This basically seems like it's devs wanting more paper which has a lot of ripple effects RE: storefronts and consumers
-
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.
GOG.com to discontinue its 'Fair Price Package' Program on March 31st
- Thread starter Tizoc
- Start date
Yeah doubt this has much to do with Epic. Layoffs are usually known to be coming at high levels in companies up to 6 months beforehand. Obviously companies do what they can to avoid and minimize them before their hand is forced.
Also do not think developers negotiating for a higher cut across various ecosystems started with the Epic Store. It's been going on for awhile and is a big reason why contracts are usually covered by NDA since various developers have the ability to cut various deals , just like employees can in regards to salary. Most people may not negotiate but over time most people learn it's in their best interest to at least give it a try.
This proves my point. What exactly is "controversial" to you about this topic? Why feel the need to come in to a topic about GoG struggling and post a dumb hurr durr Steam comment?
This is hard for a lot of Era to understand, but I stick to PC topics because that is what I care about. I don't run around showing my ass in console threads.
In fairness, a lot of people in threads about the Epic launcher get pissy about having to use more than one launcher for games and that's the beginning and end of their argument.
It's not about the games that are on the Epic store now. This is about the changes in the background on negotiation with stores as a result of it . Without the huge userbase Valve has, GoG doesn't have much of a bargaining chip. They absolutely had to start cutting their cut to keep Devs in.
nope . People are against paid exclusivity and want games available in as many stores as possible.
Those people just want steam keys sold cheaper through third party sites.
Some of us actually want gog to succeed because of it's DRM stance and push for older titles
this sounds more like you don't know what their arguments are and you just made something up
If people still think this after thousands of posts on the matter, then PC Era is truly doomed.
Why would you take "advantage" of purchasing in higher priced region? Seems silly.
Y'all over here talking like you speak for everyone that was in those threads lmao. There were a lot of people giving more legitimate reasons but there were also those who just didn't want to use another launcher.
"I only shitpost in PC threads, why are you complaining?"
Where does this come from? I don't see anything about 'cheating' in GOG's reasoning.
Idk but people buy stuff from different regions all the time to take advantage of regional pricing and policies. It has to hurt these digital storefronts
Actually, no, they didn't, because they neither bought exclusives nor reduced their cut to a level that is completely unsustainable for smaller players in a predatory pricing scheme.
Hmm, GoG is a pro-consumer platform with consumer-facing unique features (such as their DRM-free stance) which is also working hard on their client feature set.
EGS is an anti-consumer platform with no unique features that competes by buying exclusivity.
Maybe, just maybe, people like the former while disliking the latter, for good reasons.
Yeah I don't really know if anybody really had any beef with GOG, it was pretty solid in general
Devs just found the cord to pull and they're gonna keep going
That would probably not go very well
Devs just found the cord to pull and they're gonna keep going
That would probably not go very well
But this isn't actually about removing regional pricing, just wallet reward for those who bought from their own region despite higher price.
I'd say this has potential to increase use of cheaper regions because of that. And for many in EU that was only reason to prefer GoG over Steam.
And whatever it hurts is far more complex, something is better than nothing. There's no direct loss (for GOG, anyway) as royalties are paid on regional price.
That worked well for Thronebreaker.
The usual suspects trying to make this about Steam somehow. Never change, fanboys.
Origin did this exact same move after other regions kept abusing the cheaper regional pricing through VPNs. They moved everything to local currencies, then back to dollars (in most regions at least), and stopped with the regional pricing. GOG has always been well liked as a complementary service due to their commitment to DRM free releases (Steam leaves it optional to pubs) and focus on older, more forgotten games being supported in modern OSs. It'd be a shame if it went under.
Origin did this exact same move after other regions kept abusing the cheaper regional pricing through VPNs. They moved everything to local currencies, then back to dollars (in most regions at least), and stopped with the regional pricing. GOG has always been well liked as a complementary service due to their commitment to DRM free releases (Steam leaves it optional to pubs) and focus on older, more forgotten games being supported in modern OSs. It'd be a shame if it went under.
It kind of is, when they used to make up for the difference out of their own pocket in credit. But obviously not apples to apples.
Damn I bought all my CDPR games from GOG
hope they survive whats coming
although Im not sure what this has to do with Epic Games yet
hope they survive whats coming
although Im not sure what this has to do with Epic Games yet
This is how I feel too. It's great having a place to legally purchase older games but ever since they've attempted to compete with other store fronts by introducing indies and bigger published titles they've really slowed down their older games output.
Epic lowered cut to unsustainable levels for majority and devs started asking for lower cut from stores everywhere.
Epic is driving unsupportable 12% cut model. That model doesn't include various charges to the customer or the "influencer" charges. Developers are using that example to renegotiate previous cut storefronts were taken which allowed sustainable development and adding features users liked (like that regional pricing example from GoG or say universal controller support from Steam). This isn't hard to understand.
This didn't start with Epic. Developers asking for a lower cut has been a thing for quite some time.
Epic brought it down too much claiming that stores need only 8% to be sustainable and that is not true. So devs now have something to quote during negotiations and place where to go if Epic chooses them.
Oh I wasn't aware devs started asking for lower cuts on other stores too
Devs were asking for a lower cut before Epic, it's what happens when the price of games hasn't changed for 10 yrs, devs look for other ways to get money
30% of the price was also much more reasonable 10 years ago when bandwidth was more expensive, and you needed blade servers and things to serve up the content. Now bandwidth is cheap, and so is content delivery, so why pay that 30%? Devs should be getting more at this point - it costs less to distribute games now.
