-
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.
Matt Piscatella, “ The great PC distribution platform wars of 2019 did not do consumer spending on PC content any favors”
- Thread starter Arthands
- Start date
You are missing the point. No one is saying EGS doesn't literally compete for the finite market of PC digital video games.
The point most people are making is that their approach is not done by challenging steam quality but instead by using every market technique to avoid "fighting" steam.
This way instead of the costumer getting better deals/features because steam and EGS want their money, they get the short end of the stick.
For example read the following post
every single time with these dumb ass posts. honestly, if you're still making these braindead posts a year into the existence of EGS, the problem is with you.
Left: "lack of competition", right "competition" thanks to epic
below: same game, after it stops being epic exclusive:
the connection of your argument to reality is about as much as trump's regular brain diarrhea, and you need to stop regurgitating the same nonsense that has 0 thought or truth behind it.
you might think my reaction is over the top. but clearly you don't hang around in threads like these, because your exact argument is made in drive-by by dozens of posters every single time we have this thread. it's really annoying for the pc gaming community to have to go over the same exact talking points made by people who put 0 thought into it and make 0 effort to engage in the longer conversation, spending like a dozen posts per each time someone makes this nonsense argument. it derails threads, it pushes out the community with what amounts to low effort trolling. do better, engage with the conversation if you actually want to post your hot take.
IMo what is intellectually dishonest is saying EGS is competing with steam despite EGS being the ONLY storefront that is actively closing the platform. You KNOW EGS is harming the PC gaming comunity yet you CHOSE to paint them as just another client/competition to steam.
Yeah this.
What we have isn't Epic funding dozens of indie games to make its platform more enticing but Epic paying for *already developed* games to only come out on its store.
That isn't adding to the PC gaming market, but locking what's already there down. There's only subtraction
OP
OP
Exclusivity deal hardly challenge anything, except encouraging other stores to get involve in exclusivity deals too, which brings no benefit at all. On top of that, the exclusivity deals which Epic does with, are also games that were already announced and planned for other platforms.
This also means certain consumers are spending their money (consoles) elsewhere instead of PC, and the cheaper price didn't result in attracting people to PC gaming.
Last edited:
Bold of you to assume publishers and CEOs wouldn't just pocket the savings and lay those workers off.
I bought less. I guess 4 or 5 of my most wanted games were released on EGS and I skipped them. Then I still haven't purchased Iceborn, after the - again - delayed release for PC. Will get it down the line for a few bucks. Got Tarkov and spend money on DOTA2 and PoE while having a Humble Monthly and Game Pass subscription, but didn't really play much of the subscriptions. Oh, and I got Sekiro at release.
Then why ever fight for a lower rate? Who cares, right?
Anecdotally, most developers receive some percentage of backend sales from a published game, even if it's low. So yes, in most cases, while the publisher might profit more, the devs will too. And of course a publisher who made more money is going to be in a better position to fund games, even if you skeptically believe that all of them are going to gobble up the shifted profit.
Also, the vast majority of games on Steam are self-published, so in almost all smaller cases, it goes directly to the devs. Better all around.
Last edited:
Yeah I don't mind if developers get a bigger cut and I don't initially get a better deal because of the lower royalties. So many games have deals or price cuts anyway. I actually jumped in on the Temtem game because there was a $6 discount, and got one for my nephew too.
EGS just recently had another crazy sale with a card system. Stack that on with Ubisoft having a sale on it's games which are also on EGS and you got a sinfully, low priced stew going.
EGS just recently had another crazy sale with a card system. Stack that on with Ubisoft having a sale on it's games which are also on EGS and you got a sinfully, low priced stew going.
Add in serial number verification failing somehow and updates being only downloadable from the games' websites
There is no need to try and build a narrative when facts speak for themselves. This is Mat Piscatella's statement:
So the obvious question is: Which distribution platforms deemphasized the enhancement of consumer experience and choice and the minimization of confusion? Let's see what each one of Steam's competitors did this year.
EA (Origin): Brought its games back to Steam. More choice for the customer.
Activision (Battlenet): Didn't launch Call of Duty on Steam, same as last year.
Microsoft (Xbox app): Overhauled its client, released its big games day-and-date on Steam, launched Gamepass PC. More choice, enhancement of general consumer experience.
CD Projekt (GOG): Continued development of GOG Galaxy. Enhancement of general consumer experience.
Ubisoft (uPlay): Pulled its games from Steam and signed a co-exclusivity deal (as Epic described it) with EGS. Less choice.
Rockstar Games (RGL): overhauled its client, launched RDR2 on Steam with a small delay. Somewhat less choice, enhancement of general consumer experience.
