One day Fornite will die and they don't be able to buy exclusives.
In the meantime
Comment has been collapsed.
At least Joker had the right idea about that pile of cash. Or did he? Well, here's the true value of the pieces of paper (or plastic, in a select few countries) for which we're slowly killing ourselves, on a daily basis. It's all about perspective, I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
One day Fornite will die
Minecraft is still doing pretty well despite not being technically relevant anymore.
DOTA2 and LoL still are doing fine even though they're both past their peak.
Surely you can sit on the shore of the river, make sure to bring provisions, could be a long while before you see the light of that day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Unlike many popular games, however Fortnite has been on an IV drip of new content for a while now. I'm sure you'll agree the target Fortnite audience has a much shorter attention span than fans of other games, plus I still contend the battle royale genre is a fad.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not making forecasts on Fortnite, rather pointing out that the assumption that Epic will at some point run out of money may be wishful thinking. There's no guarantee that it will happen, it could take a long time, and a lot of different things can happen in that time.
As economists are fond of saying: in the long term, we are all dead anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sweeney on Monday said that those comments at the talk “prompted further discussions at Epic. leading to the realization that these calls must be up to developers and publishers, and Epic wouldn’t tell them ‘no’ on account of existing statements made about Steam.”
Let's not kid ourselves, all developers know doing this at a late stage is a dick move and wouldn't want to do so unless they are in desperate need of money (whether due to emergencies or mismanagement). But more often than not it's the publishers who make these calls, because they want to appease the almighty investers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure why people keep blaming Epic only for this. It's pretty obvious publishers are going for the 88% profit. That way Valve could be blamed for giving lower profits.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that might have something to say. But the only reason they would choose Epic over steam, is because they are paying for the exclusivity. I don't mind games being on either platform, i just hate the fact that Epic are forcing it's customers to their platform, instead of letting the individual customer choose.
Comment has been collapsed.
But if they allow Steam too that would be copies at 65% profit compared to 88% profit (if using UE4).
So there's definite benefit to a publisher too to not allow all platforms.
Comment has been collapsed.
Minimum sales guarantees? I haven't heard of this.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's 70% minimum, 75% if it goes over 10 million dollars in sales and 80% if it goes over 50. So for the big boys it's basically 80.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was including the 5% Epic cut if using UE4, hence "if using UE4"
But yeah, didn't take into account Valve's answer: the tiered cut.
Comment has been collapsed.
If devs were doing exclusives for 88% cut, they would be exclusives on Discord (90% cut) or Itch.io (even 100% cut).
Comment has been collapsed.
In that case, they could go to itch.co, with 100% profit.
The difference is Fornite money.
Comment has been collapsed.
this article is actually a confession about how metro exodus was a financial failure for them, even if they try to formulate in a nice way.
Epic already stated 12% not maintainable long term, they just trying to bait developers and then sooner or later increase it, eventually they trying to aim for monopoly, kill steam with their Fortnite money and then increase it to 25-30%, if they plan to offer steam level services then sooner or later they need to increase that 12% which is actually not good for developer. As valve customer, the developers can generate keys, sell them on their sites, on humble which is also better than 12% for the developers as some developer already stated. Epic doesn't let that tho. Developers and publishers going for the bribe money and I guess they think the game will be sold on steam anyway. It could be a big change if Valve would say they won't welcome exclusive titles on steam later or only for a 40% cut which can't go low to 20%, like now it can, based on sales.
As a customer I not interested in a spyware, no effort, no security, no refund, no feature DRM, where the games cost me the same (actually more) as it's going to be on steam (even tho I will never buy epic exclusives title for more than 10%, so 90% sale, even if I interested on that game as punishment of the monopoly exclusivity). Additionally, the listed price not correct, they add hidden costs for EU players which are illegal in EU so I am curious when will Epic screwed by EU.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve is the most profitable company per employee in the USA. 30% is not necessary at all. No matter what Epic said themselves, I am pretty sure 12% is easily enough to be profitable. Of course, if you are in a position like Valve (quasi-monopoly), then it's not about how much you need, just about how much you can get. If by some miracle Epic would kill Valve completely and be the new monopoly, they would go up to 30% and tell us how this is necessary in order to be profitable - but it's clearly not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said valve is good, they need more employee for support, for quality control, etc. 30% is a bit too much indeed for a digital store, but I doubt any company could go lower than 20% (15% for publishers if game hits X revenue) if they want to still earn money (because that's the goal of the companies, Epic want that too long term with sacrificing Fortnite money, they know it won't last forever, Apex already siphoning good part of their previous income, etc) AND they still want to offer services to end users. Even if steam will decrease cut, we, the customers won't profit from it, just like we did not have profits from game industry went to digital from physical, the decreased costs not meant decreased game prices, they actually went even more up. Weird, when a physical box of the game (even if it include only a key) costs less than a digital copy of the game. (For example, Metro Exodus physical copy here was ~37-38eur, digital is what? 50-60eur? +epic's extra "transaction fee". That transaction fee is actually extra profit for Epic so the 12% from total payment not even true anymore.
But I say that Epic is a very bad choice for a customer, more expensive because of hidden costs, no features, so why would I buy anything there if it will be on steam for actually less money.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Even if steam will decrease cut, we, the customers won't profit from it"
Bingo. Epic's lower cut is just a thing to grab onto for all the shallow contrarians,trolls and Steam haters[who for some reason use SG-if Steam is the devil just delete your account guys!]Gaming is a billion dollar industry-one of the biggest and most profitable on earth but all of a sudden poor developers are going homeless because of standard industry cut! The bleeding heart samaritans that never existed till Epic came along suddenly care about their profits above all else! Even though here on SG community they only buy games on sale/in bundles/from resellers/by trading etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry but your comment makes no sense.
"Even if steam will decrease cut, we, the customers won't profit from it"
So what ? costumers are not the only actors here.
Gaming may be a billion dollar industry but that doesn't mean that every publisher is pooping money, not at all.
Also being a dev or a publisher is a job, it's not a monastic order, people work for money and if there is a way to increase their gain they'll go for it, it's not grEeDinESs !!! it's normal, I work for money I don't work because my costumers are amazing and deserves my free time.
Even the honest and beautiful cdprojekt has history of low wages and crazy crunch time, everyone is here for money, not because we are real authentic gamers™
A lot of people have trouble with epic, steam can afford to lower its cut and end this war before it begins, Gaben decided he doesn't care.
You are suffering from this exclusive-war ? Fine, I can understand it, but keep in mind that if it's Epic who started it, it's Steam who did nothing to stop this
Comment has been collapsed.
it's not a monastic order
:scratches 'The Monastic Digital Development Order of the Raiding of Tombs' off their list of potential future jobs:
Hmm. I wonder if I can still be a rocket surgeon..
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, the customers do not benefit from all this financially. At least not right now. That's not what this is about.
I doubt any company could go lower than 20% (15% for publishers if game hits X revenue) if they want to still earn money
I doubt that number is necessary to make a profit. Look at companies like Humble Bundle. If you sell your game there, they take 5%. Just 5%! They have smaller download servers and offer no launcher, of course. Still, I am sure the Steam infrastructure is not nearly as expensive as Valve wants us to believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, Epic said that the 12% isn't enough to cover everything to run the store. So it's obvious they're supplementing themselves from the profits of Fortnite. That situation won't last forever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, Valve is so profitable per employee that 30% clearly is way more than they need. Epic may not be able to make profit with 12% right now (with barely any games in the store and a lot of extra expenses due to exclusivity deals), but I bet they would easily be able to do it with a similar game count and user base.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they get such user base willing to give them money.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, that's what they're currently working on. Whether they succeed or not - I don't know. But so far it's the best attempt we have seen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic may not be able to make profit with 12% right now (with barely any games in the store and a lot of extra expenses due to exclusivity deals), but I bet they would easily be able to do it with a similar game count and user base.
They just can't. The costs are too great. So in turn for lowering the cut, they also increased their price for a while until the major backlash and now I don't know whether they still ask for a transaction fee for certain games.
With an increased userbase, you'll also increase your overhead costs. Epic wants to be premium. Premium costs a lot of money for upkeep. This isn't how Valve runs their ship, indeed. But the fact here is that Epic can't run like this. They're hemorrhaging money and the gravy train of Fortnite isn't without an end station. More people use their site, servers have to be bolstered, more staff has to be hired and so on. This is what Epic signed themselves up for. You can't keep throwing bribe money for publisher loyalty.
Sure, 30% for Valve's more than they "need". I'll give you that. But also, say they go down to 25%. Even 20%. What then? Prices won't go down, that's a given. So... Capcom is a bit happier and Square Enix will declare 10% fewer games as failures for selling millions of copies? And then standards increase for the publishers... what then? We're gonna shame the stores again?
Mind you, I'm down for lowering the cuts. Just that I also think that blaming a company for taking a larger cut than "needed" is a bit silly.
