<snip> Developers are free to ditch Steam and enjoy the 12% commission fee the Epic Store offer....but I don't see any exodus taking place, do you?
Maybe the 30% commission is actually a good deal for them, considering all the money they save in advertising by publishing a game in a platform that reach Millions of gamers around the world. They also save money by not making hard copies of the game. <snip>
Going with Steam and paying 30% may indeed be a good deal.
Or maybe going with Epic and paying the 12% may be the better, or possibly less risky, deal; the first copies you sell are always the easiest.
And there is evidence that games are selling - and Epic doesn't need many big sellers to fund their stores development and promotions (320k sales x a few $ etc.). Meanwhile Satisfactory being available on Epic has given the studio their best ever release - maybe down to there being so few games on sales!
As you say it is developers who will decide.
And as I posted a while back it may come down to risk management. If you only expect to sell "a few" then getting 88% may be "safer" than hoping to sell "many more" on Steam - especially if your game is just one of hundreds and most people won't even consider it unless its in a Steam sale - meaning you are going to get not 70% but maybe 50% (if 30% off) or even 35% (if 50% off). That 88% may look very tempting.
It is, though, the choice of developers and some have opted for Epic. And - for whatever reason - has resulted in much gnashing of teeth by some. Its just a store.
I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
If someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
Plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
Post edited by Asm0deus on
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
if someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
So campaigning for Steam to fail as well then. May not go down well with some!
Again, it's the very reason devs can't pass along savings. In the case of Steam, they have to forfeit any savings passed along on Epic by paying for it on Steam outta their own pockets.
It's obvious why Steam did it. Doesn't make it any less an anti-competitive practice than, say, Epic inking temporary exclusives.
Are you getting games at 30% discounted price in Origin digital store that I'm not aware of?
Or Blizzard? Or anybody else?
The answer is no. No matter how much is the digital store cut, the customers always paid and will always pay full price.
If you're going to boohoo about how Epic is doing shit that doesn't help the consumer or the industry, you should probably boohoo when there's similar actions taken by other companies in the realm.
The fact is, even if Epic's store was only ever roughly identical to Steam, it would likely be a healthier storefront for the industry. You won't admit this, of course, but that's of little consequence. We could get no extra discounts, no extra bonuses other than what Steam has ever provided, and the fact that Epic is giving more to the developers is a win for the devs, which means teams like Obsidian and Larian can pocket more of the cash we pay for the games to put into improving or making new games. That's a win for us. And it's also fact that if the two entities became roughly equal in terms of install base we would profit (so long as the platforms remained free to use as they are now). In that realm, an "exclusive" means shit in the grand scheme of things and it might even spur Steam and Epic into a sort of "original content" war that we're seeing in the television streaming industry. Valve and Epic put some of that cash they got floating around into funding big new ideas in an attempt to get the next breakout hit on their platform. That, too, is a win for us.
The storefront, at the end of the day, means jack shit without the great games that we play through them. That's why I don't feel some kind of attachment to Steam, and that's why I'm not going to dismiss practices in place prior to Epic arriving that already stifled competition all because I want to see, justify, or convince anyone of Epic failing.
The Epic exclusives were a chosen route by devs, too. Epic didn't force or coerce the deal. Both items are anti-competitive practices. None of these companies stick to strictly consumer-friendly practices. None of these practices are actually that detrimental to the gamers (compare these to things like lootboxes, crowdfunding thousands of dollars of uncreated assets, and all that jazz). It's small potatoes, both of which are only discussed because Epic's arrival caused rustling of some jimmies.
I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
If someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
Plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
So campaigning for Steam to fail as well then. May not go down well with some!
Not campaigning for anything, you need to want to read that to get that from my post. Take off the tin foil hat for awhile it's making you see things that are not there.
Would be more accurate to say I think we have enough platforms with steam, not really interested in seeing another platform gain traction.
You have to give steam some credit though they do lots more that Epic does and they at least are investing in gaming, like say VR.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
If someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
Plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
So campaigning for Steam to fail as well then. May not go down well with some!
Not campaigning for anything, you need to want to read that to get that from my post. Take off the tin foil hat for awhile it's making you see things that are not there.
Would be more accurate to say I think we have enough platforms with steam, not really interested in seeing another platform gain traction.
You have to give steam some credit though they do lots more that Epic does and they at least are investing in gaming, like say VR.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers is not investing in gaming. Or creating and improving the most popular game engine on the planet right now. Or investing in mocap, cloud-based gaming, anti-cheat software or a new improved event scripting language for games. I guess buying and opening new studios also does not count as investing in gaming. Or setting up support funds and grants for game developers. But no, they are not investing in gaming cause they are not part of the VR fad that Valve are pushing. And Valve is doing what else exactly?
