, you'd definitely be seeing more purchases from Steam. If that isn't enough proof in the pudding that Epic Store is a barebone pile of developer / publisher ass kissing, I don't know what is. There's a reason Epic is doing exclusives and it's NOT because their platform is better.
The only reason I ever downloaded Steam was to play a game I couldn't get from anywhere else. WHY WAS IT GOOD TO FORCE ME TO DO THAT? I certainly did not and still do not see any advantage to being FORCED to use Steam to play any game. Period.
Your argument is so one-sided it's sickening.
You know why they have exclusives, it's to get people to download and use the store. The same reason Steam did it. Do they have to be a bit more aggressive than Steam did? Obviously, because Steam already has such a large foothold.
Stop being so foolish.
I'm curious what game you're referring to that only STEAM had available and I'm also curious where else you were expecting to find it offered?
How about all of them?
Maybe 50% of all PC games come as Steam keys and require that you register to Steam and install Steam.
You have to consider all the other services steam provides, mind you I think a 30% cut is way to high. I mainly use steam because its where all my friends are, and where all my games are, I hate needing to use a new launcher for just 1 game.
As far as I know, Valve has exclusives on Steam since... Always.
Hypocrisy is funny.
More stores more competition, that is good for customers. Monopoly was and will always be bad for us.
All this rage against Epic exclusives is a mix of stupidity and double standards.
The rage is because they are bribing them and then blocking it from getting on other platforms, which is the same thing as having a monopoly on it. Why is it ok for epic to do it? but no one else? Think about it, how would releasing borderlands 3 n both steam and epic store at the same time hurt them? if anything it'd be more profitable. Sadly I won't be buying borderlands 3 till its on steam, like I said all my friends are on steam, and i'd like to play games online with my friends. As for single player, there are lots of ways to get to play the game both legally and otherwise if your so inclined.
I also own all the other borderlands games on steam, so I'd really hate to have to use the epic store client just for the borderlands 3 when I have everything else on steam.
i don't think you understand what a bribe is.. Epic isn't bribing anyone, they are offering publishers / developers more appealing terms of sale and steam has every right to counter epics offer and make a similar or better offer than what epic has proposed to said company.
think you might be a bit confused - looks like 3rd party key redemption to me...
and as a side note.. myself for example, do not use 85% of those "features" steam has.
also.. for example my steam passwords look like this i81P0@ec@RAlF5kGV as i use lastpass to generate me "secure" passwords.. and still at least once a week if not more often i get flags that my account is being accessed from countries all over the world.. so i mean
Epic Store must be well established already if it has so many Epic fanbois ..... and here was I simply saying I use short-cuts and am pretty much agnostic to what store I use. Such a low bar to being called a fanbois!
If you're using LastPass and 2FA and your account is still being accessed you have bigger problems than Steam.
Somebody has a rootkit or is getting keylogged like a MF'er. IJS.
my account is not being accessed.. they don't get the 2FA code to get into my account, but there is definitely data breaches in steam for them to get my massive crazy passwords...
Also there is no rootkit on my PC and how am i getting keylogged when i never type the passwords lol... but keep stretching.
also if anyone had access to my network i would know about it, seeing as i use a full Unifi networking setup with IDS and would know instantly the second someone had unauthorised access into my network / PC
the only thing compromised here bro is steam.
but that being said i still use it when i don't have any other option with some games i own... outside of having to buy it on steam i prefer to buy games directly through the publisher / developer.
Just as a final note.. i have accounts with everything.. blizzard, uplay, origin, Epic hell even games through their own launchers ESO, GW2 etc... and steam is the only platform i consistently get emails flagging my 2FA.
Well, with all the services Valve offers now, a 30% cut might actually be required for them to remain profitable..
..But I am in full agreement; a 30% cut ontop of all the other fees developers have to deal with (like publisher cuts, royalties for music/art/etc., royalties/licensing fees for engines, transaction fees, tax), they could be looking at their income reduced by HALF with no way to avoid it.
I'm honestly not surprised developers are choosing to release on Epic's store with their very reasonable 12% cut. It's a significant income boost. Though, Epic's store/launcher is objectively bad, and Steam is basically a social media platform for gamers with orders of magnitude more eyes, so even with a 30% cut, the potential sales VOLUME compared to Epic's store might result in equal, or greater, profits in the end.