Epic (EGS): Continued improving its client, signed almost 100 exclusivity deals. Significantly less choice, enhancement of EGS consumer experience.
So as I said, there is no need to build any sort of narrative. In 2019 the only companies that deemphasized customer choice and the enhancement of the consumer experience are Epic and the companies that Epic signed exclusivity deals with.
Not that i disagreeing with your statement, but what Valve did in 2019 except for changing their client, which made it run worse?
The client overhaul brought new features to the ender user in it, and has been something that customers have wanted and waited for for a long time. That not exactly everyone are happy with the performance doesn't change that.
Runs fine for me. Maybe on a potato PC you want to disable the visual flair in the settings. I did that on my laptop, and it made it super snappy.
I don't think you really care about an answer because obviously. But because I'm a lost soul anyway: Steam play together, changes to user review system to mitigate review bombing, Steam Labs (interactive recommender, community recommendations, deep dive, search improvements, micro trailers, etc), many improvements to remote play, the Steam chat mobile app, improvements to the store like the categorized DLC pages, and a lot more smaller changes and updates that I can't think of.
So just in 2019, even disregarding everything else like having a big library there already, they did a a lot of stuff that made playing a game on Steam more valuable. And before someone goes "I don't use most of those features, I just want to press play and get on with it" -- I really don't care about your opinion. Truly.
Last edited:
Well first of all the client looks and runs much better for me after the update. There are options to disable the more taxing effects for weaker machines. Other than the Library overhaul, in 2019 Valve also introduced multiple new ways of discovering new games on Steam through Steam Labs, as well as the Remote Play Together feature which enables local co-op games to played through the internet. Steam Remote Play in general exited beta status.
Not only epic. There is Twitch and Gamepass as well and even GoG and Steam give away free games here and there. And then there is humblebundle. Yes, humble and Gamepass aren't "free", even Twitch Prime isn't - but you know what I mean. So many freebies nowadays, especially on PC.
*Of the ones that are lucky to get the blessing of being allowed to grace the epic store. Additionally, a lot of them have been publishers which haven't been struggling so that risk wouldn't apply.
Also if this is their plan why do they publish Fortnite on the 30% revenue share - Apple app store 🤔 .
The goal would be to drag Steam's percentage down with it. Besides, if Epic doesn't open up eventually, it'll just die.
Uh...because they want money? Epic doesn't have a mobile distribution platform. I'm not sure why that's related. They have a publishing arm and a Fortnite arm.
Epic has mobile distribution platform called Epic Games that they use for their Android releases (yes Epic released 2 games on Android). Sweeney actually said that they will potentially sue Google because they don't want to lower their cut. And again focus is only on open platforms but not them or any other developer says anything against closed platforms like App Store, PS Store, eShop or Xbox Live Store. Absolute silence when it comes to those one and they offer fraction of features and visibility that Steam offers. Epic had enough power to push Sony to allow cross-play so they have enough power to push them to lower their cut but they never did it (or any other closed platforms). Why? Because they know that users won't care if they remove Fortnite from those stores, they will find something else to play and they will only lose money. Steam dropping their cut means nothing when majority of the market keeps same cut.
It's related because if their fight truly is for trying to reduce the industry norm they wouldn't then accept said industry norm because of business reasons. Why claim to fight it in the first place?
The thing is if they do get vavle to reduce their cut(which they do have reduced cuts when you hit certain sales milestones on Steam) what happens to the other places? Nintendo, Microsoft, Sony Google are not going to suddenly reduce their cut because that's the only way to get into their ecosystem so why would they?
Sorry, I should be clearer. When I say that's Epic's goal, it's it's not like they're doing it because they're the champion of morality. They hope the lower percentage will draw devs and consumers to their platform long-term. If it works and Valve doesn't adjust, they do well. If Valve does adjust, they could claim they made the industry a better place.
They aren't a "moral" company. It doesn't make sense for them not to pursue every avenue they can for Fortnite revenue; it's not like their employees would go on strike for daring to release on a platform that took 30%. They would have no way of reaching mobile consumers if they refused that, and it would have no bearing on their percentage goals.
Seems there's quite a bit of a need to build a narrative.
You've convinced me that a random Era user believes this, but you're not going to convince me Mat believes it when he's saying point blank he does not.
Any platform that uses third party as leverage will hamper the community because it limits choice. It doesn't matter if it's a game console, an IOS exclusive or otherwise because it is all essentially created to exclude others. We see this at every level and even retailers offer incentives for you to buy from their stores. What I find very bizarre however is how the PC community acts like it's an area where this shouldn't happen.
Steam also has the largest library that I am aware of, why is that a good thing for consumers too when all games should be on all available storefronts? It should not matter if we mostly prefer Steam, there should be choice all around.
