Why do you think epic games will be cheap? They said they don't want to do deep discounts and if they're the only store for the game then I guess you would care about what store the game is on right?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
GI: [Anno 1800 leaving Steam] might not bode well for the...strength of Steam's marketplace, it most likely is good for everyone else (See Staff Post)
- Thread starter benzopil
- Start date
FWIW, it's not at all exclusive to EGS.
It's on Uplay.
Ubisoft is seizing this opportunity to move people to their own client while Epic takes the brunt of the fallout. I doubt they give a shit about EGS.
It's quite smart really.
By pointing to less substantial complaints like "multiple friend lists" they (as in, Epic in their marketing, and by extension any outlet that regurgitates their points) try to steer the conversation away from actually meaningful arguments.
i read here on era an article saying that games on egs will be cheapier in the near future, but i'm not loyal to then , i'm loyal to my pocket , and i get it where its cheapier, but my initial point of view as just that , i don't see egs like a bad company, i see it as one more option, and i really enjoy that, if the game is exclusive in there , ok i don't care about stores i just buy the agme
They went on record saying they don't believe in sales (can't recall if it was the SteamSpy guy they employ or Tim Sweeney himself).
They also don't seem to believe in cloud saves. This on top of a store that make it seem like it was a great development to add a goddamn search bar and which has now a six month long plan to add a cart system.
Epic can keep throwing all the money they want around. At some point, neither the Fortnite funds nor the investment from the Chinese government will be able to keep it around considering they aren't making any actual money from the store (low sales along with low percentage cut). They keep thinking making big investments with the likes of Ubisoft to remove games from Steam is the way to go, instead of getting a better experience for users (either in cheaper prices or store/platform features).
...Wait, WHAT!?
THESE shills berate Nintendo for this but will side with Epic!?
On a second thought its maybe not the best idea to post this since i don't want to derail the thread.
Last edited:
I'm not going to allege Game Informer were paid off.
I am going to say this is a shit opinion and it smacks of the same bizarre, unjustifiably supportive pro-Epic baloney we've been fed for months now. It's an absolute load and I'm sick of it.
A narrative is being perpetuated and it is a narrative detrimental to the health of the PC marketplace.
Great post and well said.
The entire "30% vs 12%" is a lie in the first place.
- Epic pushes processing fees onto users
- Epic pushes advertising costs onto developers
- Epic is strictly controlling digital keys, to prevent 3rd party websites undercutting their storefront prices
- Their backend and user services are almost non-existent
Which is why they are charging 12%. It's not because they care about developers. It's because they want to break the market. I guarantee once they capture any sizable portion of the market and as costs begin to rise they will increase that margin, one way or another.
Just one more small point:
In a recent talk they literally stated they want to control digital distribution and pricing. Epic only partnered with humble bundle to provide key selling in the face of overwhelming criticism by users. However that move was obviously meant to curtail that criticism, not to provide competition for key selling.
Humble is the ONLY store they're letting sell keys. Free Steam key generation is only one part of the equation. The pressure to cut pricing is the other. When you have multiple key selling sites, it lowers prices.
In my humble opinion, that's not what Epic wants and this is yet another example that reveals their intentions, intentions that are not benign.
I am going to say this is a shit opinion and it smacks of the same bizarre, unjustifiably supportive pro-Epic baloney we've been fed for months now. It's an absolute load and I'm sick of it.
A narrative is being perpetuated and it is a narrative detrimental to the health of the PC marketplace.
Great post and well said.
The entire "30% vs 12%" is a lie in the first place.
- Epic pushes processing fees onto users
- Epic pushes advertising costs onto developers
- Epic is strictly controlling digital keys, to prevent 3rd party websites undercutting their storefront prices
- Their backend and user services are almost non-existent
Which is why they are charging 12%. It's not because they care about developers. It's because they want to break the market. I guarantee once they capture any sizable portion of the market and as costs begin to rise they will increase that margin, one way or another.
Just one more small point:
In a recent talk they literally stated they want to control digital distribution and pricing. Epic only partnered with humble bundle to provide key selling in the face of overwhelming criticism by users. However that move was obviously meant to curtail that criticism, not to provide competition for key selling.
Humble is the ONLY store they're letting sell keys. Free Steam key generation is only one part of the equation. The pressure to cut pricing is the other. When you have multiple key selling sites, it lowers prices.
In my humble opinion, that's not what Epic wants and this is yet another example that reveals their intentions, intentions that are not benign.
Last edited:
Having a history of advocating for a militarized harassment group isn't something you want to go to the grave with.
Dunno if you're referencing it or it's just a coincidence, but chubigans actually wrote a blog post about this very topic on Gamasutra.
Caring about the bottom line price is understandable. Which is why people are against what EGS is doing. When EGS is the only way to buy the game it's not just one more option, it's the only option. In addition to them not wanting to do deep discounts and with no other competing storefronts your price of games will go up. Therefore I would think you should care
I was gonna say something, but the only safe thing I can think to say is... I respectfully disagree.
Fat chance getting that kind of information out of them.
Ironic considering Sergei's history.
Something like this should be pretty easy to understand. To games media it's not, for some reason. Despite it having been blatantly and loudly repeated for a month.
If Sony were to suddenly raise the price of their games to $70, that would be huge news. Here, nothing. I've not seen it mentioned literally anywhere. Instead Epic is good for us because reasons, and Valve is actually the one in the wrong because reasons.