Comment has been collapsed.
They just can't. The costs are too great.
Well, how do you know? We don't know any specific numbers, as we never do. But if 30% cut means you're the most profitable company in your country with an insane amount of profit and growth, that most likely means you would only need a fraction of that for the actual upkeep.
With an increased userbase, you'll also increase your overhead costs
But the cost per user goes down. The more customers you have, the more profitable you are.
Sure, 30% for Valve's more than they "need". I'll give you that. But also, say they go down to 25%. Even 20%. What then? Prices won't go down, that's a given. So... Capcom is a bit happier and Square Enix will declare 10% fewer games as failures for selling millions of copies? And then standards increase for the publishers... what then? We're gonna shame the stores again?
The value for the customer in this does not lie in reduced prices. You are of course right about that. They will always find reasons why we have to pay full price. The discussion was about whether that 12% is sustainable or not. That's what I commented on.
The value for the customer is (hopefully) in active competition between the two big ones, once Epic has established themselves as such. This might lead to a better service on both platforms. Right now Epic has barely anything and needs to copy as many good features of Steam as possible. But it is also very possible that they come up with something that Steam doesn't have, and then Valve might start copying from them. It could lead to advantages for the customer. Imagine Epic suddenly decides to offer refunds after 5h. Some of the people who complain about 2h not being enough might actually buy their next game on Epic then. Valve might start a loyalty program, for instance. There are many ways in which we could benefit from all this.
Mind you, I'm down for lowering the cuts. Just that I also think that blaming a company for taking a larger cut than "needed" is a bit silly.
Sure, if you say it like that it sounds silly. xD
Of course a company will not just try to cover their costs. They want to make as much profit as possible, and that's absolutely fine. I just wanted to point out that 12% might very well be doable, even despite the fact that Epic themselves has denied that. If the cut is one of the most important weapons in this clash of the titans, it's worth discussing, I think. And it's also not wrong to mention how incredibly profitable Valve is, just to put things into perspective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, how do you know? We don't know any specific numbers, as we never do.
I took it from their resident snake, anti-consumer CEO Tim Sweeney. Link. Mind you, he says "developing countries". The fact is that he applied that fee in every country. I guess the entire world's developing, in a way.
We don't know any specific numbers, as we never do.
I prefer not trusting that asshat, but he's the CEO. If we can't believe him, then who can we. (Might have a bias against Tim Sweeney...)
But the cost per user goes down. The more customers you have, the more profitable you are.
Most certainly. But if the 12% is barely enough for them, then it's not very good business practice because they'll be reliant on being mega-popular to survive and that's not a very reliable plan.
The value for the customer in this does not lie in reduced prices. You are of course right about that. They will always find reasons why we have to pay full price. The discussion was about whether that 12% is sustainable or not. That's what I commented on.
Woah.. you're joking right? :D
Are you seriously saying that customers aren't valuing lower prices? Really? I'm genuinely flabbergasted here. You're the support member of a website that basically embraces the stickler in us all. Half the threads are about saving money and deals. The site's based on the idea of getting free games. Price will most certainly make a difference. That's why Amazon was so successful with their preorders. All preorders were -10% and people went for it. While price isn't the be-all-end-all of services, it most certainly is one of the biggest, if not the biggest factor in this industry. Not all of us can just happily smile while an entire day's wage is demanded (if you're in a well-off country) or even a whole week and a half's wage is demanded of us if we have the balls to want a recently released game. There's a reason G2A was so successful. People love cheap prices.
And yeah, 12% is sustainable... with a caveat. The caveat being the word "barely".
Of course a company will not just try to cover their costs. They want to make as much profit as possible, and that's absolutely fine. I just wanted to point out that 12% might very well be doable, even despite the fact that Epic themselves has denied that. If the cut is one of the most important weapons in this clash of the titans, it's worth discussing, I think.
Definitely. I agree with this 100% and will always agree with it. Discussing issues should always be free and open. Better yet we stay respectful during it like we are right now. I'm also confident that Steam's cut could lower to 25% and nothing would really happen to them other than the big green dollar signed money bags filling up more slowly. Just that the 12% is obviously very extreme. A healthy service wouldn't have monthly security breaches, roadmaps for basic features, transaction fees and the need to bribe for exclusives. That's the digital storefront version of a sterotypical crack-addled prostitute. Sure, you get a couple of illnesses here and there, but she'll do anything for a dollar.
Comment has been collapsed.
I took it from their resident snake, anti-consumer CEO Tim Sweeney. Link. Mind you, he says "developing countries". The fact is that he applied that fee in every country. I guess the entire world's developing, in a way.
He doesn't say there that 12% overall is not enough to cover the costs. Also, I looked up my order of Hades. I didn't pay a transaction fee. So your fact is definitely not a fact (maybe it's an alternative one? ;) ).
Woah.. you're joking right? :D
Are you seriously saying that customers aren't valuing lower prices? Really? I'm genuinely flabbergasted here.
Uhm, no. I wasn't saying that at all. I was trying to say that the value in getting a big competitor to Steam is not reduced prices, because they will not reduce prices anyway. That is not what we will get out of this. Thinking that this fight will result in significantly lower prices at any point is almost naive. It would have value for us, sure. But it won't happen. That is what I was saying. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
Definitely. I agree with this 100% and will always agree with it. Discussing issues should always be free and open. Better yet we stay respectful during it like we are right now.
Couldn't agree more. :)
and the need to bribe for exclusives.
Just want to briefly address this single point. I think it actually is necessary. So far all other attempts have basically failed. Origin and UPlay are mostly successful with their first-party titles. They are not really in competition with Steam. GOG is cool and everybody likes it, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter much. Only a tiny fraction of a game's profit is generated there. And Discord - many people don't even know that you can buy games there. Epic tries to push on the market very aggressively and people hate them for that. But I feel this might be the only way you can even do it. Just offering a decent service (=> GOG) is not enough. You have to do more. Epic with their 12% cut and their exclusives chose a strategy that might actually work, for the first time. And even if this might be bad for customers in the first place (make no mistake, I dislike the exclusivity as much as everyone and it is a clear disadvantage for me as a customer), I hope and think it's possible that we will gain something in the long run.
Comment has been collapsed.
He doesn't say there that 12% overall is not enough to cover the costs. Also, I looked up my order of Hades. I didn't pay a transaction fee. So your fact is definitely not a fact (maybe it's an alternative one? ;) ).
Well, when'd you buy it? In the first month of the store worldwide transaction fees were a massive issue, with users paying $67.99 for their Metro Exodus preorders, which showed a whole 10% being added as transaction fees.
Uhm, no. I wasn't saying that at all. I was trying to say that the value in getting a big competitor to Steam is not reduced prices, because they will not reduce prices anyway. That is not what we will get out of this. Thinking that this fight will result in significantly lower prices at any point is almost naive. It would have value for us, sure. But it won't happen. That is what I was saying. Sorry if it wasn't clear enough.
Fair enough. I personally wouldn't think that prices being lowered in corporate wars is some unique thing that wouldn't happen, but sure. It's not like indie games were having price wars constantly even without the storefronts warring between themselves like you saw with games that released at lower prices than the industry standards, with the indies pioneering the $20 starting price point (or even lower these days with $15 also being very valid) and with AAA developers like Ninja Theory releasing Hellblade at a $40 price point and through that being mega-successful with their relatively niche game. I guess we also aren't seeing every 3rd party store anymore, with gray market sites being massively popular and white market unauthorized sellers like Instant-Gaming now gathering steam with the controversies surrounding all the gray market sites. Simple price checks and publicity campaigns will show you how sites like Fanatical, Humble and other sites are trying to get the edge in the marketplace, either through lowered prices or other means. Fanatical pushed lower prices on UPlay keys for a while (not sure if they're still doing that) and that's one of the reasons why they're even competitive with Fanatical. Same goes for smaller sites like WinGameStore who have freak deals where games just plummet to all time lows, some of which have still never been beaten.
These things don't happen magically. It's basic competition. If you think competition isn't over consumers, then why did Amazon do their "10% off pre-orders" strategy? If competition doesn't lead to price reductions, then why do sites like G2A exist? Why did Amazon create their campaign? Why even make sales?
Price 100% plays a role and is a possible strategy for making a store. Even outside of gaming, you see this all the time. Britain with Aldi vs. Tesco vs. Lidl, America with Walmart vs. CostCo vs. Kroger. Or any other industry.
Just offering a decent service (=> GOG) is not enough.
I mean, you say that, yet GoG rules retro gaming at the moment, with the site being the most successful example in its niche. GoG has never gone after the same market as Steam and it shows. Steam gets a retro game and everyone says to buy it on GoG because it's cheaper and it works better. And that's what happens. People buy their older games from GoG because that's what they do. Not even sure why you look at GoG as a direct competitor when their strategy involves just cornering an uncornered market.