Let's discuss this as two random Era users then. Which other factors do you think contributed? What other events rocked the PC market in 2019 and caused disruption?
It seems unrealistic that they would be able to do this. With their current numbers it would take so many years to have a significant part of the market and with the way they have been competing if Valve were to answer back, lowering rates doesn't seem the most efficient way to do it when Epic is relying on exclusives. Valve will probably just continue to improve their service as an answer.
I don't think Epic will keep the cut they have either, i expect they will increase it once they get a bigger share of the market.
Last edited:
Well, I got borderlands 3 on epic store for 9 bucks (regional price) during the sale, I guess it is a favor?
You say its epics goal to drag valves cut down. But how on earth do they expect to do that? And what happens if they do? It doesnt make any sense at all.
I can explain why. It is the first time in at least 15 years that a company tries to lock third party content. Generally speaking PC gamers are much less tolerant to "bullshit" than their console counterparts.
For example GFWL which tried to bring the console experience to PC was met with dismal support despite having AAA games such as fable and halo 2. console gamers for example "easily" accepted to pay to be able to play online.
I don't think I ever defended that the game should ONLY release on steam. I completely agree that every game, if possible, should be in as many platforms as possible.
That said your comment almost assumes steam is the only choice which isn't that true. Yes there are games that only exist on steam but you also have gamepass and GoG. Both offer a very different approach to the steam. But if you don't mind using steam as an library manager using sites such as humble bundle, voidu, fanatical,... give you a completely different experience then every thing prior. A shootout to the godly value of the humble bundle/monthly subscription. (in case you didn't know valve gets 0% cut from cd-keys sale so buying from steam cd-keys site doesn't support valve at all)
The thing is the EGS platform is the only store that is willing to" harm" the costumer to get more profit. To a certain extent you could add microsoft store BUT Microsoft at the very least is also bringing their games to steam so you aren't "forced" to use their restrictive store. Microsoft also doesn't "penalize" you from choosing the steam platform over theirs.
Like i said in several other comments. i REALLY REALLY want someone to compete with steam in terms of features!!! Nowadays however all other stores seem to only care to get a piece of the pie with as little effort as possible. Look at uplay/origin and how little they have changed. EGS introduced a roadmap, fail to make every self-proposed features then removed said roadmap.
Then look at Steam which has brought play together, steam broadcast, stem OS, steam VR, steam controller support, and more features that help both devs and costumers.
Also don't misundertand me; Steam is not perfect. Far from it, from steam support to several problems with draconian DRMs as well as going through a lack of a good algorithm for game recommendations; it has a lot of problems. The thing is the other clients/stores aren't solving the issues, instead are creating issues that have already been solved by steam.
It would be awesome if all storefront were good but that simply isn't the case. It also doesn't matter if PC gamers are less tolerant, it was bound to happen regardless because Steam makes a killing selling third party games. Epic also has a lot of funds to pay for timed exclusives and this is why, much like consoles and mobile, that we are seeing deals being made. As far as harm goes I felt no pain getting free games and buying others which I felt were good prices when they had their big sale. To each their own I guess.
So, isntead of nickel and dime the consumer to its the last dollar, companies are now using their absurd amount of virtual money to give games for free/fund game development in the hopes of making them have one more computer program installed?
I can get behind that strategy for all my life.
I can get behind that strategy for all my life.
"it was bound to happen regardless because Steam makes a killing selling third party games." Do you game on PC?
Did you miss origin,uplay, GoG,humble bundle, fanatical, microsoft store, voidu, win/macgamestore,etc. stores that exist right now and don't do the bullshit that EGS is doing?
Did you miss epic leaving the PC space because "piracy"?
Did you miss GFWL dying because of bullshit console like service?
It wasn't bound to happen that store would moneyhat games from other stores.
I highly disagree with the underlined. Just because you don't feel "pain" Doesn't stop you from understanding that EGS is offering a below par service. You are free to use EGS, for some games you either use EGS or don't get the games.
I really don't get you saying " To each their own I guess."
Let's say i want to use my Switch controller on an EGS title. I either install a program or i'm fucked. Is it hard to understand losing a features is not good for the PC costumer?
Can you not feel empathy to those that use the dozen steam features would be forced to install dozen or so programs so that they can still use the same user experience that they CURRENTLY have in steam?
/sigh.
Do tell me where EGS has the following features:
- Steam controller support
- Steam play together
- Steam broadcast
- steam BPM
That is a rehtorical question. I know EGS doesn't have those features... it doesn't even have a shopping basket.
My point is that EGS is not just "another" a client/storefront like you are portraying. Why are you saying it is?
I quit these threads. Its like most users are trolling.