Regardless, I really want to see Valve change their cut for the benefit of the industry. 20%, at most, is acceptable, but anything over 15% still stings.
..But I am in full agreement; a 30% cut ontop of all the other fees developers have to deal with (like publisher cuts, royalties for music/art/etc., royalties/licensing fees for engines, transaction fees, tax), they could be looking at their income reduced by HALF with no way to avoid it.
Developers/publishers can avoid it, don't sell on Steam. They could sell the game themselves through their own website.
..But I am in full agreement; a 30% cut ontop of all the other fees developers have to deal with (like publisher cuts, royalties for music/art/etc., royalties/licensing fees for engines, transaction fees, tax), they could be looking at their income reduced by HALF with no way to avoid it.
Developers/publishers can avoid it, don't sell on Steam. They could sell the game themselves through their own website.
Yep or sale it via physical media, as that is the only way i'll buy games without a reputable publisher or company that can keep the games hosted for lifetime.
For example a person buys a game from a company, and company goes bankrupt it's a single player game but you lose access to goods you paid for vs buying at gamestop without DRM just on disk.
Also the whole EPIC Exclusive thing will just make developers lose more, because of piracy. While it's true developers don't have to pay 30%, lets use for example "Borderlands 3" being Epic Games exclusive, they will already lose sales from those who don't wish to use epic, and meanwhile people will just download unauthroized copies thus resulting in the developers getting 0% of that copy instead of 70% that they would normally get from Steam. Denuvo, as a DRM is bad, but trying to force people into using DRM that slows performance, and Epic Games launcher that lacks many features as a store front, its just going to lead to more piracy, and loss of sales.
Steam vs Epic. Two blood sucking vampires fighting over gamer blood. Why don't you introduce amazon, facebook and google to it and have a perfect customer apocalypse. Only morons think any of those companies work in customer interesst.
That's what i find sad, brand loyalty (and i mean both Steam and Epic fanboys) fighting over their store of choice.
Epic is smart though. Seeing how neglected developers have felt over the years with Valve's complacency and control over pc gaming, Epic seized the oportunity to use a Pro-developer focus to gain their favor and with the exlusive games, consumers will eventually come even if some of them boycott their practices (boycotts are useless most of the times anyways). Tim sweeny (Epic CEO), whatever you think of him, you have to admit the man knows his business.
Now, Valve lack of action is what puzzles me, they either think that Epic won't be able to keep their exclusity tactics for a long time or they're planning something else.
But is interesting to see how all this develops, but i'm gonna need more popcorn for that.
How have developers been neglected by Steam? Give us an example.
"You have to give us 30% of the revenue from selling your game, even though someone else could distribute it profitably for only 12%."
"profitably" is a very interesting word you claim there. When it's the only source where one can buy the game, it's hard to prove such a point.
Anyway, I'm honestly sick and tired of mmorpg staff pushing so much on this topic (not to mention the clear jabbing on steam) to get more views and clicks on the site. Makes me post less and less seeing the same news over and over. If I wanted to know about the latest drama I'd watch keemstar.
The fact that it is such a drama is what's wrong here.
Folks acting like they're a reporter covering the Hindenburg over this shit: "OHHHHH, THE HUMANITY!!'
Personally, i don't care about whether there is a 30% cut or a 12% cut, unless there is some saving passed on to the customer then its not relevant, a disgruntled employee making statements about previous job is something that happens a lot, entertaining perhaps but again, not really relevant. Things that are relevant, the spyware claims against Epic were borne out, to a degree as they did admit to what they were doing in the end, whether they were breaking the law by doing what they were doing is something for the more legally literate to debate, particularly as Epic never asked for permission for the gathering of the information from customers PC's etc. This is just the things that Epic have admitted to doing, hopefully they have stopped, but either way i have little reason to trust them. Timed exclusives etc. not a fan of on console and definitely not a fan of on PC, its a step backwards when it comes to how open the PC 'market' is, personally though not a fan of piracy of games, i might well use the option of obtaining a pirated version of a 'timed exclusive' game and paying for the game later when it is no longer a 'timed exclusive' and i don't have a problem with others if they also choose this route because honestly, why not, as consumers the only options we have is to vote with our wallets
..But I am in full agreement; a 30% cut ontop of all the other fees developers have to deal with (like publisher cuts, royalties for music/art/etc., royalties/licensing fees for engines, transaction fees, tax), they could be looking at their income reduced by HALF with no way to avoid it.