So far all other attempts have basically failed.
Price. To be successful, you need customers. To get customers you need something. It's hard to trump Steam on its client because the only real improvement you can make are small things like modernizing the client and maybe adding very small features that'll fill the desires of a niche. Getting games is cool and all, but Metro won't stay popular forever and after the game's sold, they lose the customer because you don't establish customer loyalty. Price will attract the poorer market and getting that quick marketshare is a good start. Steam's happy to let publishers put their games on other stores. So most publishers will put their game there for the heck of it. Like some developers have done on Origin and GoG. Store gets lower profits, developers are still fine and consumers are happy. That's how you compete. I will never understand the logic behind supporting the idea that options will be taken from you. You're trying to replace one evil with a worse evil. The amount of times you have to turn a blind eye on their mistakes daily is insane. Every day you can find a new story with some poor kid losing their Fortnite account and Epic not letting them get their account back. Every day a story where a user buys a game, decides to refund and gets denied by Epic because they just decided to respond too late to him, effectively breaking the EU law. Not to mention the bad design, the lacking features and whatever stuff extra.
Imagine if there were daily stories (with Steam's size, the equivalent would be hourly) of people first losing their account, then Steam not responding, then them later being told that they can't help them, then the user losing multiple thousands of dollars on thanks to the hacker, Epic not doing anything about it and then the user getting banned for doing a chargeback.
Steam had those issues. They don't anymore. Epic still does and the damages are worse than they ever were on Steam. How can a service keep fucking up so badly so often? They don't even want to compete, they want to buy out the competition. This is a smaller version of Disney here.
So they overtake Steam and become the most popular store... then what? What's the solution then? You then have a company that'll just start actually killing competition with buyouts and anti-consumer tactics. The reason why Steam started doing refunds was because Origin did them. What good has Epic brought to the table other than losing video games left and right to exclusivity deals?
It frustrates the hell out of me that a store like that can get away with all the shit it pulls because "it's impossible to compete", while G2A exists. While Kinguin exists. While Instant-Gaming exists. While Fanatical exists. While UPlay exists. While GoG exists. While Humble exists. While so many other sites exist and do well.
Steam has a massive hold on the industry and has crazy amounts of marketshare, but there's a reason it's successful. It has merit. It innovated time and time again. It was loose with its restrictions and it let publishers sell on other stores. It never bribed anyone for temporary loyalty. Epic's too lazy and too dumb to innovate. Tim Sweeney is known for not being good at what he claims to be good at. PC piracy was an issue and Sweeney left the scene. Newell fixes that issue with his team. Sweeney comes back and claims Valve's evil, while actually solving the issues he left the scene over. Steam revitalized PC gaming from the slump it was in in the early to mid 2000s. They pushed controller support, they made Linux relevant and are trying to break the monopoly that Microsoft has created in the OS market in the consumer market. They pushed VR, they still push it. They're trying to create business in the computer cafe business once again. They always try and change something, to revitalize something. And guess what, it's almost always in favor of the consumers and developers. PC cafes can get cheaper licenses. Linux is free and so is Proton. VR benchmarks are released for free from them. They work with small indie developers to let them make games with their licenses, like Bridge Constructor Portal and so on.
They're not a perfect company by any means. They have so much shit that needs to be sorted out, it's unreal. But at this point in time, supporting Epic is just an anti-consumer move. What has Epic done for you? The only thing I'd say they've done for consumers (which hasn't even happened yet) is that they might be bringing Quantic Dream's games on PC...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, when'd you buy it? In the first month of the store worldwide transaction fees were a massive issue, with users paying $67.99 for their Metro Exodus preorders, which showed a whole 10% being added as transaction fees.
You're right, I bought it in February. So if this only happened in the first month, I guess it's not an issue anymore then.
Fair enough. I personally wouldn't think that prices being lowered in corporate wars is some unique thing that wouldn't happen, [...]
The thing is, Steam never participated in price competition so far. They never tried to compete with HB, GMG or anyone. And from what I understand, it's not Valve who makes the prices. It's the publishers and developers. They determine the price, even though Valve makes recommendations for all regions. In order for Steam to undercut Epic's prices, this would have to change first. I thought about this a little more. You might be right, maybe we will actually see some attempts of Steam to undercut Epic and vice versa. But I doubt that we will ever see prices comparable to the cheap (non grey market) key stores like GMG. I could imagine something like 59.99€ on Epic, 57,99€ on Steam. I really doubt there will be happening much more. But we'll see. Depending on how much of a pain in the ass Epic ends up to be for Valve, I might be very wrong about this.
I mean, you say that, yet GoG rules retro gaming at the moment, with the site being the most successful example in its niche.
Maybe, maybe not. Actually not sure about that. We would have to see a few numbers. But I am pretty sure the retro gaming market is super small anyway, and would GOG still be just that, I wouldn't even consider it competition to Valve.
GoG has never gone after the same market as Steam and it shows.
They didn't start that way, but they clearly expanded to integrate indie and AAA games. And I bet if they could they would sell all the new AAA titles. Not every publisher wants to sell on a DRM-free platform unfortunately. But GOG is clearly not just a retro games seller anymore.
Steam gets a retro game and everyone says to buy it on GoG because it's cheaper and it works better.
Sure, true. I would still like to see some actual numbers. Steam is so big, even with the worse versions of those games they probably sell a lot more.
Sorry, I am out of time. Have to postpone the rest of my answer to tomorrow... :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Where did they state that big giant pile of BS?
Probably nowhere since it's all bs.
Also Steam already offers 20%... but only to the SUPERPROFIT titles. So clearly they don't need the 30%. And it's a giant middlefinger roaming indies but giving a multi-million dollar game more cut.
Comment has been collapsed.
They get a couple of hundreds $ from indie-crap and multi-millions from AAA superprofit games. Guess who wants to pay less to Valve?
Comment has been collapsed.
Guess which of the 2 should get the 20% if you want to argument "THEY NEEDS IT!"
Not the one they are given it to. So clearly they don't "needs it". Theyvare just moneyhungry. And offer a better cut to keep the bigwigs in, clearly able to do so, but still want to screw over the little guys since gotta get that money!
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam isn't an almshouse to help poor people to make them rich
Comment has been collapsed.
What does that have time do anything with this.
We were arguing "Steam NEEDS it's 30% cut"
I thought you wanted to debate that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You stated supergiants have 20% cut and poor indies have 30%...but who pays more: supergiant 20% for 20 millions $ or indie 30% for 800$?
Comment has been collapsed.
Supergiants... that... is kind of the entire crux of it.
Are we still discussing the same thing?
Comment has been collapsed.
He is saying that it is obvious that Valve does not need that 30% in order to make profit. And your statement actually supports that. The fact that they decrease their profit from the companies where it matters (the giants) by 33% should tell you that 30% are not necessary at all. Valve prove that themselves with this move.
Regarding indies: if it's fine to cut profit for high value games, why should it not be fine to do it for the smaller ones? Indie devs have a really hard time on Steam due to visibility problems lately. If their money doesn't matter anyway, as you say, then why keep them at 30% while others get 20%? It's simply not fair and it just makes sense for those devs to look for other places (for instance HB on PC, or even crap the PC version and concentrate on Switch completely).
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a flat out 20%, it's based on the amount sold.
They take 30% up to first $10 million in sales. For all sales between $10 million and $50 million, the split goes to 25%. And for every sale after the initial $50 million, Steam will take a 20% cut.
There is an exception to this for games from smaller developers in its Steam Direct program.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it's a free market (like epic fans say) and indies can go publish themselves in Epic crap or Origin or Yuplay or whatever if they don't like Steam
Comment has been collapsed.
That is a non-argument. It simply has no value in the discussion about the conditions on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why is it an argument for you, when epic can bribe developers, and non-argument for me? You, epic fans, love free market
Comment has been collapsed.
What I meant is that you can't say "if you don't like it, go somewhere else". That's the non-argument. It doesn't bring anything of value to this discussion.
And it's frankly silly to tell indie devs that if they don't like the only platform on PC where they have at least the potential to get some visibility and make some money they should just leave. So far there was no other place to go. Steam was the main source of income for most devs. Everything else was just a bonus. Don't like how visibility on Steam gets worse and worse? Not making enough money to keep your studio going, despite having a really good game? Your problem, live with it. If you don't like it here, just get the fuck out!
I honestly hope that changes now.
(Also, I am not an Epic fan. I have also criticised them. But I try to have an objective view on things and try to see the bigger picture. I try to be neutral, but of course for the typical Epic hater that must look like fandom.)
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't like Steam -> don't publish in Steam -> publish yourself in epic crap or whatever if you like them. Is that impossible for steam haters?
Comment has been collapsed.
Just a reminder about so called free market "competition" :-)
Comment has been collapsed.
