But competition? Surely somehow this is competition and it helps make steam better or something? /sThere is an inherent contradiction in Epic's store supposedly being a good thing for developers struggling to keep the lights on while the store will be off-limits to 90% of them.
There is an inherent contradiction in Epic's store supposedly being a good thing for developers struggling to keep the lights on while the store will be off-limits to 90% of them.
Wow.The dev percentage split seemed like a scam and of course I, along with others, snickered about the once legendary Epic Games, now known only for Fortnite and other, more forgettable stuff, opening up a game store of all things.
There is an inherent contradiction in Epic's store supposedly being a good thing for developers struggling to keep the lights on while the store will be off-limits to 90% of them.
The whole "starving developers" argument thing really falls apart for me the moment a dev accepts an upfront payment from Epic. I get why they might do it (though in case of Kickstarter titles, that's still spitting in the faces of people who initially supported their vision), and I respect whatever motivations they may have to keep the lights on, keep food on the table, financial security, etc.
But here's the funny part: once they accept the payout, they automatically stop being the "at risk game developers" . So, by this weird logic that I'm supposed to be a parton of games as art, rather than simply a discerning consumer, it's better for the industry that I support anyone other than a dev sponsored by Epic- because the games available though steam, GOG or itch.io don't have this financial cushion from Epic, and, it would follow, they need my money even more--for all the same reasons.
Thanks for taking the time to explain your position. Here is my main issue with the core of your argument: You claim that Steam doesn't do enough for small developers to justify the 30% cut while sidestepping the fact that Steam is the only major platform out there that gives these small developers a chance to reach a large audience. Every other platform would not give these small developers a spot on their store, never mind the absolutely huge set of tools and features that come free of charge with Steam.
So Steam does nothing for the small developer but I can open Steam right now and buy a $0.99 game made by a bedroom coder. That game would never, ever get released on any other platform and it certainly wouldn't have comprehensive controller support, a full set of online functionality, mod support, Big Picture support, Linux support and so on. All these other platforms that supposedly offer much more for their cut are only interested in that type of small game only if it somehow breaks out and becomes a massive hit.
Developers cheering for Epic are doing so because they are sure that their game would never be rejected by the store. They are wrong. They think they'll swim in money and they don't realize that Epic has already cut off hundreds, maybe thousands of smaller developers from its store. Over time they will realize that 90% of them will get screwed over by curation so that the 10% can have increased profits. It is already happening on all platforms except Steam yet they keep walking like Lemmings towards their own doom.
This is amazing.
Indeed. It is cringeworthy to see so many clamor for "curation" as if it's some kind of benefit. Where on earth did this idea come from? It really does confuse me when people say nonsense like "buried under tons of asset flips" - this simply does not happen. I suppose it's a lot easier to accept than "the game I made actually wasn't one of the best" for the devs who stir up this narrative, the "indiepocalypse" etc. They can't think like that, so obviously their game wouldn't be curated away, just the shit no-effort ones like Assault Android Cactus, Opus Magnum and ... wait :(
I'd say it's more than a little dumb, it's moronic. Epic is one of the most influential forces in the entire industry, precisely because of the Unreal Engine, and related programs like Epic MegaGrants.Those are games that uses the Unreal Engine, not games made by Epic Games.
Surely there are 30 or so games made by epic on that list though.
So yeah, it is a little dumb to say Epic are "now only known for Fortnite"
The store page for egs is already starting to become a shit show too. So annoying to have to scroll down through all these giant icons.
It is worth to note that Epic has been giving grants to all sort of organisations for a long time, way before they got huge with the Fortnite money, so they are not just doing this for the publicity. Epic MegaGrants is just their latest iteration.I'd say it's more than a little dumb, it's moronic. Epic is one of the most influential forces in the entire industry, precisely because of the Unreal Engine, and related programs like Epic MegaGrants.
