• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Uzzy

Gabe’s little helper
Member
Oct 25, 2017
27,086
Hull, UK
I'm writing up something for Imperator: Rome next month. I would also like to suggest that this is next month's thread title.

PC Gaming Era | April 2019 - Senatus Populusque ResetAetatianus

(which translates to 'The ResetERA Senate and People', or more freely, 'The Senate and People of ResetERA'. SPQR baby)
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,098
Taiwan
So this happens when a game also launches on discord later...

serversm0jzv.jpg
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,305
I think that'll happen when the first contracts begin to expire in December. That Epic can afford to throw around millions of dollars willy-nilly doesn't change the fact that securing exclusivity so aggressively isn't a realistic business model; at some point, the store will need to appeal to developers/publishers on its own merits. I also suspect the revenue split will be adjusted around the same time and changed to something that's sustainable long-term, although I would say there's a good chance Epic will meet current partners in the middle somewhat and leave existing releases at 88%/12%.


I also think Epic is basically trying to force themselves as much as they can in a year. Hence why everything is a year long.
 

Aaron D.

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,306
I'm writing up something for Imperator: Rome next month. I would also like to suggest that this is next month's thread title.

PC Gaming Era | April 2019 - Senatus Populusque ResetAetatianus

(which translates to 'The ResetERA Senate and People', or more freely, 'The Senate and People of ResetERA'. SPQR baby)


I like it!
 

Deleted member 1698

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,254
I also think Epic is basically trying to force themselves as much as they can in a year. Hence why everything is a year long.

It also shows just how incompetent Microsoft has always been. They have tried this like four times now and haven't got anywhere near the traction that Epic has by simply moneyhatting a few games that people might actually care about.

It is kind of staggering to me.

That might even be what kills the epic store. Microsoft might realise how easy it is to compete if they just get their shit together and throw some cash around. Then it'll be lights out for epic.
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,078
They don't care. I think right now their priority is to secure whatever audience they can, see if it's worth it to keep a store and then build something people would actually want to use. The only problem is, I'm not sure Epic has a long-term commitment to the whole thing.
I think they will have some level of commitment but my main issue is how dependant they seem on Fortnite money to push their ventures.
Right now they have slashed both Unreal Engine and Store fees to really low levels in order to increase their dominance in both fields, but how commited will they be to maintain that if/when Fortnite starts slowing down. Putting all your eggs on one basket is never that good of a solution.

I also think JaseC is wrong: Epic cannot afford to increase the 12% cut in the store. Their whole PR and key idea is "a better deal for developers", backtracking from one of your core concepts is pretty destructive to any product.

I have already made the calculation in another thread and the question in the end is, if they are making less than 5% on any UE game sold in the EGS (less than they would on Steam or other store!), would they really care about the store that much? Or will it be another Origin when after the 1 year push it is put into near permanent legacy mode.
From their comments, it seems like they believe once these changes are made, they would be good enough for customers not to care, so permanent legacy mode seems likely. A stagnant store is going to fail badly.

My main guess is them trying to utilize the store as a way to get into the Android market (and maybe even in the streaming market), but I am really not sure how many people would start utilizing the app for that when even Amazon failed in getting its foot in Android Stores. Fortnite would need to still be massively culturaly relevant in 2 years for it to be that succesful, and most products nowadays are not that long lived (at that lvl of popularity).
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,078
It also shows just how incompetent Microsoft has always been. They have tried this like four times now and haven't got anywhere near the traction that Epic has by simply moneyhatting a few games that people might actually care about.

It is kind of staggering to me.

That might even be what kills the epic store. Microsoft might realise how easy it is to compete if they just get their shit together and throw some cash around. Then it'll be lights out for epic.
MS is not Epic. MS is seen as a titan of industry so the vision would not be "Small company fighting the monopoly" but rather "Big corporation trying to take over another market".
You also forget how GFWL did have pretty big exclusives people cared about and they flopped.

The PR situation would be much more similar to Google with Stadia than EGS, where Epic is allowed much more room for fuck ups by the virtue of "they are a small company and can also make mistakes".
 

1-D_FE

Member
Oct 27, 2017
8,252
There is definitely something funny to be had in gaming journalists complaints about toxic gamers when they go on to write condescending, childish articles like these, which are becoming more and more common lately and not just re:EGS.

I can fully understand the mixed feelings someone might have towards "gamers" if you see them as a holistic group of people, but if all you can express towards your own audience (and this holds true not just for journalists, but developers as well) is nothing but mockery and even disgust, then you should really ask yourself why you're still in this industry.

Bourgeoise twats.

At it's absolute pinnacle, video game "journalism" would best be described as fanzines. I always thought that was the more appropriate description.

And now? Now that even real journalism is dead and they're all going out of business? The one and only motivation any of them have is to get clicks and somehow keep the lights on. That's a recipe for hyperbolic articles (cause everything else gets ignored and the market has proven that).

MS is not Epic. MS is seen as a titan of industry so the vision would not be "Small company fighting the monopoly" but rather "Big corporation trying to take over another market".
You also forget how GFWL did have pretty big exclusives people cared about and they flopped.

The PR situation would be much more similar to Google with Stadia than EGS, where Epic is allowed much more room for fuck ups by the virtue of "they are a small company and can also make mistakes".

Just no one say anything about Tencent owning almost half the company. That would ruin the story.
 

BlueOdin

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,014
Can we have a thread for these Avellone comments? Gaming side could do with seeing a few of them. Especially the one about devs not seeing the Epic money and it most likely just staying in upper management.

I wouldn't do it. Avellone has a few gears to grind with the Obsidian management so everything he says should be taken with a grain of salt.
 

Deleted member 42

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 24, 2017
16,939
Avellone has severe beef with the Obsidian management to the point that I'm not sure how to read his comments on this, especially since it was the pub that made the decision
 

Saoshyant

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,995
Portugal

Alternative, more accurate titles:

"Chinese Government wants to control PC gaming, claims it makes the industry better, but gamers don't like that"

"Company thinks competition is turning an open platform into a console-like hellhole, claims it makes the industry better, but gamers don't like that"

"Company has high contempt for consumers, claims that attitude makes the industry better, but gamers don't like that"

"A digital store just added a search bar and is planning in 6 months to add a cart, claims it's making the industry better, but gamers don't see that"
 

Stone Ocean

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,573
Yeah Avellone has a point - the money likely won't reach the devs unless it's an indie studio - but take his overall opinion with a grain of salt.
 

Saoshyant

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,995
Portugal
Yeah Avellone has a point - the money likely won't reach the devs unless it's an indie studio - but take his overall opinion with a grain of salt.

It's not even a hard thing to check up on, something journalists should be doing. Where did the Metro Exodus exclusivity money went to? 4A managers? Did some of it go for developers? Or was it entirely pocketed by Deep Silver?
 

Cooking

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,451
I mean...I don't work in the games industry but it's not like excess profits trickle down to regular workers in many other industries
 

GrrImAFridge

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARYDOOS
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,665
Western Australia
I also think JaseC is wrong: Epic cannot afford to increase the 12% cut in the store. Their whole PR and key idea is "a better deal for developers", backtracking from one of your core concepts is pretty destructive to any product.

I'm not saying it'll jump from 12% to 30%, just somewhere in between. Epic must be aware that passing payment processing fees on to consumers makes for a soured value proposition, and that it is doing so makes it rather obvious that such a low cut, while great for PR, simply isn't realistic as a long-term policy.

I do think there's one thing that's absolutely off the table, though, and that's walking back from waiving the UE royalty fee. Regardless of how Epic's approach to the store may change, "We won't take Unreal Engine royalties from your sales revenue" will always be a key advantage.
 
Last edited:

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,078
I'm not saying it'll jump from 12% to 30%, just somewhere in between. Epic must be aware that passing payment processing fees on to consumers makes for a soured value proposition, and that it is doing so makes it rather obvious that such a low cut, while great for PR, simply isn't realistic as a long-term policy.

I do think there's one thing that's absolutely off the table, though, and that's walking back from waiving the UE royalty fee. I don't see it ever being nixed, regardless of how Epic's approach to the store may change.
I could see a 15~20% cut plus the UE fee and grandfathering some studios for a 12% partnership.
My main issue is that their whole PR was "Steam is stealing from you, making tons of money and doing nothing". Any knick in that PR message would start to damage them. I think even a 15% cut would not benefit them that much compared with the lost trust from developers (which is the only guys the actually care for).

Edit: basically, any change on the cute would go against the "core values" of the EGS.
 

Stone Ocean

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,573
My main issue is that their whole PR was "Steam is stealing from you, making tons of money and doing nothing". Any knick in that PR message would start to damage them. I think even a 15% cut would not benefit them that much compared with the lost trust from developers (which is the only guys the actually care for).
I honestly don't think they thought the cut through very much.
 

GrrImAFridge

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARYDOOS
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,665
Western Australia
My main issue is that their whole PR was "Steam is stealing from you, making tons of money and doing nothing". Any knick in that PR message would start to damage them. I think even a 15% cut would not benefit them that much compared with the lost trust from developers (which is the only guys the actually care for).