You were happy about "Wow, epic competion is great, free choice is awesome! Now publishers can decide where to sell their games, and customers can choose where to buy". And now you're saying poor indie devs don't have real choice, damned Steam enslaved them :-/
Why indie devs don't want to go to glorious epic store? GOG? Origin or Yuplay?
https://i.imgur.com/1hFjRVH.jpg
Comment has been collapsed.
You were happy about "Wow, epic competion is great, free choice is awesome! Now publishers can decide where to sell their games, and customers can choose where to buy".
No, I never said that. Look at the thread you linked. The thread is already about a game not being on Steam. It was already clear at that point that there will be exclusivity. In fact showing that was the point of the thread. I don't understand how you can claim that I said that (which I didn't) and link that thread as prove. Doesn't fit. My talking points really didn't change much during the last months.
And now you're saying poor indie devs don't have real choice
Yes, because it's true. They make most of their sales on Steam. They can't just not release their game there. At least it has been like that in the past. I don't see why they shouldn't complain about the state of the platform that is so important to them. Why does it have to be "you don't like it, you go elsewhere"?
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, I'm quoting you:
Steam can and should co-exist with other platforms. And honestly, it's good that Steam gets some competition. That's better for all of us.
Your logic:
Competion is good
Other platforms exist is good
That's good for all of us
Steam is greedy and monopolized
Indie devs don't want to move to other good launchers ?!?
It simply doesn't fit - you work in some corp you hate, you shit this corp, but don't want to work in "good" corps and continue working in bad corp and shitting it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it does fit. I didn't contradict myself anywhere. I consider what is happening right now competition. It is competition, despite the narrative people are telling here (exclusives mean no competition...).
Steam is the big boy. So far nobody came even close. Epic might be the first one. And that might make Steam and the whole market better for customers. But I feel I am repeating myself.
And that "shit corp" part is related to the indie devs thing, yes? Then it is easy to answer that. In your wording: If all other shit corps are a shit choice, because you will only make shit money there, then of course you stay in the shit corp, even though you might not like the shit that's going on there. And it should be allowed to complain about the shit in the shit corp, because you want to be less shit there.
Meaning: you can't just leave Steam if there is no other place to go to. If an indie dev makes 90% of his money on Steam, he can't just leave, even though he is not satisfied with the service he gets. You are basically saying "if you don't like it on Steam, go away and declare bankruptcy within a month!". Most companies don't want to go broke, so they stay on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
But if they find Epic crap good, why they don't want to go there if they aren't satisfied in Steam? I'm very satisfied here, I'm satisfied in GOG, that's why I'm staying there. And they're just shit devs if they can only complain and crap Steam where they make 100% moneys.
Comment has been collapsed.
But if they find Epic crap good, why they don't want to go there if they aren't satisfied in Steam?
I was talking about how it was until now. A few indie devs already went to Epic, at least for a time.
I'm very satisfied here, I'm satisfied in GOG, that's why I'm staying there.
You are a customer. That is completely different. How can you compare those two? For a game studio it is kind of important that they can pay their salaries, don't you think? That's something you as a customer don't have to worry about.
And they're just shit devs if they can only complain and crap Steam where they make 100% moneys.
Oh, so if you work somewhere, and your boss cuts your healthcare, reduces your salary by half and then says "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" - will you just say "that's fair, no complaint here" then? Or will you maybe say that you are not satisfied with the conditions and would like that to change?
I really don't get why you think it's not ok for devs to complain about certain things on Steam. It is completely normal to complain if something is not ok. If the fruit in your supermarket is rotten, it's ok to tell them that. If you don't get enough money at work it's ok to ask for more. It's always ok to complain if something isn't right. How can you even oppose that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, so if you work somewhere, and your boss cuts your healthcare, reduces your salary by half and then says "if you don't like it, go elsewhere" - will you just say "that's fair, no complaint here" then? Or will you maybe say that you are not satisfied with the conditions and would like that to change?
First of all, I try to argue with him or sue, then I'go away. Those devs are just complain and crap on Steam. It sounds stupid like beating a hand which gives you money.
Comment has been collapsed.
First of all, I try to argue with him or sue, then I'go away.
No, if that is the only place where you can get work you won't go away. That is basically how it was with Steam so far. There was no other option. That is what I am trying to say the whole time.
Those devs are just complain and crap on Steam. It sounds stupid like beating a hand which gives you money.
Let's make something clear: Valve is not their benefactor who gives them money out of mercy. Valve would be nothing without the games on Steam. This is a two-way relationship. And both sites can make decisions and demands. Let's go back tomy example with the worker. It simply doesn't work the way you think. The employee also has rights and can also make demands. The employer might have more power, but he is also dependent on his employees. Without them he is nothing. So if they demand more money or less work-hours or anything like that, he should at least listen and consider it. Again, the notion that the employee (indie dev) should not complain about the boss (Valve) no matter what is so strange to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm talking not about past, I'm talking about nowdays, where dev can choose Steam, Epic crap, Yuplay or Origin. But they'd prefer to complain and that's all. And you prefer to crap Valve like they do. Valve isn't greedy, 30% is a good industry standart for publishing their shitty indies, who would be another beggars for greedy publishers like EA without Steam and their small fees for every indie shit which wants to appear there without greedy publishers.
Comment has been collapsed.
You've neglected that fact that the 12% cut means absolutely nothing to most indie developers, since the vast majority will never be allowed to sell on EGS. EGS has made it abundantly clear they're only interested in games that are going to make them bucket loads of cash. Most of them won't even get their foot in the door at EGS, much less a seat at the dinner table.
TLDR: 70% of something (Steam) is always better than 88% of nothing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if so - that means it has almost no difference with Steam's 20% cut for AAA publishers. Only elite devs can get such good price and KillingArts doesn't want to see that fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
As Tzaar pointed out going to the Epic Store is not really an option even today. But I think we can stop this discussion. By using terms like "indie shit" you made it rather obvious that you have no respect for indie devs. If you think companies like Supergiant games are "indie shit" then I am not very confident I can convince you that they should have the right to complain about certain conditions on the platform they were forced to use so far (and, unlike Supergiant, most still are).
Comment has been collapsed.
So, you're agree with fact that small indie shit devs can't get good conditions from Epic store and that's even worse they have on Steam currently
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that, as I said the whole time, for most indie devs to this day Steam is the only viable platform and that they have no choice but to use it. Which should show you that your "they can just go elsewhere" argument is nonsense.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you hate something - why do you should work with that everyday?
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, you are not making any sense. First thing: nobody was talking about hate. We were talking about indie devs complaining about certain things on Steam like visibility problems. You were saying they should shut the fuck up or leave. I think that's very wrong.
Why should you publish on Steam despite complaining about some issues there? Because as I said like 5 times now, there is not really another option. Devs make the most money by a large margin on Steam. And there are no real alternatives. You are asking them to give up their business, basically.
Also, who said just because they have some complaints that automatically means they don't want to be on Steam anymore? It's not a black and white thing. You can be satisfied with some parts of it and still complain about other parts, don't you think?
Things like that are always easy to say, if you're not in the situation yourself...
Comment has been collapsed.
But IF there's NO real alternatives that means Steam IS simply THE BEST by your words. Not shitty epic launcher, nor yuplay or bethesda laucnher, but only Steam and you admit it. If they will complain for 10 years it wouldn't be better, they should just work more and better instead of endless whining because they want more free organic traffic.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I didn't "admit" anything. You simply don't get it, sorry. It's not about who is best. Of course Steam is the best client with the best features, and it's also the best place to sell your stuff. But that does not mean it is flawless. It also does not mean people are not allowed to complain about certain things. For the last time: the notion of "if you don't like it here, get the fuck out" is stupid. If there are problems of course the devs are allowed to complain about it.
Indie devs actually have a problem on Steam. This has been known for years. They have a big visibility problem there due to this crowded mess of a marketplace. If you released your game 6 or 7 years ago you actually were on the first page of new titles for quite a while. You had a chance of many people seeing your game. If the game was any good, you would sell enough copies. Not anymore. Now that space is full of crappy pseudo-games and the good games suffer from it. Valve was asked to change that - and made it even worse with Steam Direct. Hell, we have games that have ~95% positive reviews and don't make enough money. Don't you think that is fucked up? And you seriously think the devs should not be allowed to talk about that?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, you admitted here by your quote:
Devs make the most money by a large margin on Steam. And there are no real alternatives.
And how helping shit devs will resolve the problem of free organic traffic in Steam? More devs > less traffic for everyone, less devs > more traffic. What do you offer except complaining how many devs have crowded Steam?
Raising steam direct fee will result in more whining about life injustice from same whiners, who were complaining about lack of traffic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, I've had enough. Stop calling all indie devs "shit devs". Those indie devs you insult repeatedly made fantastic games like Braid, Stanley Parable, Risk of Rain, Binding of Isaac, Guacamelee, Superhot, Crypt of the Necrodancer, Broforce, 20XX, Rocker League and many more. These games are more creative than most AAA games nowadays, have high user scores and are generally loved by the community. Devs like the ones that made those games have said problem on Steam. They don't deserve to be called "shit devs". And they have the right to complain about things that are going wrong on Steam. Period.