But competition? Surely somehow this is competition and it helps make steam better or something? /s
It's the exclusive boys-club feel of the whole damned thing that rubs me the wrong way. Epic and the developers and industry people telling us how all this is great for the industry but it's great for the already established and reputable and those with personal connections with Epic employees. Basically fuck everyone else except for the select few.
Yeah, I don't buy their PR.
We are going for an employment rate of 100%, not by creating jobs, but by killing the jobless
Indeed. It is cringeworthy to see so many clamor for "curation" as if it's some kind of benefit. Where on earth did this idea come from? It really does confuse me when people say nonsense like "buried under tons of asset flips" - this simply does not happen. I suppose it's a lot easier to accept than "the game I made actually wasn't one of the best" for the devs who stir up this narrative, the "indiepocalypse" etc. They can't think like that, so obviously their game wouldn't be curated away, just the shit no-effort ones like Assault Android Cactus, Opus Magnum and ... wait :(
Developers spent years complaining about Valve's strict curation which had the result of big profits for a lucky few and starvation for everyone else. Eventually Valve let everyone in and now developers want to go back? It's just crazy, it makes zero sense for 90% of them.
I hate first party console exclusive.
I really hate third party console exclusive.
I don't need exclusivity on PC space.
Developers want curation but only if they're the ones that get in; I think people forget they're just companies trying to make a buck.Developers spent years complaining about Valve's strict curation which had the result of big profits for a lucky few and starvation for everyone else. Eventually Valve let everyone in and now developers want to go back? It's just crazy, it makes zero sense for 90% of them.
Multiple better stores exist, EGS barely has the content because iAgain we go full circle because you are not speaking on behalf of those making the games or those who made the deals.
Sorry but you're not liberating me because I already know how the Epic Store is but like I said before, content is king just like ever other device /platform.
Of course if a better store exists that has the same game for r the same price the answers are much simpler.
I don't think anyone including myself is saying they do nothing to contribute to the game industry especially with the unreal engine but all my posts are specifically referring to the egs which i stand by isn't a good thing especially with how they are handling it and the exclusives.It is worth to note that Epic has been giving grants to all sort of organisations for a long time, way before they got huge with the Fortnite money, so they are not just doing this for the publicity. Epic MegaGrants is just their latest iteration.
So yeah, it is rather mind blowing to see people saying that they do nothing to contribute to the gaming industry.
People usually don't care if you are the publisher/developer and you use your own store unless you're Bethesda (shit launcher).To be fair, they've existed way before EGS. Titanfall being exclusive to origin really held it back sales wise. Same about Forza being tied to Microsoft store (this one still hurts, release it on steam, please).
With all due respect you are not on the inside making these deals so how can you conclude to know better? As a consumer it'ss not good but for them it may be.
Developers want curation but only if they're the ones that get in; I think people forget they're just companies trying to make a buck.
I think the tight curation is only temporary, mostly out of necessity. I can see them opening up more and more as they gain a bigger marketshare. Same with the exclusivity deals and the free games. They only exist to force EGS into the market. Once the customers are there, there will be no need for them anymore.I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not talking about the developers that take these deals, I'm talking about small developers that will most certainly be excluded if the EGS gains traction. They are rooting for Epic against their own interests.
I think the tight curation is only temporary, mostly out of necessity. I can see them opening up more and more as they gain a bigger marketshare. Same with the exclusivity deals and the free games. They only exist to force EGS into the market. Once the customers are there, there will be no need for them anymore.
File this logical fallacy into the same category as "Epic need to do exclusives because there's no way they can match Steam's features" whilst also saying "Valve have been resting on their laurels for years".Then those that make it into the store will lose the benefits of curation, right?
Yes, definitely.Then those that make it into the store will lose the benefits of curation, right?
How is it a logical fallacy? Are you confusing me with another poster?File this logical fallacy into the same category as "Epic need to do exclusives because there's no way they can match Steam's features" whilst also saying "Valve have been resting on their laurels for years".
Then those that make it into the store will lose the benefits of curation, right?
How is it a logical fallacy? Are you confusing me with another poster?