I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
If someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
Plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
So campaigning for Steam to fail as well then. May not go down well with some!
Not campaigning for anything, you need to want to read that to get that from my post. Take off the tin foil hat for awhile it's making you see things that are not there.
Would be more accurate to say I think we have enough platforms with steam, not really interested in seeing another platform gain traction.
You have to give steam some credit though they do lots more that Epic does and they at least are investing in gaming, like say VR.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers is not investing in gaming. Or creating and improving the most popular game engine on the planet right now. Or investing in mocap, cloud-based gaming, anti-cheat software or a new improved event scripting language for games. I guess buying and opening new studios also does not count as investing in gaming. Or setting up support funds and grants for game developers. But no, they are not investing in gaming cause they are not part of the VR fad that Valve are pushing. And Valve is doing what else exactly?
Or all the new developer tools they're creating... for free.
I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
If someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
Plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
So campaigning for Steam to fail as well then. May not go down well with some!
Not campaigning for anything, you need to want to read that to get that from my post. Take off the tin foil hat for awhile it's making you see things that are not there.
Would be more accurate to say I think we have enough platforms with steam, not really interested in seeing another platform gain traction.
You have to give steam some credit though they do lots more that Epic does and they at least are investing in gaming, like say VR.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers is not investing in gaming. Or creating and improving the most popular game engine on the planet right now. Or investing in mocap, cloud-based gaming, anti-cheat software or a new improved event scripting language for games. I guess buying and opening new studios also does not count as investing in gaming. Or setting up support funds and grants for game developers. But no, they are not investing in gaming cause they are not part of the VR fad that Valve are pushing. And Valve is doing what else exactly?
Is the 12% sustainable without throwing Fortnite money at it? Can Epic sustain itself when they move from the couple hundred titles to hundred of thousands? Why was the 30% cut the standard for everybody else? (not just Steam).
Do we want to replace a shop that "won't allow discounts to happen unless they happen in there as well" to one that "won't allow sales to happen anywhere else"?
The biggest defenders of Epic practices see the exclusives as a necessary evil in the short term in order to gain traction. Personally I see it as the only sustainable future for Epic in the long run and in a world where Fortnite stops being a cash cow for Epic.
I don't mind a world where an mmorpg is immensely popular, like WOW. I do mind a world where you are only allowed to play only said immensely popular mmorpg.
For starter, 2 game got took down on epic store and you call it mega fail.
Not to mention why are you blaming epic store when other plateform (steam, amazon etc) forced the developer to take down the games on epic store.
I didn't call it a mega fail, I called it the 'first sign' of a fail of Epic proportions (my personal prediction), based on the assumption (debatable) that if the publishers which sell games trough Epic do not see the revenues coming in soon, they will pull the games out the store all together.
Steam didn't force games to withdraw from Epic Big Sales. Developers did, because they never agree with it and Epic didn't bother to tell them. Developers are free to ditch Steam and enjoy the 12% commission fee the Epic Store offer....but I don't see any exodus taking place, do you?
Maybe the 30% commission is actually a good deal for them, considering all the money they save in advertising by publishing a game in a platform that reach Millions of gamers around the world. They also save money by not making hard copies of the game.
Maybe the Epic store will get there eventually, but they need to chill the hell out. They need to keep their e-peen under control. Rome wasn't built in a day.
Steam actaully forced the game to take down on epic store because they don't want the game to sell cheaper on other store.
It is same as samsung store. For a while you can buy pokicoin cheaper on samsung store. But it is forced to match the price of google playestore.
12% is more than enough. The reason other stores are going for 30% is because they are greedy and know that steam is getting away with it so they can too.
Gabe has said himself it's a cash cow. Easy money.
Steam actaully forced the game to take down on epic store because they don't want the game to sell cheaper on other store.
...source?
I thought you can't sell it cheaper on other store. Someone was posting about it on this forum a while ago. I tried to google it, since can't find info on it, not so sure now.
This is a quote on steam key guide line:
It's OK to run a discount on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.
And here is a reddit on people discussing about it:
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Steam actaully forced the game to take down on epic store because they don't want the game to sell cheaper on other store.
...source?
I thought you can't sell it cheaper on other store. Someone was posting about it on this forum a while ago. I tried to google it, since can't find info on it, not so sure now.
Your first part of your argument does not equal the second part.
Steam reserves the right to match any discount made in any other digital store.
The above does not prevent any developer from making discounts anywhere they wish.