I think we can really stop here. You ignore my arguments anyway. No need to continue. I don't think I will answer anymore, just so you know.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, how many % are those devs compared to all dev number? 5, 8%? Yeah, those old games are very good, but they aren't decisive several years already. And they can complain now like old man yells at cloud
Comment has been collapsed.
"Epic already stated 12% not maintainable long term, they just trying to bait developers and then sooner or later increase it, eventually they trying to aim for monopoly, kill steam with their Fortnite money and then increase it to 25-30%"
That's dumping. and it's illegal.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am amazed Steam isn't countering Epic Store with Steam Exclusive deals.
I understand that Epic store only asks 12% compared to Steam 20-30%, but Steam offers so much more. Epic might be better for developers, but Steam is far superior when it comes for services for the players, like the Steam Workshop, cloud services, discussion groups, reviews, game labels etc.
To me comparing Epic Store with Steam store is like comparing a stock Lada with a Rolls Royce with all options.
I will grab the free games from Epic Store, but I will not spend any money on them.
Competition is nice as long as it's fair, but Epic is clearly trying to create a monopoly for themselves and I will not support that, no matter what. I will just wait for the exclusive deals to run out and for them to appear on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic might be better for developers
And that is why.
Comment has been collapsed.
"I am amazed Steam isn't countering Epic Store with Steam Exclusive deals."
Valve is falling asleep and don't give a shit about nothing as long as money will come in.
Just take a look at Artifact for example... or the quality of new releases on steam, the hijacking-problems over and over again, the community market manipulation with the last winter event, the letdown of steamlink, steamcontroller and steammachine, the trade and giftrules just "to protect us"...
Valve did so much bad in the last 2-3 years and still a big part of the gaming community is thinking they are the good ones (I'm not saying that epic are the good ones either).
I also would like to have only one launcher on my machine but... I can't blame epic and all the publishers for trying to get my money... At least they try, Valve on the other side...
Comment has been collapsed.
I am amazed Steam isn't countering Epic Store with Steam Exclusive deals.
The press would skewer Valve, arguing that they're abusing their monopolistic position.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm almost positive that if Steam jumps on the 12% cut wagon, GOG could be screwed in the crossfire. If I recall, GOG recently made some announcement about having to maintain positive revenue as a store when cutting their regional price program, and this is with 30% cut that they have. Think I heard somewhere that they're barely making enough with GOG.
*P/s - not that I'm saying Valve is looking out for GOG, it's just a collateral damage that I think might happen if Valve decides to reduce their take percentage. But what do I know, according to some people here, 12% is enough to maintain an online store facility so who cares about GOG. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
12% is enough, if the games you sell higher priced and you sell alot of them...
Taking a look at the epic store, there is no game at something like 5€ while on GOG most sells prob are games under 5€.
Comment has been collapsed.
So increasing the game price is the solution to 12%? Or reject outright any indie games that are priced below 5 Eur like One Finger Death Punch, Dungeons of Dredmor and The Binding of Isaac?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not what I am saying.
It was just an explanation why 12% would not be enough for GOG but for epic.
That's also a reason why epic is not selling everything on their store
Comment has been collapsed.
In another Twitter thread this week about the sort of profit the company is seeing from the store, Sweeney noted that the company’s “up-front investments in exclusives and free games are significant and may exceed net profits from third-party games in 2019."
That for me is the big take away from this. They are literally spending more than they are making from this and gambling that it's going to pay off in the long run. They are already taking a smaller cut, so the profit margins are smaller as it is. Fortnite is declining, and I honestly don't think this strategy is going to work out for them. And that leads to another concern I've had for some time. What will happen to games I buy on the Epic store, if it goes belly up down the road? Remember games for windows live?
It's something I don't think epic fans are thinking about. Steam is big enough that it has become self-sustaining long ago, and the other launchers are linked to publishers as a means of delivering their games, so the launcher itself doesn't have to be profitable. But if Epic is unable to establish itself as a profitable endeavour and they decide to shut down, then what? For me this is actually the reason I won't be spending money there for
now. I still don't trust that this actually going to develop into a sustainable digital service. If it all comes down, the early adopters and committed fans will be the ones who get punished.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really don't get the debate about why exclusives are wrong. Steam has been doing this for years. When you buy a physical edition of Skyrim, Call of Duty, Mafia III, Wolfenstein, Civilization V, Borderlands 2, Metro Last Light, and many more, you get a Steam key. It means that you MUST use Steam to play the game. These are Steam exclusives.
Same goes for Origin: Battlefield, FIFA, Mass Effect 3, Titanfall, Star Wars Battlefront, Dragon Age Inquisition... can only be played through Origin. These are Origin exclusives and (almost) nobody complains about it.
But suddenly, there is a new guy on the market that does exactly the same, and the debate is more heated than ever. The starting point was the sudden removal of Metro Exodus from Steam. It was indeed a bad move. But there is still the same amount of hate for brand new games that have never been announced on Steam (Borderlands 3, The Sinking City). And that I don't understand.
Of course Steam is a much better client. Of course I prefer to use Steam over Epic Launcher. But saying that Epic Games is a bad company because they do exclusives, while competitors (Steam, Origin, Battle.net and even Uplay for some games) have been behaving the same for years... This looks more like a caprice than a real argument.
I just want to debate on the sole argument of exclusives. Not talking about the client itself because I already agree on what you're gonna say :)
Comment has been collapsed.
But steam didn't moneyhat them, and you can buy them on GMG or other and Steam takes 0% of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've read that Epic games will be soon sold on Humble Store. It's just a matter of time before we see other stores selling Epic games keys.
Source: https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/epic-game-store-exclusives-coming-to-humble-store-1203167834/
Comment has been collapsed.
I was reacting to you talking about Steam and exclusives. If some games are Steam exclusive, it's never because Steam paid/moneyhat them. Steam always encouraged publishers to put their games everywhere.
Comment has been collapsed.
"it's never because Steam paid/moneyhat them"
Because Valve didn't had to. They already had all the users...
"Steam always encouraged publishers to put their games everywhere."
https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/18/16167462/valve-steam-keys-limiting-developers
If you don't sell enough on steam, you should def. not try to sell a lot of your games on other places.... to "protect the users" ofc.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Steam always encouraged publishers to put their games everywhere."
https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/18/16167462/valve-steam-keys-limiting-developers
Thankfully, "everywhere" isn't just Steam key resellers...
Comment has been collapsed.
Then show the text where Valve "encouraged" publishers to also release the game on other plattforms...
Also: other plattforms is kinda hard if you want to use a drm.
Comment has been collapsed.
here you are :https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/11/04/valve-will-not-make-exclusive-games-for-steamos
“Whenever we talk to third-party partners, we encourage them to put their games in as many places as possible, including not on our platforms," she said. "Because we think that customers are everywhere, and they want to put their games wherever customers are. That would go against our whole philosophy, to launch something that’s exclusive to SteamOS or Steam machines.”
A mentality that made them to the top :)
also, about keys : it was to prevent bot farming for trading cards. Steam is still ok with the free generation of key.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys here is the official documentation about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve didn't paid devs of Skyrim, Call of Duty, Mafia III, Wolfenstein, Civilization V, Borderlands 2, Metro Last Light etc to make it exclusive. A single player game could easily be released on say GOG day 1 too but we know big publishers are afraid of DRM free. It was the publishers choice to release it on most popular PC platform at the time,nobody forced their hand. Now you can actually get some of those Elder Scrolls/Civilization/Mafia/Metro games on GOG because again Valve didn't payed publishers off. It just took that long for big publishers to stop fearing DRM-free. Also I don't know what internet you've been reading but the majority has no love for origin. I see people actually getting EA games on console just so they woudn't have to deal with that POS client-a sentiment some already express for Epic(I'll get Borderlands3 on PS4 instead!-random Youtube commenters)
Comment has been collapsed.
The loud majority doesn't like Origin :) The is also a vast majority who doesn't care. But they don't make topics about it on the Internet.
Regarding the payment of exclusives, is it what really bother people? Because there is "money" involved? If Epic stop paying exclusives, would you like it? Even so, in the end, it's all about what the dev/publisher want. They have a choice, they do not have to accept their money. Epic can't force them as they are not their publisher. Besides, we all know that the exclusives are time limited. In 1 year, the games will be sold on Steam, and maybe on GOG later! So what's the difference?
Comment has been collapsed.
"The loud majority"
I think that's the biggest part.
Most people don't care but in this time the loudest always have the feeling they are the only ones that understand everything. It's not only in gaming but in the whole society. People forgot that "those who shout the loudest are not always right".