Developers/publishers can avoid it, don't sell on Steam. They could sell the game themselves through their own website.
Yep or sale it via physical media, as that is the only way i'll buy games without a reputable publisher or company that can keep the games hosted for lifetime.
For example a person buys a game from a company, and company goes bankrupt it's a single player game but you lose access to goods you paid for vs buying at gamestop without DRM just on disk.
Also the whole EPIC Exclusive thing will just make developers lose more, because of piracy. While it's true developers don't have to pay 30%, lets use for example "Borderlands 3" being Epic Games exclusive, they will already lose sales from those who don't wish to use epic, and meanwhile people will just download unauthroized copies thus resulting in the developers getting 0% of that copy instead of 70% that they would normally get from Steam. Denuvo, as a DRM is bad, but trying to force people into using DRM that slows performance, and Epic Games launcher that lacks many features as a store front, its just going to lead to more piracy, and loss of sales.
Just a quick query... You say it lacks many features as a store front...
I can browse games to buy, buy said games and play them... Seems pretty feature complete as far as store fronts go.
Maybe the extended feature set of things I don't personally care about isn't there but as far as store fronts go it checks all the boxes...
Ok, I'm beginning to see a trend here of certain individuals avoiding the obvious problems.
Epic Store versus Steam
#1 - Which platform is better? Steam #2 - Which platform has better deals? My guess is, neither. #3 - Which platform takes less of developer / publisher costs? Epic
Based off those 3 key things, I'd love for one of you Epic ponies to please explain the advantage of being FORCED to use Epic as beneficial to players / gamers? I certainly don't see any advantage to being FORCED to use Epic.
The obvious outcome being, if developers / publishers offered their games on every platform and let players decide, you'd definitely be seeing more purchases from Steam. If that isn't enough proof in the pudding that Epic Store is a barebone pile of developer / publisher ass kissing, I don't know what is. There's a reason Epic is doing exclusives and it's NOT because their platform is better.
The only reason I ever downloaded Steam was to play a game I couldn't get from anywhere else. WHY WAS IT GOOD TO FORCE ME TO DO THAT? I certainly did not and still do not see any advantage to being FORCED to use Steam to play any game. Period.
Your argument is so one-sided it's sickening.
You know why they have exclusives, it's to get people to download and use the store. The same reason Steam did it. Do they have to be a bit more aggressive than Steam did? Obviously, because Steam already has such a large foothold.
Stop being so foolish.
I'm curious what game you're referring to that only STEAM had available and I'm also curious where else you were expecting to find it offered?
How about all of them?
Maybe 50% of all PC games come as Steam keys and require that you register to Steam and install Steam.
Seeing as I only use STEAM and maybe once in a while I'll use Origin or GoG, I don't recall any games only being offered on STEAM and on no other digital platform. In the 10 years I've been a member on STEAM, I've never seen or heard of anything being offered as a STEAM only product. This is why I asked for 1 example, not some exaggerated amount like 50%.
Atlas, for one. That took, like, 20 seconds of thinking dude. Don't be wilfully ignorant. Also: no current plans for that exclusivity to end. Funny, that.
Just to recap: some gamers are pissed that they can download a free piece of software and get a free game every month, just because a handful of titles are temporarily exclusive to that piece of software (which, to recap: is free).
People not understanding that Steam is cheaper then the old way is hilarious. Sure newer models maybe be less then the 30% Valve charges, but the 70%-80% that old publisher/distributors took in the years past was worse.
You don't even want to look into the Book industry....
Let's face it folks, Epic Store is catering to publishers / developers, not gamers. Epic Store is anti consumer and is EXACTLY why publishers / developers are using them. I can't tell you how many times I've purchased a product only to be lied to by publishers / developers. One of the worst culprits being No Man Sky. Granted Hello Games managed to recover from that catastrophe, I honestly think without the current Review System in place at STEAM, shit like that would never happen. Epic Store is taking the opposite route of this by doing everything in their power to prevent Review Bombing. So yes, go support an obvious corporate shit show and enjoy even more half assed products then you see on STEAM now.
Did you seriously just assert Epic Store contains more half-baked shit than Steam? Or even, given current philosophical trajectories, it will grow to contain more in the foreseeable future?
Reality is definitely calling, and they're asking you to return home.