The above does not force developers to make the best discounts on Steam.
I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
If someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
Plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
So campaigning for Steam to fail as well then. May not go down well with some!
Not campaigning for anything, you need to want to read that to get that from my post. Take off the tin foil hat for awhile it's making you see things that are not there.
Would be more accurate to say I think we have enough platforms with steam, not really interested in seeing another platform gain traction.
You have to give steam some credit though they do lots more that Epic does and they at least are investing in gaming, like say VR.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers is not investing in gaming. Or creating and improving the most popular game engine on the planet right now. Or investing in mocap, cloud-based gaming, anti-cheat software or a new improved event scripting language for games. I guess buying and opening new studios also does not count as investing in gaming. Or setting up support funds and grants for game developers. But no, they are not investing in gaming cause they are not part of the VR fad that Valve are pushing. And Valve is doing what else exactly?
Is the 12% sustainable without throwing Fortnite money at it? Can Epic sustain itself when they move from the couple hundred titles to hundred of thousands? Why was the 30% cut the standard for everybody else? (not just Steam).
Do we want to replace a shop that "won't allow discounts to happen unless they happen in there as well" to one that "won't allow sales to happen anywhere else"?
The biggest defenders of Epic practices see the exclusives as a necessary evil in the short term in order to gain traction. Personally I see it as the only sustainable future for Epic in the long run and in a world where Fortnite stops being a cash cow for Epic.
I don't mind a world where an mmorpg is immensely popular, like WOW. I do mind a world where you are only allowed to play only said immensely popular mmorpg.
According to Epic it is. They say they need between 7% out of the game's price for payment fees and to support the infrastructure and the rest is profit for them with the tendency of getting that percentage to 5% when they scale things up.
30% is a standard because the previous standard was physical distribution where 30% went to the retailer and additional about 7% went there as well as an insurance for copies not sold and still more went for the manufacturing and distribution costs.
Paying for exclusives is kind of impossible to do without the Fortnite money so the unsustainable thing to do in a post-fortnite world is to keep paying for exclusives. The sustainable thing to do is to establish yourself as a presence and then stop doing the expensive shit and live off the small percentage you get out of each sale. And probably keep producing your own games.
It's OK to run a discount on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.
If that is true, it does not imply, neither support in any way, your claim about Steam.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
Developers in this case means studios that develop games. Those studios are either independent or owned by a publisher. If they are owned by a publisher then money going to the publisher is basically money going to the developer because the publisher funds those studios and the better a game from a studio performs the better the studio budget is. If the developers are independent and self-publish then all the money goes to them. If the developer chooses to publish through a deal with a publisher that deal usually means that the publishers get the majority of the revenue until they make back their investment and then the revenue is split between the two with the bigger part going to the development studio.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
This really bugs me because 1. INDIES and 2. DEVS DONT MAKE MONEY IF PUBLISHERS DONT.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
This really bugs me because 1. INDIES and 2. DEVS DONT MAKE MONEY IF PUBLISHERS DONT.
I think there is a kernel of truth in both arguments:
Self published projects do benefit from the additional profits of a better deal.
Developers usually make a set amount of money regardless of the success of the project they work on. (For example, Fortnite developers don't see any of the money pouring into the game, and in the opposite spectrum, ME: Andromeda developers were fully compensated for their time in Bioware, even if the game was considered a failure.)
Developers usually make a set amount of money regardless of the success of the project they work on. (For example, Fortnite developers don't see any of the money pouring into the game, and in the opposite spectrum, ME: Andromeda developers were fully compensated for their time in Bioware, even if the game was considered a failure.)
Studios that are doing well financially can afford to expand, raise employee salaries, provide bonuses to employees based on product performance and provide job security for said employees. The studio developing ME: Andromeda closed doors so the people working there had to find new jobs.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
This really bugs me because 1. INDIES and 2. DEVS DONT MAKE MONEY IF PUBLISHERS DONT.
I think there is a kernel of truth in both arguments:
Self published projects do benefit from the additional profits of a better deal.
Developers usually make a set amount of money regardless of the success of the project they work on. (For example, Fortnite developers don't see any of the money pouring into the game, and in the opposite spectrum, ME: Andromeda developers were fully compensated for their time in Bioware, even if the game was considered a failure.)
If the game is profitable, then that same studio will usually invest more money to future development.
At least personally I don't care how good bonuses the devs who developed a game will get after launch. As a gamer I'm much more interested in how large share of the purchase price goes towards development of updates and new games, and how large share goes to something else.
Steam actaully forced the game to take down on epic store because they don't want the game to sell cheaper on other store.
...source?