Comment has been collapsed.
No, they aren't Steam exclusives because the developers haven't signed a contract that prevents them from making the games available elsewhere.
It's simply a choice. Many indies also are only on Steam because the costs (time, effort) or costs/benefits ratio of being elsewhere are not too favorable.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok I get your point. But in the end, for the consumer, if a game is only released on Steam, he has no choice but to use Steam. And that is the definition of "exclusive": "An item or story published or broadcast by only one source." (Oxford Dictionary)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, you cannot argue that "Steam has been doing this for years", as you previously did, because Valve never had deliberately paid devs to stfile competition. If they did, you can rest assured all hell would break loose.
Going back to your question, gamers generally hate exclusivity deals because they're artificial restrictions that make their life inconvenient for the sole benefit of the platform owner which can then extract maximum profit from their wallets.
When a developer decides to make their game available only on Steam, then their audience may be disappointed with the devs, but Valve isn't to blame.
With Epic exclusives, gamers are disgruntled because it's not an independent dev decision, but one that has been come to be through the exercise of financial power. For some of the exclusives, they are also disgruntled because the game was promised to be on Steam, and then suddenly it wasn't.
If you dismiss these differences, then of course you will keep "not understanding" why Epic exclusives rile people up.
Comment has been collapsed.
No no, be assured, I do see the difference. I'm just saying that, from the point of view of a random player who ignores all these business details, it is the same. You have to use one specific launcher to play one specific game.
Of course, if you consider the ethical question of "buying exclusives to lure gamers", there is a reason to dislike Epic. I was just focused on the fact that being forced to use one specific launcher to play a game is not something new ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Im gonna be laughing in delight when devs and publishers will realise that EGS is not the promised holy land they were led to believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
But all these stores on the left ARE selling Steam keys.
That's like saying Windows isn't one because 100 billion different stores sell Windows 10.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was exactly his point.
People claim Steam is a monopoly, but Epic is competition.
Comment has been collapsed.
Monopoly doesn't exclude competition. Again, Windows was considered monopoly even with the 3% share of Linux. GOG exists, Origin, Uplay.
Explorer had to be removed even with Opera's, what, 0.3% share. And about 2% of other lesser browsers. With Firefox and Chrome still non-existant?
Once again, monopoly doesn't mean 100%, never has. But that's always the go-to defense.
Comment has been collapsed.
Monopoly doesn't exclude competition.
And yet people call Steam a monopoly while calling Epic competition.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not impossible to break a monopoly. Or are you still using MySpace on Internet Explorer?
So both are true.
The image is share MANY times and it's purpose is to show "no, Steam is no monopoly, see all the stores you can buy keys." Conveniently omitting they are all Steam Keys. As in my example in stores selling Windows. The amount of vendors doesn't make the monopoly. The product sold by all of them does.
Edit; Lol, you blacklisted me? Guess this blue heart is useless now, might aswell remove it :/
So.much anger I don't hate Epic for the crime of existing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then most certainly Epic is a monopoly in regards to many games as well, and not just "competition" -- going by your own definition.
Again, the point is that you can't call one a monopoly without calling the other a monopoly.
I blacklisted you a while back, yes, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
And please spare me the "so much anger" crap. There was no anger involved in my decision.
Comment has been collapsed.
Once every digital store gives Epic keys with every purchase, then, yes.
Far I can tell, that is not the case. You can't really hold monopoly on single titles, as much as I want to call Sony Evil God of War Monopolists.
So you're not the +1? I always keep track when discussing these topics who is so hateful they simply cannot accept someone not outright HATING Epic. I am wholly indifferent. Epic, Steam... 2 sides of a coin. I'll care who gives me the better (read: cheaper) deal. It's pretty much always neither of the 2.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't really hold monopoly on single titles
And so we've come full circle. The people calling Steam a monopoly are incorrect, which was the point of Ryptun's image.
Edit: I assure you, it had nothing to do with Epic. Since I won't break the "calling out" rule, I'd suggest you let it go, as I'll be ignoring any further discussion about the topic. Blacklist me back and drop it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Until he shows a pic of all stores selling said title and one of them is NOT a Steamkey, no, no point was made.
All stores selling the one client versus the one client selling itself still. Nothing changed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah okay, so in your eyes Steam is still a monopoly and Epic isn't?
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic monopolises some games. That doesn't make itself a monopoly.
Comment has been collapsed.
And Steam monopolizes some games. That doesn't make it a monopoly, either.
I'm simply using your own logic here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, no. Since you know as well as me that Steam doesn't do "some".
And got everyone and their mother (all bundles) use them, no options.
Comment has been collapsed.
Different weights and measures, just as I thought.
Anyway, I've made my point. Have a nice day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, how odd when talking about a monopoly the measurements matter. 5 exclusives akin to 5000. 0.1% vs 99%. Yeah, it matters.
Comment has been collapsed.
Therefore we can argue that steam proportionally monopolises (using game store library size) 99.9% more games than the epic store ? They are 99.9% more able to pass go and collect $200.
Comment has been collapsed.
One could also argue that a great portion of the games on Steam wouldn't have a home if it weren't for Steam, so we can immediately exclude all of those games from your imaginary statistics. Care to guess how many that amounts to out of Steam's 15,000+ game library? Epic has already shown that they won't pick up any games that won't make them a fist full of money.
Then we can also exclude all the games that are also sold on sites like GOG, Itch.io, Twitch, Discord, and even those cross-marketed between Steam and Origin and Uplay. What percentage are we looking at now?
It's a bit hypocritical of you to praise exclusivity on one client (i.e. your Borderlands 3 thread) while admonishing it on another (despite it not really being exclusive, as any developer on Steam is also free to sell their game anywhere they wish, Steam key or not). A slap in the face is a slap in the face, regardless of who dishes it out, and that double standard discredits much of what you say.
EDIT: In fact, I'd go so far as betting that you would go ballistic if Valve suddenly decided to dole out huge lumps of cash for exclusives on Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
because none of the other pc clients gives the option to the developer/publisher to generate almost unlimited keys and sell them at 3rd party stores. The are many reasons for that but one and propably the most important is about it costs money without actual revenue.
Epic will sell some keys at humble store but the games will not be the exclusive ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the big thing I think people keep missing in this thread.
When a developer sells a Steam KEY on another site, Valve takes a 0% cut.
I'm pretty sure that's not going to be the case for EGS keys sold on Humble. :o
Comment has been collapsed.
The return is people get bound to Steam, build their library and then hopefully spend money. It's a pr-move. And for Valve, it has been super effective.
Epic does the same in the form of the free game giveaways. Yes, they lose money but it's all for a purpose, client retention.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic said will not have cut from the games sold on Humble.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
| Game | All activations | Steam purchases | Other (resellers) |
|---|---|---|---|
| PUBG | 978,341 | 824,835 | 153,506 |
| Doom 2016 | 73,401 | 41,768 | 31,633 |
| Fallout 4 | 155,450 | 89,502 | 65,948 |
Wonder why steam is a monopoly when 15% / 40% / 42% of reseller keys mean 0% cut to valve.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because that 15 / 40 / 42 are still Steamkeys. If the other resellers sold DRM free it would.be another story but you basically list "Steam copies - sold on Steam - sold not". Now show me the non-Steam copies. Don't exist you say? Well, doesn't that make the point?
Comment has been collapsed.
the point is valve pays for all game expenses and they make 0 profit with resellers. if they wanted to monopolize games, keys wouldn't exist.
valve doesn't force developers to distribute their games exclusively on steam, devs choose to do so because it's the best platform to distribute games, period.
i doubt bethesda could manage to keep up with the bandwidth required in 2011 when they released skyrim. or red hook studios hosting darkest dungeon and all their updates in a dedicated server... during early access (ea = only in steam).
they didn't pick gog or other stores, why?
because it was the best option.
it wasn't valve's decision. developers chose steam instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a PR cost. Keys don't make a difference aslong as those activate Steam copies. That's the whole point of it; binding people to the platform. And whatever ventrue you buy it from, you end in Rome Steam.
As Steam now owns the PC Platform said tactic was super-effective. As they drown in money said tactic was super effective.
Best platform, "free" pr, and bandwith are, by itself, monetary benefits. Money saved or money given; it's functually non-existant. Wheter one saved you 50k on bandwith or the other gives you 50k in cash, the ultimate net benefit is equal. Most flocked to Steam to save on DRM purchase and implentation or physical transport. Those are monetary benefits. And the result still equalled one platform only; Steam. Then they got complacent since they were the de-facto and now they get kicked up a bit again. Regardless of Epic itself, that should be a good thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because those 2.6 petabytes of downloads for Fallout 4 didn't cost Valve anything?
I don't think you can easily disentangle the myriad of free services that Steam provides to developers, from the commission they charge on copies sold through Steam.
