Yes, same with The Division 2. Thus, buying from EGS is kinda pointless, when you can go to Ubisoft directly.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes 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
That means that Fortnite userbase is a great way to start a new store and pitch it to devs and publishers and make deals. Is a means to an end, not the end itself.
Apparently this is a pretty controversial suggestion for some reason.
Valve being a "weak competitor" or "bad at business" is among the dumbest takes I've read on this forum. This is utterly delusional.
Stores aggressively pursuing practices to deny customer choice is textbook monopolistic behaviour.
Yeah, the game is run on uplay. Just buy the game from Uplay since you need a Uplay account to play anyway.
Because it is stupid. Epic just needs to moneyhat a publisher and they will lock their game exclusive on EGS.
It Schrodinger's competition, where it's impossible to compete against Steam on features while at the same time, we promise EGS will compete against Steam on features in the future.
It's all trickling down now.
It's an industry standard that Steam has already conditionally lowered on its store while providing keys at potential loss to them for years now. Keys that, if you'll read the twitter thread posted earlier, represent a huge portion of any game's total sales.
But sure, let's lower the cut, but as part of an industry-wide discussion. Let's take Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to task!
I'll be waiting in the deafening silence of the press, developers and probably everyone arguing against steam right now.
I've said it many times and I'll say it again. Exclusivity deals for individual goods is not considered monopolistic. It would be different if Epic were buying numerous game developers and publishers, or trying to buy exclusivity for all video games. But this is not the case.
Please stop bending the definition to fit your own agenda.
So Steam not adjusting their to give more to developers cut is stupid. And people are shocked when developers go to EGS?
I don't like UPlay either... Oh well. I don't like being on a leash like that.
The store cut is completely irrelevant when it comes to exclusives. It's all about the large quantities of money that Epic is guaranteeing. Even if Epic decided to start keeping 95% of the games' sales, I would expect basically everyone to still sign the exclusivity contract.
It is not viable when you sell outside the west, the most popular payment methods in Asia require 10%+ of the cut by themselves, a cost that Epic happily passes to the customers.
Steam also does more than host the games, hosting a ton of useless (in the sense of not making money) information such as guides, reviews, pictures, mods, etc.
Edit: it is also important to point out that the reason the games are moving exclusively to EGS right now it is not because of the cut, but rather because they are given a guaranteed amount of money, regardless of what their real sales are.
So because it's the status quo, it shouldn't change? Developers should be perfectly content and expect no more? Why not take Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to task? If another company came in and offered the same cut, I wouldn't blame them at all for moving to that new platform either.
I'm glad you're now more educated thanks to me on the matter of economics. And it's free of charge. :D
Maybe now, thanks to me, you'll be able to formulate a single argument next time ? :D
Edit: And yes, a company aiming to "authorize" resellers is acting in a monopolistic way. You're welcome my friend :)
Moneyhatting is not feasible in the long-run. Everyone knows this. It's simply a way to allow them to even attempt to compete in the first place. Epic is banking on the cut to have the developers to stay in the log run and we'll see if that will be the case.
I guess I'll just quote myself, then.
Not sure what a monopoly is in your planet, but oK.
The status quo is there for reasons that aren't even being discussed in this grand debate about how outrageous the cut is supposed to be. Nobody will argue them because it's an hypocrisy from the beginning, just like people arguing that exclusivity tactics aren't anti-consumer.
For example, you completely disregarded what I just said about keys. You don't acknowledge the 88/12 cut's unsustainability, the fact it passes costs onto the consumer and leaves the developers to fend for themselves in terms of promotion and marketing. You don't mention the fact that Steam has changed that cut or that almost half of Steam's sales are done outside of that, making the cut much lower than 30% in reality while allowing an ecosystem of resellers to exist.
I'm calling out the hypocrisy because for all the sudden mobilization against Steam, nobody is lifting a finger on this very topic on every other platform, showing how hollow the argument is in the first place.
Exclusive dealing is blatantly anticompetitive behaviour. Epic's business model is literally oriented around the practice of exclusive dealing to deny consumer choice. Why the fuck are you defending it?
You mean, the cut that Epic has admitted is unsustainable and passes costs onto the customers and developers? If Epic doesn't have that cut, what do they have to offer since it's supposedly impossible to best Steam in features? Why should they exist at all if they are just here for the sake of being a no-value pain in the ass to everyone?
I guess the fact that they traded developers their reputation in exchange for bags of money counts for something. Not very long-term though.
I literally only replied to you because of your mischaracterization of the term monopoly. I'm not defending it at all. I'm just tired of Epic getting called evil and vile for implementing practices that corporations have been doing since the dawn of capitalism, especially in the guise of Steam's supposed benevolence and charity. Please. Corporations can always do more.
