The more games you have in their launcher the stronger their hold on you will be. It's literally exactly what steam did for years before they developed all their features.
They are using the same tactics that Valve did for Steam so many years ago. Exclusive games and great sales to get as many members as possible, then just sit back and watch the money flow in.The issue with that is that they can't keep having sales like this current one. Right now Epic is losing money every time you buy something that has the $10 discount. It's the basic loss leader strategy: make a loss now and hope that you made a recurring customer. For Epic to profit off this, they need you to later go into their store to buy something in a sale that does not include a flat $10 discount.
The worst thing you can do to Epic right now is to buy something off this sale (loses them money) and then never buy from them again unless they make another money-losing sale.
If Epic Game Store becomes as big as Steam, I think some publishers could choose to sell their games exclusively on it, even without any deal with Epic.
Why Ubisoft has Uplay, EA Origin, CD Projekt GoG, Microsoft the Windows Store, Blizzard Battle.net, etc. ? Because it's more profitable. If publishers can have more money if they sell their games exclusively on Epic Game Store, they will probably do it.
Regional pricing. It costs 13 USD where I live.
There's a lot of pearl clutching going on right now.
If EGS starts impacting Steam's sales, Steam will then have to start appealing more to customers rather than take them for granted like they have currently. What with their current race to the bottom with h-games, diminishing sales quality, allowing offensive altright games and generally disdain to do anything.
Ultimately it should be beneficial for us and Steam should have someone snapping at their heels to keep them honest.
It's a percentage game. Epic is trying to get their fingers into as many pies as possible hoping that a high enough percentage will convert to profitable users in the future. A relatively small piece of a huge pie (e.g. the potential converts from Fortnite players to future customers) is still absolutely a big piece. Also, don't forget that Steam also competes with EGS in the F2P market.Again, market share due to a single game does not automatically translate to industry-wide sales. Galyonkin himself said this when examining playtime and ownership rates of Steam users - someone who plays DOTA 2 for hundreds of hours is most likely not going to be buying the latest Tomb Raider or indie game. And install-base for free games doesn't mean much, either. This is why Valve tout number of daily impressions and unique users logging in every day - because that's a more likely measure of a broad range of consumers who may be willing to play something other than a single game.
People were not happy about using steam at first. This is completely inaccurate. Maybe years later and who is to say the same thing doesn't happen with EGS years from now.Steam did that in an era where every other alternative was dogshit, so you were happy to be using steam. EGS does not have the luxury of having no competent competition. In fact, they come off as the incompetent competition in many ways.
There's bias here. Nevermind.
Exclusives and sales.
The market has consistently shown that most ppl dont have platform loyalty. Yes you will have diehards and fanboys but most ppl just want to play games, get a good deal on said games, and play on the same platform as ppl they know. That EGS sale thread is proof of this.There are ppl in that thread that have bashed the store previously that seem to have bought games off because of that sale.
That Tencent and Fortnite money is looking pretty big these days too so I think they can continue with that strategy.
It's a percentage game. Epic is trying to get their fingers into as many pies as possible hoping that a high enough percentage will convert to profitable users in the future. A relatively small piece of a huge pie (e.g. the potential converts from Fortnite players to future customers) is still absolutely a big piece. Also, don't forget that Steam also competes with EGS in the F2P market.
People were not happy about using steam at first. This is completely inaccurate. Maybe years later and who is to say the same thing doesn't happen with EGS years from now.
It's still a store front. And what I said stands. The more games you have in a launcher the more likely you are to visit the store.
Aha so you're a Steam Stan, I can see this conversation would not be worth continuing.Competition is good.
Bad competition is pointless, though, as it does nothing to push Steam forwards. People really need to recognise that innovation does not always require competition. Also, for one who mentions "pearl clutching", "snapping at their heels to keep them honest" seems disingenuous.
As for your "Steam will then have to start appealing more to customers rather than take them for granted like they have currently" - Valve has just rolled out Remote Play in the client beta. Play any game hosted by your PC anywhere, depending upon connection. They just released the iOS Steam Link app yesterday. Neither of which was impacted by EGS, but both of which do much for users. And the "race to the bottom" of quality is just repeating Youtubers complaints, as there is comparatively little shit on Steam when viewed as the total number of games.