Did I say anywhere at all Epic is a good store? No I did not. I bought Haydes for example, works very well because that I play on my keyboard. The Divison 2 i play with my Xbox One controllerand I got it for super cheap and it plays on UPlay anyways. So what exactlly is my pain, please do tell?
Do I game on PC? What a stupid question.
I'll repost.
Just because you don't feel "pain" Doesn't stop you from understanding that EGS is offering a below par service.
Can you not feel empathy to those that use the dozen steam features would be forced to install dozen or so programs so that they can still use the same user experience that they CURRENTLY have in steam?
Of course I fell empathy for the lack of features. I think after all this time the store should be miles better. I use it for the free games and bought the odd title that isn't on other stores. That tactic works and one that I realize is shitty for the industry. I bought Red Dead 2 on it for example but it still runs through Rockstars launcher and it is now on Steam. It was really only 30 dys of pain for those who refuse to get it on Epic. I am not sure if there are any full excluive games on Epic or if they are all timed.
Epic should invest in their own titles but I am totally guilty of supporting a practice I don't like. Third party exclusives. I don't like it on consoles, mobile or PC but I don't think the PC is a special place that is immune to such pratices. What I will say and I bet you don't want to hear it but it's far better than having to buy hardware to play third party exclusives.
It's so weird to see a billionaire and platform owner doing this lol
Imagine Jim Ryan answering Reddit about Sony "well, actuallyy..."
I was just thinking about this again today and thought it could also just be an off year and game companies just didn't hit the mark with mass market consumers. I would actually love to see the comparison if we consider how those multiplatform games did on their console counterparts compared to other years. Next year's data could tell us more on what trends are starting to develop or not.
Another thing to consider is more big companies wanting to make their games into a perpetual live service like League or Destiny that just have a one time price of entry for most people or are even free to play technically. A game as old as World of Warcraft is still drawing a lot of money even in its decline. I think this, among other things may lead into overall less spending but with a few games do making a lot money continually.
Another thing to consider is more big companies wanting to make their games into a perpetual live service like League or Destiny that just have a one time price of entry for most people or are even free to play technically. A game as old as World of Warcraft is still drawing a lot of money even in its decline. I think this, among other things may lead into overall less spending but with a few games do making a lot money continually.
He didn't answered question that Chet asked. Question was how many games were downloaded not claimed. They posted number of claimed games on infographic.
Also Tim is saying how they gave away games valued over 1000$, issue is that they didn't pay that much for those games. Vallie of each game on average was around 20$ and they probably paid 1-2% of that value for each copy (they probably paid even less because they paid bulk sum to developer for unlimited games). That is why Tim is pushing for games owned in that tweet. Issue with that is that market analytics care how much money was on the market not how many games are owned by people.
I have dozens of games on EGS claimed. I have downloaded none of them and chances are I already owned most of them on Steam, and will probably buy the rest on Steam at a later date because I value the platform. I claim them so at least the devs get paid something.
I don't know why Chet said that but question is not answered. Downloaded =/= Claimed
As far as I know it doesn't matter if you claim the game or not. Epic is not paying per claimed game, they pay bulk sum in advance and permission to give "unlimited" games.
Without a detailed analysis of the actual numbers it's impossible to disqualify any of those factors. The reason I personally don't think that they were the main ones though is because none of them fit Mat Piscatella's description, ie the deemphasizing of consumer choice and the increase in customer confusion. So on one hand we have a console industry in a traditionally slow year (due to the generation winding down) achieving a small increase in consumer spend and on the other hand we have a PC industry that experienced a reduction in spending at the tail end of a console generation, when one would expect PC gaming to enjoy a boost. In my opinion, Epic's policies was the only factor that could have caused a drop in consumer spending through the deemphasizing of consumer choice.
That only affects PS4 and XBO. Switch is not nearing the end of its generation nor winding down, very much the opposite, and is the reason why total console spend showed a slight increase. Not to mention Switch Lite is included in those numbers, so a chunk of that console spend is handheld. Which is fine, but worth keeping in mind.
My ultimate point is that PC is a platform, and therefore it would be better to compare it to another single platform's performance, eg PS4 or XBO, rather than all console/handheld platforms combined, which seems a little apples to oranges.
Last edited:
Looking at the logs, it appears he requested a temporary ban, and is actually due to return in a few weeks.
Last edited:
I think I made it clear (and sorry if I didn't) to only compare multiplatforms over all, since both sides got MASSIVE games that will skew data and render it unusable.
Last edited:
That is a valid point, I agree with you. Nevertheless, the fact still remains that in the PC gaming space no other factor could have contributed to a decrease through confusion and reduced customer choice than Epic. At least I can't think of any.