I thought you can't sell it cheaper on other store. Someone was posting about it on this forum a while ago. I tried to google it, since can't find info on it, not so sure now.
Your first part of your argument does not equal the second part.
Steam reserves the right to match any discount made in any other digital store.
The above does not prevent any developer from making discounts anywhere they wish.
The above does not force developers to make the best discounts on Steam.
yah, I think I'm wrong. There was a post on this forum which made me think other plateform can't have lower price than steam.
The only thing I can find is loosely about steam key where they want similar discount on steam if they have it on other store. And I'm not sure if it is actually enforced.
I hope the Epic platform fails...and fails hard. Not because I am a steam fanboy..I dislike steam, I think it's simply retarded this need to have a "platform" to start your games..it's like wat... is it to hard to get games with their own launchers?
If someone wants to make a storefront to compete with steam, I will be all for it EXCEPT if it requires a "steamlike" effing platform.
Plus Epic is shady.. I have said it before quite a few times and will say it some more I have no doubt.
Just good riddance I say.
So campaigning for Steam to fail as well then. May not go down well with some!
Not campaigning for anything, you need to want to read that to get that from my post. Take off the tin foil hat for awhile it's making you see things that are not there.
Would be more accurate to say I think we have enough platforms with steam, not really interested in seeing another platform gain traction.
You have to give steam some credit though they do lots more that Epic does and they at least are investing in gaming, like say VR.
I simply equated your post to campaigning - you did after all say "I hope the Epic platform fails." but didn't say the same thing about Steam even though you said you dislike it.
We live in a world of choice. And competition. Which brings with it lots of TV channels, lots of game companies, lots of stores. Which means we have to put a tiny amount of effort in.
There is an alternative: you will buy from this store, you will watch this TV channel, you will bow like all those North Koreans etc. That is a different type of world. I hope it never arrives. So I will put up with the minor issue of having a few stores.
Yeah, giving more revenue split to the developers... <snip>
This is starting to bug me. "Developers" are usually salaried employees, making their money whether the game sells 1 copy or 1 million. Either scenario sees them make the exact same salary no matter what. Now, when a game sells 1 copy, the developers may be out of a job, but their salary stays the same.
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
This really bugs me because 1. INDIES and 2. DEVS DONT MAKE MONEY IF PUBLISHERS DONT.
My point being...
People are using "the devs" as a reason for profits. They don't see anything from profits, except the next salaried paycheck.
Indies I'll agree with, IF the developers ARE the publishers. Not all indies are run the same way.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Steam actaully forced the game to take down on epic store because they don't want the game to sell cheaper on other store.
...source?
I thought you can't sell it cheaper on other store. Someone was posting about it on this forum a while ago. I tried to google it, since can't find info on it, not so sure now.
Your first part of your argument does not equal the second part.
Steam reserves the right to match any discount made in any other digital store.
The above does not prevent any developer from making discounts anywhere they wish.
The above does not force developers to make the best discounts on Steam.
yah, I think I'm wrong. There was a post on this forum which made me think other plateform can't have lower price than steam.
The only thing I can find is loosely about steam key where they want similar discount on steam if they have it on other store. And I'm not sure if it is actually enforced.
IIRC there was an explanation long time ago of why Steam and Physical copy prices are the same. Most physical retailers have a clause in their contracts which stipulates that a digital store cannot have a normal price of the game that is lower than the physical for a certain amount of time. Steam are getting away with having a slightly lower price for the game on release by making the discount part of their pre-order bonuses or something like that. If you want to have a permanently lower price for the digital copies though you have to forfeit the physical ones or lower their price as well which might not be possible. A game that is fully digitally distributed is more likely to be sold for a lower price than a game that has box copies. I think World War Z pulled out their physical copies for PC when they lowered the price from $40 to $35 on EGS.
Comments
Or maybe going with Epic and paying the 12% may be the better, or possibly less risky, deal; the first copies you sell are always the easiest.
And there is evidence that games are selling - and Epic doesn't need many big sellers to fund their stores development and promotions (320k sales x a few $ etc.). Meanwhile Satisfactory being available on Epic has given the studio their best ever release - maybe down to there being so few games on sales!
As you say it is developers who will decide.
And as I posted a while back it may come down to risk management. If you only expect to sell "a few" then getting 88% may be "safer" than hoping to sell "many more" on Steam - especially if your game is just one of hundreds and most people won't even consider it unless its in a Steam sale - meaning you are going to get not 70% but maybe 50% (if 30% off) or even 35% (if 50% off). That 88% may look very tempting.