Aha so you're a Steam Stan, I can see this conversation would not be worth continuing.
I'm not certain either. The moment they stop dumping money into it (buying exclusives, unsustainable cut, deep loss leader sales etc) people lose any reason to prefer their platform.
By paying for exclusivity. The goal isn't to entice people into the ecosystem, it's to force people into it.
Imagine thinking that you're forced into an eco system because they have exclusive games. Mental gymnastics.
The more games you have in their launcher the stronger their hold on you will be. It's literally exactly what steam did for years before they developed all their features.
If Epic keeps shooting themselves in the foot, all the Fortnite money in the world won't save them ;) I'm assuming though that they are learning from their mistakes and have enough runway to make people forget about their early stumbling.Oh, for sure that's their aim. I just don't think it'll be enough for a) consumers who want a feature-rich client, and b) pubs/devs who want a well-run alternative to Steam. Like, Valve came in for shit with their algorithm change last year, but this was Epic literally not telling Paradox about a sale. So as it stands now, yeah, Fortnite players are their best (and only :p ) shot at long--term survival.
Exclusives and sales.
The market has consistently shown that most ppl dont have platform loyalty. Yes you will have diehards and fanboys but most ppl just want to play games, get a good deal on said games, and play on the same platform as ppl they know. That EGS sale thread is proof of this.There are ppl in that thread that have bashed the store previously that seem to have bought games off because of that sale.
That Tencent and Fortnite money is looking pretty big these days too so I think they can continue with that strategy.
Absolutely and Epic needs to win this battle. If they did, they will be able to become profitable easily.Currently, it's a battle of 'how many more sales are we expected to get on steam' (which could be quite a large spread) versus how much guaranteed money epic will give us.
Epic think they can be profitable with the 88/12 share. So, at some point, they will stop to give free games and to pay for exclusives and their store will be profitable if enough people use it.But money is a finite resource. That's the thing.
Yes, publishers will absolutely be fine with EGS (timed) exclusivity as long as they're cashing big money checks. And customers will be happy to shop so long as Epic is subsidizing price cuts. But what is Epic doing to make this venture even remotely sustainable once the checks stop clearing? Or is the goal to infinitely run the store at a loss?
Ubisoft earn as much money if they sell a game on PlayStation 4, Xbox One or Switch. On PC, they earn 70-80% if they sell their game on Steam, 88% on Epic Games Store and 95% on Uplay. So, you can't really compare consoles and PC.To put it from a console perspective: AAA games have to launch on a variety of different platforms in order to be financially viable, given that theyre so expensive to develop. It would take a helluva lot of sales at the lower price point to overcome potentially selling to north of 90 million users. Unlike consoles, PC storefronts have no predetermined shelf life.
Hmm.. I dont quite get this post.Imagine thinking that you're forced into an eco system because they have exclusive games. Mental gymnastics.
Though I would point out that used games exist on consoles which affect the nominal margins. I wonder if anyone has ever studied how big the used game market is actually?Ubisoft earn as much money if they sell a game on PlayStation 4, Xbox One or Switch. On PC, they earn 70-80% if they sell their game on Steam, 88% on Epic Games Store and 95% on Uplay. So, you can't really compare consoles and PC.
While in many cases also eating the 5% license costs for Unreal Engine.Epic think they can be profitable with the 88/12 share. So, at some point, they will stop to give free games and to pay for exclusives and their store will be profitable if enough people use it..
He's saying that you're not being forced into it. You have the option of waiting for the game to arrive on other platforms or not buying the game at all. Nobody is forcing you to use EGS.Confused by this. People (often?) refer to Steam as an ecosystem - not-great Polygon article here, and PCGamer article here both use it. So it's not unusual that people would refer to the EGS as an ecosystem, even though it technically is probably an incorrect use of the word. With Steam there is so much there, but EGS does seem to just be a store and nothing else.
Unless I'm totally misunderstanding your post? :)
Ubisoft earn as much money if they sell a game on PlayStation 4, Xbox One or Switch. On PC, they earn 70-80% if they sell their game on Steam, 88% on Epic Games Store and 95% on Uplay. So, you can't really compare consoles and PC.