Comments
The relevant concept here is called "tax incidence". The 30% fee is partially paid by game developers or publishers or whoever most directly gets the 70% cut, and partially paid by consumers. Exactly how much of the burden falls on which side is complicated. Which side nominally pays the fee is irrelevant.
To pick some round numbers, suppose that Steam took a 20% cut of all game sales. And suppose that a particular game developer decided to charge $50 for their game, so that you pay $50, the game developer gets $40, and Valve takes $10.
Suppose that instead, Valve had set up Steam so that developers can choose most directly the price that they get paid. Valve would set a 25% fee that was nominally collected from the gamer who buys the game. In that world, the developer would set the game price as $40. The 25% fee would mean that you still pay $50, the developer still gets $40, and Valve still takes $10.
If Valve's 30% cut were to vanish overnight for whatever reason for whatever reason but they kept selling games through Steam, the price you pay would tend to decrease, and the amount that developers get would tend to increase. How much goes where is complicated and depends on elasticity.
But more money going to game developers also benefits you, at least if you want them to develop more games in the future. More money going to game developers will lead to more money being spent on game development in the anticipation of getting more revenue for the games that they could develop. That means either more games get created, the games that are developed have larger budgets to be able to do more, or both.
Oh please. How can you talk about making money being normal but be surprised about another company trying to take business away from another! Keep watching that news at 11!
And the data collected you are talking about is 100% the users data. If another company leaves that lying around in a form others can take who is the wrong party here?
Let's party like it is 1863!
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Maybe 50% of all PC games come as Steam keys and require that you register to Steam and install Steam.
i don't think you understand what a bribe is.. Epic isn't bribing anyone, they are offering publishers / developers more appealing terms of sale and steam has every right to counter epics offer and make a similar or better offer than what epic has proposed to said company.
If steam doesn't wanna play ball it's on them.
Somebody has a rootkit or is getting keylogged like a MF'er. IJS.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Also there is no rootkit on my PC and how am i getting keylogged when i never type the passwords lol... but keep stretching.
..But I am in full agreement; a 30% cut ontop of all the other fees developers have to deal with (like publisher cuts, royalties for music/art/etc., royalties/licensing fees for engines, transaction fees, tax), they could be looking at their income reduced by HALF with no way to avoid it.
I'm honestly not surprised developers are choosing to release on Epic's store with their very reasonable 12% cut. It's a significant income boost. Though, Epic's store/launcher is objectively bad, and Steam is basically a social media platform for gamers with orders of magnitude more eyes, so even with a 30% cut, the potential sales VOLUME compared to Epic's store might result in equal, or greater, profits in the end.
Regardless, I really want to see Valve change their cut for the benefit of the industry. 20%, at most, is acceptable, but anything over 15% still stings.
For example a person buys a game from a company, and company goes bankrupt it's a single player game but you lose access to goods you paid for vs buying at gamestop without DRM just on disk.
Also the whole EPIC Exclusive thing will just make developers lose more, because of piracy.
While it's true developers don't have to pay 30%, lets use for example "Borderlands 3" being Epic Games exclusive, they will already lose sales from those who don't wish to use epic, and meanwhile people will just download unauthroized copies thus resulting in the developers getting 0% of that copy instead of 70% that they would normally get from Steam.
Denuvo, as a DRM is bad, but trying to force people into using DRM that slows performance, and Epic Games launcher that lacks many features as a store front, its just going to lead to more piracy, and loss of sales.
Folks acting like they're a reporter covering the Hindenburg over this shit: "OHHHHH, THE HUMANITY!!'
Lmao.
Ea is like a poo fingered midas ~ShakyMo
Timed exclusives etc. not a fan of on console and definitely not a fan of on PC, its a step backwards when it comes to how open the PC 'market' is, personally though not a fan of piracy of games, i might well use the option of obtaining a pirated version of a 'timed exclusive' game and paying for the game later when it is no longer a 'timed exclusive' and i don't have a problem with others if they also choose this route because honestly, why not, as consumers the only options we have is to vote with our wallets
I can browse games to buy, buy said games and play them... Seems pretty feature complete as far as store fronts go.
Maybe the extended feature set of things I don't personally care about isn't there but as far as store fronts go it checks all the boxes...
Just to recap: some gamers are pissed that they can download a free piece of software and get a free game every month, just because a handful of titles are temporarily exclusive to that piece of software (which, to recap: is free).
/facepalm
You don't even want to look into the Book industry....
Reality is definitely calling, and they're asking you to return home.