EDIT: Of course they provide these free services as part of the package to get developers to choose Steam. Because bringing more customers to the platform means they have more customers to buy other games. That's not exactly a unique business proposition.
Epic is also trying to get people onto their platform so there are more potential customers for games. They're just doing it with free games. And buying exclusives to force fans onto their platform.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course that costs money, but bandwith isn't the most expensive anymore. 2.6 petabytes would be a drop in the bucket for Steam at this point.
And yet titles like Fallout 4 are the ones eligable for the 20% cut. AAA games that are 70GB or so, while few MB indies suffer the 30%
Makes it a little hard to believe Steam is vitality dependant on that cut, or their bandwith is a major costpoint.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think their huge piles of cash are a main reason they can easily provide a lot of the free platform services to developers and games of all sizes.
Really though, I would guess that they make more from Marketplace fees than they do from sales of 80% of the games on Steam.
EDIT: Of course they dropped the % for huge titles because they don't want to lose those publishers to Epic's very attractive 12%.
Comment has been collapsed.
AAA? Doubtful. Indie? Most probably.
Still not sure on boosters. All profit for Steam? Devs get some. Cause crunching into gems into all Valve profit where it could be dev-profit. Not to mention all the card sales of sales. Only ones allowing >5, all Valve profits. I recall someone calculating they made like 100K a day from saleevent cards alone.
Not just Origin, all big publishers went away. Bethesda failed spectacularly of course but most others seem determined to stay away. They want to keep Capcom, Square Enix etc. as best they can.
Still feels dickish to only offer it to them and not indies, while making their life very difficult by the flood of (bad) games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah as a network engineer I'm annoyed to see 2.6 petabytes, including cluster of servers and load balancing technology AND the software effort to control them all are basically dismissed that easily by him.
Valve put years into crafting these expansive storefront, not mere months like Epic. It probably cost them many million dollars, blood and tears (exaggerating, of course).
Comment has been collapsed.
I find the whole concept of the Steam CDN incredible.
Think about big release days, hundreds of thousands of people all downloading a 30gb game at once.
Comment has been collapsed.
Millions, and then they earn 100k per day from.sale cards alone. Seems to balance it out rather quickly won't you say?
And that does not even include the actual games' profit.
Serverpacks aren't as expensive anymore, you can even hire some temporary for heavy load days (which Valve seem not interested in for their sales). The cloud wouldn't be a thing as is if 2.6petra was even remotely an issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
"pr cost" to lose 40%+ sales, plus covering bandwidth costs. sure. 🤦♀️
Comment has been collapsed.
Still leaves 60%
Compare that to... GOG? Nothing. And who knows how many of these are new to Steam, now eligable to buy more.
The tons of money Steam makes should show this is a very beneficial choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam isn't responsible for DRM, and no games on Steam are required to have DRM. It's entirely a developer/publishers choice whether they have DRM. That's why GoG hasn't been more successful, because the devs/producers want DRM on their games, so they go to Steam, who gives them the option to use it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam IS DRM.
(There are extremely few titles on Steam don't run the Steamworks DRM on startup. Probably sub 50 in their entire catalogue
Edit: I was wrong, see replies.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Yet there are plenty of games you can play in offline mode for unlimited amounts of time. Does it contain DRM? Yes, but is it always used? That's dependent on the game. Valve knew they had to provide a DRM option to certain developers/publishers in order to ever have them on the platform. Everyone goes on about how it's anti-consumer, and sure, it is, but it's not Valves fault. If they removed the option of DRM, those developers/publishers simply wouldn't come to the platform, they'd make their own because of the irrational fear of piracy.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam offline is still DRM. I mean really DRM free games on Steam. These are almost non-existant.
Indeed, and that DRM was a lure. Since it took away the cost of buying their own DRM. Ie; a monetary benefit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Point I'm trying to make is it's one of the main reason people bash Steam, but Epic is going to be no different. The choice all comes down to the developer/publisher. The only true DRM free experience people will get is GoG, but it will always lack titles. Epic honestly has nothing going for it, aside from the fact it's giving developers more revenue, but that itself isn't going to improve the market for consumers. Then with these exclusive deals they're pulling, creating the equivalent to a console war on PC... Even more anti consumer.
In my eyes, Epic is simply going to be a more anti consumer version of Steam, with less functionality/features. GoG is the competition that's needed, but given the fact so many refuse to sell their games DRM free, it's just not going to happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, no. My point was most people bash Epic for "Evil Bribe Money" and offer how Steam provided 'better services instead'. A free DRM and server uses for updates; both considerable money savers.
Most claim it's apples and oranges but I see both as the same; monetary advantages. One in pure cash but both are basically the same; more money for the devs. Yet one is villified and other uphaved. I see no differnce, just the method of developers benefitting the same.
And I agree. I wish GOG won. But clearlty the best service wont win the PC war, sadly enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
Probably sub 50 in their entire catalogue
I find that unlikely.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a huge list, huh.
Guess I was wrong on my <50 there.
Comment has been collapsed.
When I found that list I was also pretty surprised by how many games are actually DRM free once you download them via Steam. Now we need the same for the EGS after a year to see who is worse ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
GOG does I think, that's why many Kickstarters offer Steam of GOG keys.
Uplay also generates quite a few keys for the odd Humble Bundle from them (true, most usually first party titles).
But yes, I think it would be an important step to combat monopolisation is to generate keys for other stores, not centralise like Epic done so far. Hopefully their deal with Humble does something in that regard.
IMO, and especially here, the way to combat Steam would be through bundles. Break their hold on that, a d you can profit from the same thing that make people hesitant to turn on Steam; giant libraries.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well with the rare exception of 5-10 games last years none of these developers sold these keys on 3rd party stores/bundles sites. And the kickstarter games are very few too. GoG says it's up to the develpers but i am not sure if these keys are free,in what ammount and with what restrictions. There are thousands games of gog on the store but still developers rarely provide gog keys,i don't know what the deal tbh. it seems it doesn't have anything to do with the costs of downloading/hosting because with gog connect they gave many millions of game copies for promote. I guess they don't want their buyers to have other cheaper sources for their games.
For epic is quite normal to use humble store to promote their client atm. It's only about the games that release on steam too anyway. Now if we some epic keys in 2019 on humble bundles i am not so sure. I am 95% we won't because epic doesn't pick games that ends on bundles so soon. 2020 propably.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, Kickstarter is dying. Too many projects failed. There used to be more GOG keys around I likewise have no idea what happened.
Not wanting other sources might be the reason but if so it's a stupid reason and a factor why theybare failing against Steam. Not doing too hot from the news their Fair Price project had to be shut down :/.
Dunno. Had some discussion on that in another topic. I definitely think a bundle could help Epic. But will they do so?
Not the exclusives obviously but like the freebies recent popular games. a small investment, even $1 could make people more invested in their library then pure freebies. Human psychology.
Comment has been collapsed.
GoG has to reduce their take like the rest and thus are dropping Fair Price program. Just another day when the customers are actually losing for Epic's sweet sweet C O M P E T I T I O N.
Comment has been collapsed.
What most don't see is that Epic does not care about developers, they are afraid of competition and only care about profit. Their mentality is: By any means necessary and if I can't have it...no one else will. This is a farcry from the Epic I knew growing up.
I realized this when they scrapped Paragon, despite the pleas of the Community to just hand over the game and let it thrive. Same thing they did with Unreal Tournament 4 which is now dead as well.
If a company can eat its own children for money, what will it not do to others - I'm just gonna relax and watch, like Valve is doing.
You don't worry about companies like these, if they don't change...they will eventually consume themselves...& Steam will still be here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic really is just going to be a more anti consumer version of Steam. One that comes with less functionality and features.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not a financial, PR and marketing expert as everyone here, sadly. So as a peasant, I don't give a damn about their exclusivity as long as it's only temporary.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not so sure that it will be temporary considering their net profit from fortnite, as long as they keep buying huge releases and less known games that end up being gems like rimworld they will be able to grab a big enough part of the market.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sadly in this two side market, Epic is only targeting the developer/publisher side, with no additional benefits to consumers. I don’t mind competition, but I don’t like exclusivity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which Japanese publisher will they sign exclusive deals with?
Comment has been collapsed.
sounds like the ramblings of a person who doesn't have a pulse on what people want.. The type of talking from someone overconfident...
Comment has been collapsed.
This. I really don't see how the EGS is going anywhere with this kind of 'attitude'. But Tim seems to know better than anyone else, so only time will tell.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://news.softpedia.com/news/Tim-Sweeney-Says-the-PC-Is-Dead-for-Games-80714.shtml
10 years ago.
Epic can go to hell, they just discarted PC back ago and now, when Steam did their Job and did the market on PC profitable, now they wants their part because, well, pc is alive again. This corporation is like wind, flow in all directions just looking for money.
Steam and Valve maybe cant be the best corporation and they have some faults but at least never abandoned PC in 15 years and did a lot to make PC gaming great again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Was PC gaming not great in 2004?