It is, though, the choice of developers and some have opted for Epic. And - for whatever reason - has resulted in much gnashing of teeth by some. Its just a store.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
If you're going to boohoo about how Epic is doing shit that doesn't help the consumer or the industry, you should probably boohoo when there's similar actions taken by other companies in the realm.
The fact is, even if Epic's store was only ever roughly identical to Steam, it would likely be a healthier storefront for the industry. You won't admit this, of course, but that's of little consequence. We could get no extra discounts, no extra bonuses other than what Steam has ever provided, and the fact that Epic is giving more to the developers is a win for the devs, which means teams like Obsidian and Larian can pocket more of the cash we pay for the games to put into improving or making new games. That's a win for us. And it's also fact that if the two entities became roughly equal in terms of install base we would profit (so long as the platforms remained free to use as they are now). In that realm, an "exclusive" means shit in the grand scheme of things and it might even spur Steam and Epic into a sort of "original content" war that we're seeing in the television streaming industry. Valve and Epic put some of that cash they got floating around into funding big new ideas in an attempt to get the next breakout hit on their platform. That, too, is a win for us.
The storefront, at the end of the day, means jack shit without the great games that we play through them. That's why I don't feel some kind of attachment to Steam, and that's why I'm not going to dismiss practices in place prior to Epic arriving that already stifled competition all because I want to see, justify, or convince anyone of Epic failing.
The Epic exclusives were a chosen route by devs, too. Epic didn't force or coerce the deal. Both items are anti-competitive practices. None of these companies stick to strictly consumer-friendly practices. None of these practices are actually that detrimental to the gamers (compare these to things like lootboxes, crowdfunding thousands of dollars of uncreated assets, and all that jazz). It's small potatoes, both of which are only discussed because Epic's arrival caused rustling of some jimmies.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Do we want to replace a shop that "won't allow discounts to happen unless they happen in there as well" to one that "won't allow sales to happen anywhere else"?
The biggest defenders of Epic practices see the exclusives as a necessary evil in the short term in order to gain traction. Personally I see it as the only sustainable future for Epic in the long run and in a world where Fortnite stops being a cash cow for Epic.
I don't mind a world where an mmorpg is immensely popular, like WOW. I do mind a world where you are only allowed to play only said immensely popular mmorpg.
It is same as samsung store. For a while you can buy pokicoin cheaper on samsung store. But it is forced to match the price of google playestore.
Gabe has said himself it's a cash cow. Easy money.
This is a quote on steam key guide line:
It's OK to run a discount on different stores at different times as long as you plan to give a comparable offer to Steam customers within a reasonable amount of time.
And here is a reddit on people discussing about it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/gamedev/comments/alqqeg/why_not_release_a_game_on_epic_store_cheaper_than/
What you need to think about it this: PUBLISHERS make the money from deals, NOT developers.
Now, an exception may be if the developers get some kind of stock option. Otherwise, developing is a salaried job, meaning they get a set salary, no matter what. Remember, these vaunted developers are the grunts doing the actual dirty work. So please stop holding up "the developers" as a shield for your (and everyone else, too) arguments.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Steam reserves the right to match any discount made in any other digital store.
30% is a standard because the previous standard was physical distribution where 30% went to the retailer and additional about 7% went there as well as an insurance for copies not sold and still more went for the manufacturing and distribution costs.
Paying for exclusives is kind of impossible to do without the Fortnite money so the unsustainable thing to do in a post-fortnite world is to keep paying for exclusives. The sustainable thing to do is to establish yourself as a presence and then stop doing the expensive shit and live off the small percentage you get out of each sale. And probably keep producing your own games.
Also, that quote is related to Steam keys:
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys
(For example, Fortnite developers don't see any of the money pouring into the game, and in the opposite spectrum, ME: Andromeda developers were fully compensated for their time in Bioware, even if the game was considered a failure.)
At least personally I don't care how good bonuses the devs who developed a game will get after launch. As a gamer I'm much more interested in how large share of the purchase price goes towards development of updates and new games, and how large share goes to something else.
The only thing I can find is loosely about steam key where they want similar discount on steam if they have it on other store. And I'm not sure if it is actually enforced.
We live in a world of choice. And competition. Which brings with it lots of TV channels, lots of game companies, lots of stores. Which means we have to put a tiny amount of effort in.
There is an alternative: you will buy from this store, you will watch this TV channel, you will bow like all those North Koreans etc. That is a different type of world. I hope it never arrives. So I will put up with the minor issue of having a few stores.
People are using "the devs" as a reason for profits. They don't see anything from profits, except the next salaried paycheck.
Indies I'll agree with, IF the developers ARE the publishers. Not all indies are run the same way.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR