When a development house decides to place their project on Steam it is for the massive exposure they get from being on the largest platform available to them. If Steam takes a larger cut than competitors so be it. The exposure makes up for the upfront cheaper rate by providing a better residual income source. Honestly it depends on your business strategy. As far as Epic goes I get what they are trying to do but what I don't like is their paying absurd amounts of money to developers to lure them away from not just store fronts but more importantly their engine. When 7 or 8 developers that I know last week said "Epic is acting like used car salesmen, they won't leave us alone!" This is a strategy I can't really fault them for but it is making it look like they are just becoming the digital storefront of choice for developers. This is only true in the sense that they are getting paid to join them. Once they feel they are in a competitive position in the marketplace they will begin to make changes to their pricing and fees. This is basic digital economics.
When a company corners a market others need to do what they feel is necessary to create competition. You don't have to like their methods, but you have to at least understand why they're doing it.
There's a really simple solution just don't use 3rd party applications like steam or the epic store....remember the good ole days where you could just get a digital download from the game own website and not need steam or epic etc etc?
Dunno but can't say that I care so much as the poor devs made their own beds, dug their own holes so to speak and this is what they get in return. Frankly if they didn't use "steam or epic" they would get 100% of the revenue.
There's a really simple solution just don't use 3rd party applications like steam or the epic store....remember the good ole days where you could just get a digital download from the game own website and not need steam or epic etc etc?
Dunno but can't say that I care so much as the poor devs made their own beds, dug their own holes so to speak and this is what they get in return. Frankly if they didn't use "steam or epic" they would get 100% of the revenue.
Minecraft refused to.
Not sure what point you are trying to make? Notch made 2.5billion selling his company to mocrosoft, mostly for minecraft, so I guess not putting it on steam was a good idea?
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.
When a development house decides to place their project on Steam it is for the massive exposure they get from being on the largest platform available to them. If Steam takes a larger cut than competitors so be it. The exposure makes up for the upfront cheaper rate by providing a better residual income source. Honestly it depends on your business strategy. As far as Epic goes I get what they are trying to do but what I don't like is their paying absurd amounts of money to developers to lure them away from not just store fronts but more importantly their engine. When 7 or 8 developers that I know last week said "Epic is acting like used car salesmen, they won't leave us alone!" This is a strategy I can't really fault them for but it is making it look like they are just becoming the digital storefront of choice for developers. This is only true in the sense that they are getting paid to join them. Once they feel they are in a competitive position in the marketplace they will begin to make changes to their pricing and fees. This is basic digital economics.
As you say it depends on the developers business strategy. Devs may, as I said above, decide that the higher profit per sale on Epic offsets the (assumed) extra sales. If Epic pay them a chunk of money as well that probably makes it a no brainer when it comes to minimal risk.
I don't however see Epic raising their prices to the level of Steam; that would potentially open the door for someone else to come in. My gut feel though is that won't be their business strategy; they can make a lot of money at 12%. What they might do is reduce what they spend on exclusives of course.
There's a really simple solution just don't use 3rd party applications like steam or the epic store....remember the good ole days where you could just get a digital download from the game own website and not need steam or epic etc etc?
Dunno but can't say that I care so much as the poor devs made their own beds, dug their own holes so to speak and this is what they get in return. Frankly if they didn't use "steam or epic" they would get 100% of the revenue.
Minecraft refused to.
Not sure what point you are trying to make? Notch made 2.5billion selling his company to mocrosoft, mostly for minecraft, so I guess not putting it on steam was a good idea?
Comments
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.
As you say it depends on the developers business strategy. Devs may, as I said above, decide that the higher profit per sale on Epic offsets the (assumed) extra sales. If Epic pay them a chunk of money as well that probably makes it a no brainer when it comes to minimal risk.
I don't however see Epic raising their prices to the level of Steam; that would potentially open the door for someone else to come in. My gut feel though is that won't be their business strategy; they can make a lot of money at 12%. What they might do is reduce what they spend on exclusives of course.