Since increasing the cut would mean eating payment processing fees, it'd be very easy for Epic to spin the news as (mostly) a good thing, especially if the adjusted cut applies only to future releases.
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,078
I honestly don't think they thought the cut through very much.
I already said the math and I think they thought it decently enough... but didnt really know that the expenses where much higher than they initially though. The whole "oh shit pass the cost from transactions to the customer" clearly shows they had no idea that would be the case. Similar to how they probably didnt really realize how costly curation and store building would be (pretty sure they assume that after this year of "feature building" they can have one or two people just working on it as a "legacy" support.

However, the "we will pay for the influencer cut for the first year" clearly shows that they thought that was their profit margin (or at least close to it).

Since increasing the cut would mean eating payment processing fees, it'd be very easy for Epic to spin the news as (mostly) a good thing, especially if the adjusted cut applies only to future releases.

Again, their main target with marketing is not customers but developers. They could try to spin it that way to developers... but some developers already think that stuff like regional pricing is stealing from them.

Edit: This is just my opinion considering how part of the core PR the 12% cut is. Every time they need to deflect some stuff they shout it. Every time they talk about the store, they shout it. Changing it would damage their image with the developers heavily (even if the reasons make sense).

Edit 2: In other Jim Sterling news:

 

GrrImAFridge

ONE THOUSAND DOLLARYDOOS
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,665
Western Australia
Again, their main target with marketing is not customers but developers. They could try to spin it that way to developers... but some developers already think that stuff like regional pricing is stealing from them.

Yeah, I know. Abolishing payment processing fees could serve as the basis of an argument that happier users are more likely to become happier customers, and, more to the point, I just don't see the current status quo being maintained indefinitely when it's contingent upon Epic punishing its user for its own short-sightedness.
 

eonden

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,078
Yeah, I know. Abolishing payment processing fees could serve as the basis of an argument that happier users are more likely to become happier customers, and, more to the point, I just don't see the current status quo being maintained indefinitely when it's contingent upon Epic punishing its user for its own short-sightedness.
Yeah, I understand your point, but I think Epic would rather eat those loses itself rather than increase the cut, mainly due to how core to their PR the 12% has been.

Also yeah, I am 100% sure they arent going to touch the UE not having a fee for EGS. That is pretty rad.
 

JD3Nine

The Fallen
Nov 6, 2017
1,866
Texas, United States
im just glad to read that Epic wont continue this behavior forever. We all knew that, but it's nice to have some confirmation. Just have to make it through this year then I'm going back to ignoring Epic. Seriously, they have totally turned me off to the point that I wouldn't buy shit from them.
 

Rosenkrantz

Member
Jan 17, 2018
4,919
Well, as Ivan Drago would've said, if it dies, it dies. Sweeney admited that 12% cut isn't sustainable, if Epic decided to die on the hill of their own PR and as a result will fuck off and stop poisoning the well, it'll work too.
 

StereoVSN

Member
Nov 1, 2017
13,620
Eastern US

Preach it 👏 🙌 !

Gaming Press (if you call it that vs paid PR at this point) coverage has been pathetic. I am really disappointed in some of my favorite (in the past) outlets.

Yes, clearly it's the gamers' fault for not seeing the "vision" and how Epic Store is so great.

Also, good point above in that this is driving people to crap on YouTube which has it's own giant pile of problems.
 

Tizoc

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,792
Oman
Now that I think about it.
Valve won't have key redemptions of games show up in the Activity feed going forward right?
 

chadskin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,013

Shengar

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,052
Alternative, more accurate titles:

"Chinese Government wants to control PC gaming, claims it makes the industry better, but gamers don't like that"
I wouldn't bring Chinese government or let alone Tencent at that because ironically they left their indies thriving there. Three upstart mobage (Azure Lane, Girls Frontline, Honkai Impact 3) are Chinese (one of them is Taiwanese I think) made. More and more Chinese indies appear and sold on Steam either with or without English translation. You know it's kinda fucked up because with Epic absence in China, those Chinese indies wouldn't exist.
 

Deleted member 1849

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,986


Itch.io gameplay recording. Integrated into their client (at some point), all open source on GitHub and free for anyone to use. Works on Windows, Mac, and Linux.
 

Mivey

Member
Oct 25, 2017
17,815
I am kinda baffled how blatantly monotonous and one-sided games writing is on the whole Epic thing. Any truly diverse and healthy "press" should represent a range of opinions. (not that I feel that games writing is at all journalistic, or deserves to be called "press" - and I don't meant that as an attack, I doubt truly journalistic games writing would get much of a readership)

Is there any notable site or outlet that actually calls Epic out, and makes the point that this whole brouhaha is ... kinda shite? I'd really like to know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.