So, again, what happens when you stop giving out free games and subsidizing purchases? Since there's no physical device locking me into this "ecosystem", whats to stop me from just spending my money somewhere else the next time somebody throws up a sale?Epic think they can be profitable with the 88/12 share. So, at some point, they will stop to give free games and to pay for exclusives and their store will be profitable if enough people use it.
Their goal is to be big enough to attract publishers and consumers without free games and timed exclusives.
For the countries that generate the Lions share of game revenue the deals are nothing special.I mean if they keep having sales like this current one then by all means they can expect me to come to that store more often. It insane the type of shit you can get away with lmao
(this of course works if they keep bringing in these games like Borderlands 3 or Control, exclusive or not they need to continue to reach the store)
This is also a great point. 10 dollars is a lot less impressive if you apply it to an expensive market's pricing, which they obviously need to turn a profit eventually.For the countries that generate the Lions share of game revenue the deals are nothing special.
Yes, this is how I feel as well. The PC Gaming Show at E3 is likely to be full of EGS announcements, and it's going to be interesting to see if Sweeney and co. actually have a well thought out plan.Good question. It's clear to me that Epic's initial plan of buying exclusives and betting everything on developers, in the assumption that customers will inevitably follow, didn't work, which is why they are doing this fire sale. They can moneyhat all the exclusives they want but they still won't get the core audience to buy from them this way and they need that core audience since that's the part of the market that buys a lot of games and maintains big digital collections. They have the resources to keep moneyhatting games and financing fire sales out of their own pockets for a long time but that isn't a sustainable business model.
So, I don't really know. I'm sure the mainstream doesn't care much about the controversy but the core PC audience hates Epic and without that audience they'll never be able to beat Steam. We're in for a fascinating next few months.
true $10usd is nothing to write home about. Being able to make a russian account and get brand new titles for less than $15 dollars is tho.For the countries that generate the Lions share of game revenue the deals are nothing special.
A very small amount of people take advantage of regional pricing through VPN's. It's not enough to make Epic the winner.true $10usd is nothing to write home about. Being able to make a russian account and get brand new titles for less than $15 dollars is tho.
not saying that will make them succeed but for people like me that do take advantage of that it becomes a very good reason to go back to the store over and over (if these types of sales continue)A very small amount of people take advantage of regional pricing through VPN's. It's not enough to make Epic the winner.
true $10usd is nothing to write home about. Being able to make a russian account and get brand new titles for less than $15 dollars is tho.
Oh definitely. I'm just saying in regards to the thread.not saying that will make them succeed but for people like me that do take advantage of that it becomes a very good reason to go back to the store over and over (if these types of sales continue)
other than that Epic does not introduce anything that retains me as a customer.
Interesting, thanks for the heads up. Will probably continue to get Ubi games on console or Uplay tho tbh. Thankfully Epic does do refunds if any other game goes russian only.Careful with Ubisoft games. They've already made them Russian language only, presumably because of this type of stuff.
yeah for sure. I was speaking more in the sense what they would have to do to retain me as a customer but a whole i completely agree.
Doesnt that directly prove my point, though? If people become more loyal the more digital products they have tied to a service, then Steam in all likelihood has more weight that nearly any other storefront in existence, given that it spans multiple "generations" and has existed as the PC platform's de facto storefront for years.The same way Steam does. People become increasingly more loyal the more digital products they own tied to a service: Android, iOS, Xbox, Playstation. Everyone wants a piece of the ecosystem pie and EGS wants to secure as many clients as it can before they stop investing heavily in their service.
But what happens after that? As many posters who support EGS love saying, "It's just a launcher." Needless to say, I don't agree with this sentiment (Steam clearly provides many user friendly benefits, which I will not rehash here), but the fact remains that there's nothing "tying" me to Epic Game Store, because it's just one of several launchers I can access; Steam games and EGS games are running on the same hardware. The "console war, but on PC" perspective that Epic is so eagerly trying to introduce doesnt really apply here - I don't have a sunk cost of 200 to 300 dollars (ex. buying a PS4/XB1/NSW) that I have to justify somehow by buying games that run on it.