I'm in favor of developers reaping the benefits of their own product, but they also need to understand that these storefronts need money to operate, and a lower cut will affect their business, and overall, screw the market.
That as well, devs have been questioning for years whether or not digital storefronts were doing enough for them to justify the pricecuts. The big publishers didn't just make their own stores for no reason. The idea that it was only Epic that made devs want a smaller cut when it's something that's been complained about for a long time is revisionist at this point.
Bandwidth is not only thing stores need. Various fees are big issue too on top of maintaining the store and developing features. And i am not arguing that devs didn't ask for lower cut before, i am just saying that Epic publicly said some numbers that are not true so devs now can use it in negotiations.
Yeap. Epic's 12% is supported by customer based fees, "influencer" fees, bare-bones feature set, and a GIANT pile of Fortnite/Tencent/VC money.
At the same time, the 30% fess from say Steam supported a lot of consumer facing features from BPM to Controller support to Discoverability (yes, not perfect but miles ahead of everyone else) to Linux support to other store features PLUS allowed 3rd party stores to function.
So? Stores can say no. Just like devs can take their games to other stores. And it's unlikely the Epic store caused this level of problems in GoG this fast, they were likely already having problems. So are devs, you don't seem very concerned about them, especially in the past year, a lot of developers have seen some major redundancies or being closed altogether. And that's just the big names we hear about. Devs have various costs they need to pay too, and they have gone up dramatically over the last ten years. Devs are customers too, just like gamers aren't required to buy their games or use a store, devs don't have to use a store if they think they can get better elsewhere.
Oh wow, you don't think Steam having such a dominant place in the market hurts their competitors?
Hahahahahahahaha
Another problem of taking away the 30% cut: many storefronts use that cut to give consumers a discount and attract sales on their store. That's a big advantage to consumers; buying a game on launch date at $45 instead of the usual $60 is awesome. If the stores get a smaller cut, that might stop happening.
Like a GOG user posted in the announcement: "Praise Epic for making competition something the end user will never see any real benefits from."
Developers are important, obviously, but consumers too.
Like a GOG user posted in the announcement: "Praise Epic for making competition something the end user will never see any real benefits from."
Developers are important, obviously, but consumers too.
As a customer i am looking at my interests. Devs look at their interests. And best case scenario is that we meet in the middle. But devs are more and more looking only for themselves. That is why we are seeing more and more MTX in games and other ways they are trying to take more money from customers. Gaming market is highly competitive and customers have only that much money to spend and many developers can't or don't want to understand that their products are not something that market wants. So "blaming" customers that they don't care for developers is ridiculous in my opinion. It is not customers job to care about every single developer and studio and how they are keeping their lights on.
This is unfortunate but it's extremely understandable, especially given how volatile the currencies can be (and will be even moreso, sup impending global recession) & how competitive the gaming CDN business has become in the past two years.
GOG as a platform is pretty good & I hope they endure through this cycle. Feels bad for gamers in countries this change effected.
GOG as a platform is pretty good & I hope they endure through this cycle. Feels bad for gamers in countries this change effected.
I love the idea that it's Epic that's mostly causing these problems. The desire to blame EVERYTHING on Epic and to see Valve as some generous benefactor that does no wrong is just mindblowing.
While Valve are obviously in a better position to weather Epic's aggressive and anti-competitive moves, GOG looks like it's been a victim of this.
I can't say it's a bad thing that developers get a bigger share of the pie, but it's sad that it's come at the cost of the consumer. It's clear to me at this point that the share Epic is taking is unsustainable, and whether it's intentional or not, smaller stores are feeling the heat when developers go to them and say, "Well, Epic is only taking 12%!"
And even if Epic isn't directly or indirectly causing this, it's a bad day for the consumer when GOG is in trouble.
I can't say it's a bad thing that developers get a bigger share of the pie, but it's sad that it's come at the cost of the consumer. It's clear to me at this point that the share Epic is taking is unsustainable, and whether it's intentional or not, smaller stores are feeling the heat when developers go to them and say, "Well, Epic is only taking 12%!"
And even if Epic isn't directly or indirectly causing this, it's a bad day for the consumer when GOG is in trouble.
If you think people don't criticize Valve then you haven't been paying attention.
Haha. It's fine If you wanna see it that way. But, even if there was, what does that have to do with the original post I quoted?
Also, WTH does any of this have to do with GoG possibly having problems?
Because Epic is tying to ensure all stores take a huge cut in revenue.
Metro is $50 not $60 on Epic store because of the smaller cut. If anything keeping the 30% makes developers keep their prices higher.
But it is our concern about the costs for storefronts? Both devs and storefronts will look more and more at their interests when gamers keep demanding more and more from both without being willing to actually pay more. You don't have to care about them but it's ludicrous to get annoyed when they make steps so they can actually *GASP* make money so those lights stay on. If devs are putting extra revenue streams in their games and storefronts are having to get rid of staff and features, then it's showing that there's major problems with the industry being sustainable and suggests that gamers are looking too much for themselves. Again, your money, do what you will with it, but it's the dev's products, and they are going to do what they need to do to stay alive. So will the storefronts.