-
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.
PC Gaming Era | April 2019 - Goodbye, Uzzy is your new King
- Thread starter MRORANGE
- Start date
- Status
They interviewed the developers instead of publisher? Big mistake.
That is hardly an argument. It is like we are back in the 90s when people would use this argument to advocate closed-source softwares.
If you need to keep your system secret to avoid any exploit, then:
- there is suspicion, because nobody knows what you are doing,
- you openly admit that your system is fragile, and that you do not trust it,
- there will be exploits, it will just be slightly harder to find them,
- you admit that you do not have time to fix the exploits,
- you cannot benefit from others to improve your system of rules.
Last edited:
If I may recommend something for your beginner thread, do not mention the whole 'Steam pays the 15% for their retail cards' thing. That is a standard fee to get retail cards into brick and mortar stores, and the company always pays it to get the cards into stores/logistical purposes (why would the retail store ever pay this???). I have no idea why that Valve rep put that out there.
Because it was an example of why 12% is not viable for Steam. It was part of the talk where they focused on how nearly 90% of the sales of Steam in Asia where through "non standard" methods (aka the ones with higher than 5% in cost).
Basically, it was a GDC part of the talk about: yeah, Epic is saying we are stealing from you all the time but this is our reality.
What if you will but it won't have crossplay with epic and consoles
Tbf a closed source OS like Windows is lot more secure than it used to be, but that has more to do with MS getting their act together rather than the source not being publicly available.
That's the reality of literally every retail card provider though, I'm not impressed by when the vibe they're trying to give off is a 'we're doing this to be altruistic' when it's really 'we do this because that's what has to be done to get our retail cards in at all'
Also thinking about it I know one company that actually does put the extra cost for retail cards onto the consumers themselves
It's American Express
I mean, if we go back to the thread where that was said, lots of people here in era didnt seem to realize how much getting something into retail actually costs. I wouldnt be surprised if most developers just dont seem to realize how the transactions costs cost, heck even Epic was probably surprised when a lot of them went over their "limit".
Again, this was said in GDC with a clear objective for the audience (devs): show why 12% is not really viable for Steam after having Epic saying for more than a year now that Steam is stealing their money.
I don't think so. They probably have enough money to do this for a long time. In the case of Borderlands it could be 2K wanted too much for a full year or didn't want to commit for a full year.
I don't think it was to say "Look how altruistic we are!" but more to show that they do something with the 30% cut. Because there is the sentiment that they don't do enough for their 30% since two years(?).
And every other retail card provider I know of has a similar cut.
(credits to Gizmo)
Don't think dev would say this if an exclusivity deal was on the works, but there're no guarantees these days.
They have a publisher though (Humble) so there's no guarantee on it. We've already seen how much of a voice the actual devs have in this kind of decisions when there's a publisher handling their business.
There really is no guarantee. Obsidian was still working on Steam achievement just a few hours before the EGS exclusive announcement. They had no idea.
(credits to Gizmo)
Don't think dev would say this if an exclusivity deal was on the works, but there're no guarantees these days.
To be honest, I am with you on that open source code IS better to find bugs and exploits, performing much better in most statistics, as well as being much more sustainable long term (due to not relying on a single code provider).
I am just unsure about it being good for recommendations, as having the rule set open would lead to devaluation of the good practises and just pure optimization from all agents (both good and bad).
I assume no small Dev can say no to a huge bag of money upfront compared with the real and fairly scary possibility of your game just not doing enough on its own.
I am not blaming any indie dev for taking that pay check. I don't like it, but I get it. Also, the money they get from Epic would go into making their next game, I'd assume.
(credits to Gizmo)
Don't think dev would say this if an exclusivity deal was on the works, but there're no guarantees these days.
Which game is this developer in relation to?
Disco Elysium looks great and I will buy it day one if it's not exclusive. Otherwise, I'll wait. But, I won't take those posts as confirmation of anything. Epic + any game that has a publisher = what devs say can't be trusted. They've been out of the loop when it comes to these deals. I do hope the game can avoid any of this Epic BS though.
Last edited:
I thought the 15% retail fee on a cash card was brought up to point out that they are left with 15% on each of those sales. If their store fee was 12% they would be taking a 3% loss on every single purchase made with a cash card. Valve provides the cash card option because it opens up even more customers to the store. Epic does not offer cash cards in stores for EGS?
If you still have an audience that buys your next game.
Borderlands? will be fine, unless they bomb spectacularly on all platforms, there will be a new game.
An Indie dev with a niche audience? Good luck.
Ooh
Sorry I am not that familiar with people who develop games, don't really look into it myself lol
Yeah I'm not sure where people thought they were doing it altruisticly. Just showing that overhead could be suprisingly higher for large portions of newer markets.
Yeah. I mean, its basically the same as before with the DSFix but i think its slightly improved in some areas. Some graphical updates/improvements. 60FPS everywhere (even Blightown i think). I played through it at launch, if you are a fan of DS then yeah. Its worth it.
Okay so they renamed that fury game. That's probably for the best. Even though I knew it wasn't furries I could never not read it as such.
- Status