Diablo 2, Sims, Deus Ex, Baldur's Gate 2 all came out 4 years before that. Things seemed pretty great to me.
The new consoles always cry PC is dead. And yet it's always been superior. Now people cry consoles are dead due to streaming and the Switch. Similar bs.
Comment has been collapsed.
Epic has doubled down on their store efforts more than a free blackjack game, and this blatant contrast between Tim and other management's statements are clear.
Tim is right that its up to publishers whether to honor their prior statements about where a game is available, but by not making a moral stance of "if you promise people that your stuff will be on Steam then we wont offer you exclusivity", Epic's handling of exclusivity is seen as less ethical because it enables publishers to make less ethical choices.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't care honestly. I have a HUGE!!! backlog on steam, not to mention 3DS, Vita and Switch now piling up! I'm probably good on games till 2030...
Comment has been collapsed.
I have nothing vs. Epic Store itself (considering its not spyware ofc) but why i hate it is coz their behavior. This exclusivity is real cancer, if they let us pick, ok, but they literally force us for Epic if we want game - so fk u.
And they are liars - so double fuk u. We wont do exclusivity anymore... oh wait yes we will.
This is nothing better for customers, its forcing to another platform while is enough of them, who and why need another launcher?. This is just company/platform fight and gamers are just vicitims. I understand Steam is overpriced asf, 30% cut is mad but as customer, why use Epic?
I dont buy on Steam Store anyway coz its expensive. They sell game on "super sale" for 10€ while i can get it for 6€ as Steam key :D so overall i dont care, but wont buy epic key, in year exclusivity expire and game will be cheaper, not even worth to buy overpriced new rls games.
And if i rlly need it earlier i simply download it... oh maaan what i said! Kill me now for it. Yes not gonna pay 20 30 40 50 60+€ for games even i can easily afford any game/s.
Comment has been collapsed.
do you have any idea how many games are on steam store alone ... i.e. they will not launch without steam installed ......... and you talk about exclusivity :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve isn't paying for those games to not release on other stores though. Those publishers can put their games on any store they want. Only Epic is paying to delay releases on Steam and other shops.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gog.com showed how having a nice store and drm free is not enough to compete with valve. Valve were the company to bring the loot box to pc gaming, no consumer rights for over 12 years against EU law and regional prices where i pay the most in europe - again against EU law. The publishers choose to put games on steam because quite frankly they had no real choice - EA and ubisoft fought back abit due to being large established brands like blizzard / activision - anyone else no choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but still, Valve is not paying for exclusives. Those publishers could both release on Steam, and on Epic at the same time if Epic allowed them to. It's only Epic paying for games to not release on Steam here. And the reason is because they know people would buy from the better shop-Steam. If big publishers actually put their new games, drm free, on GoG, I'm sure it'd be a lot more popular. If Epic had got these big name publishers to go drm free on egs, they would have at least been doing something for the consumers. As it is, they are doing nothing good for us, only delaying games releases on the more commonly used client.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you think steam will become more competitive thanks to epic. You will benefit as will I - invisible hand and all that.
Comment has been collapsed.
How will epic buying exclusives make steam more competitive? Steam already supports tons of payment options, sells in China, has user reviews, forums, cloud saves, achievements, sales, linux support, mod support, automated refunds etc. Epic has nothing but a roadmap...
Valve allows publishers to get as many keys as they want at no cost, to sell to third party sites, so there can be different places to purchases from, that compete with sometimes better sales then steam store. Epic doesn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ermm as if steam doesnt become more competitive ... then epic is going to start taking that mammoth market share away. The free good quality games alone means i will use epic launcher and the scale and quality of exclusives means i will think twice before buying more steam games. Red dead redemption 2 would really start to scare me off buying steam games if on epic / humble bundles start adding top quality games with epic keys.
Comment has been collapsed.
What exactly do you want Valve to do to compete? Epic is playing catch up with features, and the only way they can compete is by paying publishers to delay releases on the good store.
Comment has been collapsed.
anyone else no choice.
And now instead of developers having so-called "no-choice" it's gamers who have no choice.
And unlike developers who always had a choice (they just wanted easy money from Steam release), gamers really have no choice - have fun buying The Walking Dead: The Final Season anywhere outside of EGS, including GMG, Humble or any other store.
Comment has been collapsed.
interesting you mention the walking dead ... telltales got complacent and look what happened. More launchers = more consumer choice :)
Comment has been collapsed.
If it was more consumer choice, it'd be on more than one launcher... One new launcher is not "more choice" it's less.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is more than on launcher ... before it was really only steam. Now pc games come on more launchers ... more choice
Comment has been collapsed.
Only on one launcher for at least 7 months. No choice for those 7 months.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wanted sekiro or the new total war game but only on steam .... not for 7 months but forever !?!
Comment has been collapsed.
And that is the publishers choice, not Valve's. Epic is paying to keep games off Steam. Valve is not paying to keep games off Epic or any other store. Nobody would have a problem with it, if publishers launched on Steam and Epic at the same time. We only don't like those epic assholes paying to delay Steam releases.
Comment has been collapsed.
do u remember 10 years ago when steam sales were worth the effort to wait for .... that would be a good start. Free games would be an idea and maybe make their events worth while again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam still does have free game giveaways multiple times a year. Sales will never go back to what they were in flash sales because the law requires refunds which makes flash sales dead. And as for non flash sales that were better years ago, they won't come back because epic exists, they will just be the lower discounts on both shops.
As for events, what would make them worthwhile to you? I liked the $6 off code from the last sale.
Comment has been collapsed.
Consumers have EXACTLY ONE CHOICE
Caligu1a = "look at more choices consumers have, instead of dozens of stores they can buy game from only one".
Hey, I have a trade for you. I will give you 1 dollar and you will give me 10 dollars. Like you say, 1 is better than 10.
Comment has been collapsed.
dollars arent pegged to gold anymore ... it has no value like if steam disappears one day we have no games.
Comment has been collapsed.
And? Who talks about gold?
I have a 1 dollar, you have 10 dollars, let's do a trade, because according to you 1 is better than 10 so it's pure profit for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I will not trade for a dollar it is worthless ... like games that need a launcher and online connection like steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then I'll give you 1 your-currency and you will give me 10 your-currency.
Like you said, one is better than ten.
Comment has been collapsed.
well we could live in countries where that would be unfair on you .... i give you 10 rupees and u give me 1 dollar ? your logic is tainted.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, I am not talking about currency exchange. Which is why I said twice "your currency". 10 ruppees for 1 rupee.
Or 1 Metro Exodus copy for 10 Metro Exodus copies.
1 TF2 key for 10 TF2 keys.
1 shop for 10 shops.
Because according to your logic, 1 is better than 10.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just two weeks after the head of the Epic Game Store and the director of Epic’s publishing strategy said the company would eventually stop courting exclusives, especially ones that were already available for sale on Steam, Epic Games CEO said that’s not the case.
In a series of tweets this week, Tim Sweeney said that since GDC the company had a lot of internal discussions, which apparently lead to a change of opinion.
“We’ve had a lot of discussions about this since GDC,” Sweeney said in one tweet in reply to a question about exclusivity and games already being sold on Steam. “Epic is open to continuing to sign funding/exclusivity deals with willing developers and publishers regardless of their previous plans or announcements around Steam.”
During a talk about the Epic Game Store, both the head of Epic Game Store Steve Allison and Joe Kreiner, head of business development for the store, said that the company expected some pushback from the community when it was announced that “Metro: Exodus” — which had been available for pre-order on Steam — would be pulled from Steam and made an Epic Game Store exclusive. But they said they said they were caught off guard by how bad it got. They also said it was a misstep.
“We will definitely avoid that in the future,” Kreiner said at the time.
Sweeney on Monday said that those comments at the talk “prompted further discussions at Epic. leading to the realization that these calls must be up to developers and publishers, and Epic wouldn’t tell them ‘no’ on account of existing statements made about Steam.”
In terms of Epic Games Store exclusives, Allison said at GDC he doesn’t think the company plans to do that “forever.”
“We will probably do it for a while,” he said. “It’s about pushing the business model and helping (developers) thrive. But at some point, the industry will move down and match us (in terms of Epic’s 12% cut of sales.) At some point, we could go to zero exclusives or very, very few. We definitely won’t be doing it at the scale we’re doing it now.”
It’s unclear if that’s still the case or if opinions have changed on that front too. We’ve reached out to Epic Games for some clarity on his statements.
In another Twitter thread this week about the sort of profit the company is seeing from the store, Sweeney noted that the company’s “up-front investments in exclusives and free games are significant and may exceed net profits from third-party games in 2019.”
https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/epic-games-ceo-says-it-will-still-sign-exclusivity-deals-with-steam-games-1203179705/
Comment has been collapsed.