Thanks, that would make sense. I was first thinking about using two different cards to pay for one game. Its the same on the PS Store as well (and every other store that also have a wallet i assume). That if you have e.g $10 in your wallet there, and a game cost $20, you only need to add $10 more to the wallet to do the purchase. Doesnt Epic Store has a wallet like this?
1. Review bombing is one of the reasons commonly cited by EGS reps are one of the things devs complained about, hence why EGS launched without reviews.
I see. Makes sense why they dont support multiple of payments for one purchase in that case. I just found it curious since they specifically mentioned that it wasnt possible.
IIRC Nintendo's eShop also asks you to select another payment method if you're short of Wallet funds.
Do y'all really think that Valve would update their revenue share scheme out of the blue, with no benefit to themselves? Come on.
Yeah, that would make sense. It will probably be like this if/when Epic adds a wallet option to their store as well.
I think the rest of my post that you partially quoted explained exactly what I was saying, without the need to guess by saying "so what you're saying":
Hell of a run-on sentence at the start there though, I must admit. I probably should have re-read that part and broken it up a bit to make reading it easier.
Mass layoffs coupled with record revenue, widespread complaints of insufficient profits, the rise of Games as a Service, MTX, and other continuous monetization models, etc, are part of what points to it. Record revenue on an explosively expanding userbase means fairly little in itself, the increase is natural as the potential audience size increases - what matters is the difference between that and the skyrocketing costs of game development, driven by ever-increasing demands on graphics fidelity and game scale. On top of that the increasing demands are also hitting developers themselves, as game development cycles slowly but surely lengthen because there's only so much crunch people can endure, necessitating even more funding to support the companies between releases. Conditions at major development teams worsen, as we see more and more reports of it. Several large games have already been driven to failure, due to various complications arising from shoehorning more unique genres into the more profitable monetization models, and from developer and management fatigue. AAA games are becoming too enormous to sustain themselves, game development is becoming too stressful on the developers and costs are starting to be shifted further onto consumers, and unless a paradigm shift happens that allows AAA games to cost less and be developed faster, the AAA gaming market might collapse. Just making customers pay more, and giving the publishers a little more money saved from omitting customer service features, won't do much more than delay the effect.
Everything that a company does is to benefit itself, that doesnt mean what they did or what are doing is exactly because of EGS. Maybe its, maybe it isnt. But like i said correlation does not imply causation unless theres something showing that Epic was the causation.
The writing's on the wall here. If your standard of proof here is Valve has to come out and namedrop Epic, then I don't know what to say. It's pretty obvious to everyone else in the industry. I feel like I'm having to overexplain the most basic things.
The theory of devs equipped with foreknowledge of the Epic Games Store months in advance, rather clashes with the reality of the jump to EGS for the first few exclusive titles being so rushed that they had to put stickers on physical copies and kept using Steam logos in marketing for a while after the announcement by inertia.
youre right its not worth it at all which is why they have to give them giant piles of money
Ultimately, we already know that AAA can survive on PC without Steam (e.g. Origin, Black Ops 4, Destiny 2 etc). What we've not seen is indie games reliably doing well on PC outside of Steam, and there's zero evidence of EGS being the land of milk and honey for indie devs. Compare and contrast the multiple reports of an indie game selling multiple times more on Switch compared to Steam.
Proof would be EGS dick waving and Steam losing costumers, which none has happened so far. Valve is a market leader, market leaders usually focus on itself and how to grow market share and get into new territory.
They're not, directly. I used a humorous simile to respond to EGS being "a step forward" for PC gaming, in that the step may well be off into disaster that PC gaming is said to be standing on the brink of. Users asked to clarify the nature of the disaster, so I did.
I'd even reframe the question slightly, as "developing countries" are also countries with less buying power and less money per capita by default. Making it a system of "the rich pay less, the poor pay more", which is just wrong on several levels.
That 30% let me pay less on third party stores ( legit ones ), I don't care about Valve/Steam but that's an excellent reason for me, and that's what's under threat as far as I am concerned.
I think the comparison to Switch is definitely interesting, as the EGS are obviously trying to leverage the same type of idea for attracting devs - i.e. having a platform with a number of high-profile exclusive titles, and offering high visibility for low-profile titles that they couldn't get elsewhere. (I mean attracting them long-term, after the buying-out well has run dry)