Of course, nobody is claiming that. I just think the strict curation (and thus the exposure benefit) is temporary.He means that the OP's position (games get more exposure due to the limited number of titles) and your position (Epic will eventually open up and let a lot more games in) are contradictory because you can't have both at the same time.
To be fair, they've existed way before EGS. Titanfall being exclusive to origin really held it back sales wise. Same about Forza being tied to Microsoft store (this one still hurts, release it on steam, please).
A company wanting to sell their games exclusively on their launcher is understandable.
The games Epic's locking down as exclusives aren't their games.
i know they've said that they're eventually going to add a lot more games but has epic said they're actually going to open up like steam?
i guess it doesn't really matter since they backtrack and go against basically every statement they make
I actually have a bit of doubts with this regard.Of course, nobody is claiming that. I just think the strict curation (and thus the exposure benefit) is temporary.
I think you misunderstood my post. I'm not talking about the developers that take these deals, I'm talking about small developers that will most certainly be excluded if the EGS gains traction. They are rooting for Epic against their own interests.
These people being primarily other developers. Mostly of the small developer variety who will be pushed out of the market and lose their livelihood if a tightly curated store like EGS becomes the main way of distributing games on PC.
Sounds like a bit of fear mongering thinking Epic will somehow erase other options out there if they don't sign with them. How far are you really going to try and stretch things to try and get your views across?
You're the one trying to present your own argument with no actual evidence anything like that will ever occur. Steam will remain dominant for a very long time and the only reason why it wouldn't would be is if Epic ever turns out to be a better store, not by spending money going after key titles.If you feel like I'm stretching things, present your argument. Let's say that Epic manages to become the dominant force of digital distribution on PC. How many games do you think that the store will have available and what is that future like for small developers?
The sad thing is: not a single one of those tweets is new information.
The problem with selling to a company instead of selling to the market is that it may only be a one time deal. Epic could decide that your game did not garner enough interest for them to invest in your next project. And since you never "sold to the market" in the first place... you might not have a market to fall back on after that first game. You got a nice stack of cash to support your first project but if there was no genuine interest gained or nurtured with consumers... what are you going to do in the future? In the most extreme cases, developers have actively pushed consumers away by going back on their promises. So now they have a negative reputation going forward instead of a neutral one. So option B is definitely not certain to set developers up for the future.On steam, you're selling directly to the market, with little help but very few barriers for entry. And if you make a lot of sales, you can get enough to pay your salary on the game you made.
On epic, you're selling to epic, and if you make the sale, you get a lot of guaranteed money, which will almost certainly set you up for the future.
Neither of these are particularly pro or anti indie compared to eachother -- they both benefit certain kinds of developers, in certain circumstances.
But as a gamedev and also somebody who like, knows absolutely anything about business, i'm really glad more big players are taking the second route. I hope a lot more follow epics path, including, ideally, steam. Ultimately, consumers' concerns (which regard whether they can play a fun game in their preferred way) are trivial compared to the concerns of workers and developers (which regard to whether they can survive and pay rent).
I for one only play on the PC so please don't speak on behalf of the whole PC community thinking we should all share the same views. Content is king, just like it is on consoles, and Epic knows it is the best way to gain traction by getting exclusives. On top of that they will throw in some free games and hopefully more sales. I don't think you will find many, or even very few, who think the Epic store is the best place to get games from. If a game is on there and nowhere else or won;'t be for a long time then chances are they will use it.The sad thing is: not a single one of those tweets is new information.
It feels like there is this tedency that - the more you're aware of the whole situation - the more you will probably not support the EGS. The same goes also the other way: beeing less informed (or you simply don't care) makes it more likely that you will accept or support the EGS.
You can't explain all those "I'm a console gamer but you PC folks will now listing to what I think beeing a PC player should be like, and you guys better agree with me" posts with pure randomness. There have been too many of these posts in the last 8 months and it's usually the non-PC players that will go for a hard EGS defense.