And I'm so sick of hearing about Steam's benevolent behavior as if it's truly doing all it can to help the developers. I have rolled my eyes so hard at this thread.
There is a certain irony in wanting to end Steam's 'monopoly' by supporting a company that is trying to enforce an actual monopoly by completely cutting out the competition.
I mean the developers took the deal for a reason, no? I'm sure they weight the pluses and benefits, and if turns out the cut and upfront money versus potential lost sales turned out to be the reason why they made the move then so be it. That's the decision they made.
So if Epic tried the same shit that Microsoft tried a decade ago in charging to play online, should we stay quiet and accept what Epic is doing? Sorry, but no.
The Phoenix Point developers lost by doing that deal, long-term. No amount of money or good PR can help them crowdfund a new game again.
User Banned (1 Day): Inflammatory Generalizations
So many avatar-less users doing shit hot takes defending Epic
Tim Sweeney and his bots are having a field day in Era
It feels exhausting having to come to the same threads, repeat the same points, and everyone is "just asking questions"
Same strategy as the alt-right trolls
Tim Sweeney and his bots are having a field day in Era
It feels exhausting having to come to the same threads, repeat the same points, and everyone is "just asking questions"
Same strategy as the alt-right trolls
Oh no doubt, it's a decision they will have to live and die with.
I think they're just reaping ill will from the gaming community more than any 'out of the gate' boost they were hoping to buy via exclusive deals. Some people are even saying it's tainted their views of devs like Devolver who were previously kind of community darlings.
Not saying any of it will stick, or is totally warranted, but that's what I am seeing from various threads, comments, etc. How many legitimate 'Oh cool! There's a new games store with a new ANNO!?' posts have you seen, here or anywhere?
Conversely, I think that it's a bad thing that Epic Games is getting money out of screwing over PC gamers. They are not mutually exclusive notions.
In an ideal world, the game developers would walk away with pockets full of Epic's hat money, and their game would sell next to nothing so that Epic does not get their money back. And the devs' next games would also sell next to nothing, teaching them a valuable lesson that (, much like it's also true about us gamers,) it's not all about them. Neither developers, nor storefront owners, should succeed at the customers' expense.
Nor should storefront owners or customers succeed at the developers' expense. It's all a linked system, and the only goal worth aiming for is a place where it's all balanced. EGS, right now, pushes way too hard for the "developer" angle, because they can afford to hurt themselves, and don't care for the customers. Steam, in comparison, is pretty well-positioned in regards to the customers and itself, with only a slight disbalance against the devs - and it's taking steps to push that balance a little further to where all sides will be satisfied.
Yeah, this is the future I see of the epic store with one year exclusive plans. I won't be forgetting the shady ass shit their client does any time soon, and the bad deal it presents to developers.
Many of these deals are made with Publishers not directly with the Developers. It also doesn't address the anticonsumer practices. But hey, it's a great PR talking point. I am sure if I was in the industry and not just one of those lowly entitled consumers, I'd be all for it seeing the potential financial benefit for me.
But as Tim Sweeney said, I am a consumer and don't know what's good for me.
Last edited:
Developers are dumping Steam because Epic pays them millions to do so. This has barely anything to do with Steam's cut.
IDK it sounds like it could be a cool early access title
I'm picturing Famicom Wars but you fight against the Genesis & PlayStation armies, etc., lol
Fortnite
Technically the free games are not exclusive, as well as some games that are in Steam like Annapurnas or Bloodlines 2
Not really, since Epic is the only one throwing nukes, while other storefronts are waiting for them to stop.
It's not like anyone will take people who stan for the EGS seriously
Man, you made me remember that SegaGaGa game and now I'm bummed I'll never get to play it.
If it makes you feel any better, I really REALLY doubt Epic has made any of their money back on those exclusive games.
Well, yeah. That gets them in the door. Yeah, and they moneyhatting ends, the pay cut disparity will still exist in the long run. We'll see how it shakes out, but it would make sense for companies to stick with the store where they can get a bigger cut off of sales.
I guess that's Epic's end goal. They are betting on developers' loyalty instead of consumers to win the storefront war. Time will tell if this works out for them, but don't underestimate the power of the consumers.
Well tim explicitly said that devs will decide the store war not customers so yeah.
The reason I ask is because all the talk about Valve vs Epic's per sale cut is kind of irrelevant if there's no developers out there who are able to freely comment about whether or not it's actually benefiting them. Like, no one apears to be out there saying how great Epic's 88/12 split actually is for them since basically everyone on the store is being paid upfront to be there in the first place.
You can't just make blanket statements like that an apply it to all developers and publishers. Each one will need to weigh the pros of cons if they want to stay exclusive with EGS or stick with their 30% cut with Steam. This is an option that was never available to developers previously. They have to ultimately do what makes sense for them.