I would say that games media is failing embarrassingly and miserably at their job by completely disregarding the consumer perspective, but I suppose their job is not to write for us.
Tim Sweeney does say that Epic will support more digital stores. He says a lot of things. Who knows how true this will be when/if it happens.
Or if it will even matter. Publishers opting to distribute to third party stores would have to lower their 88% share back to 70%. Why would they do that?
Epic getting publishers more money at the cost of their customers is basically what this is all about.
And games media is cheering them on. A bizarre and gross spectacle.
If Sony were to suddenly raise the price of their games to $70, that would be huge news. Here, nothing. I've not seen it mentioned literally anywhere. Instead Epic is good for us because reasons, and Valve is actually the one in the wrong because reasons.
I would say that games media is failing embarrassingly and miserably at their job by completely disregarding the consumer perspective, but I suppose their job is not to write for us.
Tim Sweeney does say that Epic will support more digital stores. He says a lot of things. Who knows how true this will be when/if it happens.
Or if it will even matter. Publishers opting to distribute to third party stores would have to lower their 88% share back to 70%. Why would they do that?
Epic getting publishers more money at the cost of their customers is basically what this is all about.
And games media is cheering them on. A bizarre and gross spectacle.
Except for when he didn't, like when he shat on #NoPS4DRM, an actual consumer movement. To him Gamergate had more validity.
Last edited:
Cloud saves are literally on the roadmap for the storefront. There's a thousand legitimate criticisms against the store, but bullshit like "they don't believe in cloud saves" is stupid.
Thanks, I have a better understanding now. This is really horrible.
The fact that cloud saves are "on the roadmap" is laughable.
It's also pretty telling how they dont believe in features for a service.
How? There have only been 28 indy games
https://indianajones.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Indiana_Jones_video_games
k I've been asking for sourcing on the first bit for a while, cough it up
excuse me how many Indiana Jones games got made?!
Excuse me?
Ok, I googled it for you:
https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/about
Which payment methods are supported?
The Epic Games store supports credit cards, Paypal, and a variety of alternative payment methods. Approximately 80% of store transactions use credit cards and Paypal. The other 20% comprise alternative payment methods, primarily in countries where credit cards aren't widely available. Some of these alternate payment methods carry payment processing fees, which Epic charges directly to the purchaser, and are not included in revenue-sharing calculations. This is a list of the alternative payment methods we currently support. Methods carrying additional payment processing fees are marked with an *asterisk.
k list out the extra fees for me plox
If you're feeling froggy go get sourcing for the other two things you said too
It depends on the payment method: For using Paysafecard for example they add a cost of 6,75% for the customer.
PCera found a 2017 tweet from Galyonkin where he berates inExile for not having Cloud saves because those are easy to implement. Galyonkin deleted the tweet on the same day after PCera linked to it.
no don't wait I want the info that I asked for for my spreadsheet and you have it
gimme it
I just want to know what "better competition" means here. By all accounts Epic snatching up exclusives means less deals and less places to buy the games. Steam allows anyone to sell keys, which means other storefronts are fighting for your dollar, which means better sales across the board and better deals on new games. Fuck the Epic Store. All these pro-Epic articles do jack all to explain why its actually a good thing. Just the typical nebulous "competition" and shit.
Better competition means to get rid of that fictitious 'Steam Monopoly' or letting devs get a better cut or that Valves stops being so lazy.
It is exceptionally questionable that many media outlets consistently avoid factual evidence and gamer sentiment in favor of judgments that favor Epic's store...
I doubt it's a cash payment, but it may be social politics. It's not like Valve is very responsive to the media (or anyone).
I doubt it's a cash payment, but it may be social politics. It's not like Valve is very responsive to the media (or anyone).
Competition is providing a compelling experience to entice users over. Competition isn't "HERES AN ASSLOAD OF MONEY TO REMOVE YOUR ALREADY ANNOUNCED PRODUCT FROM THE PLACE YOU SAID WOULD SELL IT." That's just being a dick
It has been a thing from the beginning. If the processing method cut is higher than what they want to pay, they pass the extra to the customer.
It has also been posted several times in PCEra, where you normally post, with Madjoki (a EU player) having proof of it.
I mean, you were asking for source on the first point... which is what I gave!
About his second point which is marketing, I assume he is talking about how they are pretty focused on not really providing too many discoverability tools (but rather just make some lists like in the App-Store) and the main discoverability tool will be using influencers, whose cut will be from the developers in like... 7 months (1 year since the launch of the store).
About the third point, they clearly said they would not allow exclusives to be sold in other stores, and only backtracked after pressure and only with "selected" retailers (which probably means it is more of a Nintendo situation in Humble Store than a Steam situation).
Competition is good in the marketplace, but what Epic seems to have done is purchase it as opposed to building a strong platform to directly compete with Steam. Valve still has work to do on their frontend, but Epic paying out for exclusivity on a vastly inferior platform doesn't breed competition, just animosity from consumers. True competition in this space would be if games were available on both platforms and the platforms themselves had similar features.
We aren't there yet and I wouldn't call what Epic is doing competition whatsoever. It's more siloing of content than anything else.
We aren't there yet and I wouldn't call what Epic is doing competition whatsoever. It's more siloing of content than anything else.
For the two other points, it's been said that they dont aim to work on discoverability tools at all and instead rely on influencers, who gets a cut for that.
For the last point, it's all about the wording. They made a "deal" with Humble Bundle to sell EGS keys. Which means the way they see it, Epic have to approve the 3rd party sellers.
