So they do! Still a rather limited number of supported currencies though. Until they expand that it will still hit the number of sales.
-
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.
Satisfactory removed from Steam to be announced as Epic Store game
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
So they do! Still a rather limited number of supported currencies though. Until they expand that it will still hit the number of sales.
I'm pretty sure that that the majority of Fortnite players are just there to play Fortnite and have zero interest in the fact they are playing Fortnite through the Epic launcher/Store.
It's also interesting that with a game like Fortnite being run as GAAS that Epic would introduce the idea of diverting peoples gaming time into other games via it's store.
One of the Devs that took Epic's exclusivity deal has been on twitter marketing the Epic store as amazing for both developers AND consumers, and even side-stepped and blamed launch day problems for why their so called regional pricing is just a direct conversion of price between US and local currency so people are still paying 2-3 times more for the game.
multiple people from multiple countries have stated that even those listed are just US currency prices converted into local currency. Which is laughable 'regional pricing'
Some of them arein this very thread.
It seems to me like many developers are likewise leaving consumers out of the conversation in this particular case.
(And a few of them are supporting the inane accusation that a preference for a far more feature-rich platform is somehow irrational fanboyism, which I find particularly disgusting)
And there are policies Epic already confirmed which are inherently less pro-consumer than their Steam equivalents. (E.g. regarding reviews)
A quick estimate, following this topic on here and elsewhere for the past day or so? Hundreds of people. I haven't kept count, but I have certainly read a lot about how great this "competition" is for developers and consumers. Including that last part. I wasn't referring explicitly to you there, but to the overall conversation.
If the games wouldn't even exist in the first place without said deal, or even if the deal secured extra content for the game, I see nothing wrong with it. It's highly likely these deals are made in order to lessen the burdens of development costs.
Exclusivity means they can compete with their product/platform? I see no difference on how this is a problem compared to console exclusivity, I don't see people getting so riled up because a game funded by Sony ends up being a PS4 exclusive, how that damages the consumer or is not competition? That's what exclusives exist for.
At the end of the day, this is still a PC game, you are still gonna be able to enjoy it, and clearly there are bigger issues in the industry than being mad at store exclusivity. That's how the market works.
Besides that, I'd like to point out how the word "moneyhatting" is being throwed around here a lot. Didn't knew what it was, googled it and man, a lot to unpack, but please, enlight me how a game no one knows a lot about, from an indie studio, in a niche genre, how Epic paying for that is gonna give them "unfair advantage" against the behemoth Steam is. I'm just laughing now.
So, umm... is there anything in your direct reply to me that was a direct reply to anything I wrote, or... ?
Limited support. No support for Malaysian RM at the very least.
Thats due to EU regulations. AFAIK you are not allowed to have different pricings in different parts of the EU. It's why Steam had to get rid of the EU tier 2 pricing.
https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/consumers/unfair-treatment/unfair-pricing/index_en.htm
I didn't know that. Which of course means pricing as if all of Europe was Germany. Wonderful. >_<
They did just launch this yesterday, no? Even Steam has had problems with their regional pricing initiatives from time to time, like when the entire catalog of a publisher went offline on a certain country.
This could be temporary, or it could've been dictated by the publishers of each game affected. Some games on Steam in Brazil are even more expensive than just the US currency converted to BRL.
Most of what Epic has done has been pro developer not pro consumer. But the end result (if they succeed) is a platform that is a viable competitor to steam that will absolutely be beneficial to consumers too.
But that's only if they can provide a service that is compelling enough. These exclusives are a necessary evil because Steam is too massive to get on a level with. But exclusives alone are not going to bring people over to the platform as regular consumers. For that they need to improve the service. If they don't, this whole endeavour will fail and people will remain in steam and developers will follow suit.
But if they succeed that's good for everyone. Now what they end up doing to be a compelling service might not be forums, or trading cards, or the things steam does. It could be that the free games ends up being that compelling feature (and to be fair that sounds great). We'll have to see.
But at the end of the day, giving steam a viable competitor is good, because whilst steam has always been good for consumers, it's not been as good for developers. So there's benefits to pushing steam to improve through competition.
If a developer wants to choose a storefront freely, that's their choice and I don't have any problems with it. I can be disappointed as a consumer if it only releases on a platform with bare-minimum features and no support for my operating system of choice, but I can't fault the developers for it too much. I certainly wouldn't be angry with it.
This thread is about Satisfactory, and the community manager has already claimed that he knew about the exclusivity deal for long before the Epic store was even announced but he wasn't allowed to say anything. So it's clearly not just a developer making a free decision.
Do you understand that the PC market and console market are different and have different standards for openness and competition?
Thats a empty excuse and you know it.
And you want to be more disengeous? the catalog went down because they added a new currency to the store and many developers did not heed the warning that they need to place a price on that currency and not US dollars.
Epic doesn't have that excuse, they didnt have to have US prices for everything out of the gate if they marketed as having regional prices. And regional pricing is NOT 1:1 conversion to US dollars.
Yeah... It's kinda understandable but it really does sucks and a big reason why EU as one whole economy isn't working out IMO (no, not just games but this stops most digital services in poorer countries).
I'm just trying to understand a situation instead of blindingly assuming everything in regards to Epic's store is "anti-consumer". But you do you.
If moneyhatting isn't the case, then why would the developer of this game NOT want their game being available for purchase on Steam? Exactly what do they lose by having the game sold on BOTH Epic Store and Steam (at least)?
They'd still get sales either way, they'd make money, so why give up on any extra money you would get from purchases on Steam? If you're selling something wouldn't you go after the option to get the most money possible? Even if the cut they get from Epic is higher, they'd still be getting money from selling through Steam. By having it sold through Epic Store ONLY, Epic ensure that any sale of that game results in them ALWAYS getting a cut.
Also, Read the thread title it was removed from Steam Why would they remove it from the store if it weren't for a foreign influence? Even if Epic's cut is smaller, the developer wouldn't lose anything by having it on Steam because they'd still be getting sales from the purchase of their game as I already wrote.
Oh and Far as I've seen the game isn't on GOG which has its own Early Access program
https://www.gog.com/news/introducing_games_in_development
Keep in mind that Epic also gain from having the game sold ONLY through their Store and not any other method as I'll explain below.
But how many would actually WANT to buy your game on the Epic Store?
Not all of those who got Epic on their PCs to play Fortnite may be interested in buying PC games, but on Steam, which has built a large consumer base over the years, your chances of getting a copy sold to consumers is higher. Let me ask you this: When there is a Winter or Summer sale, which PC platform is ALWAYS the go to for discussions? Steam. Oh sure we got threads for GOG sales, but do you see any discussion for sales on Uplay or Origin at least?
Which would have the most buzz and talk for? Steam, beause it has a large consumer base that has over the years had a willing to buy from the store.
Now While the 88% that you, the developer of a (for example) $10 game get form a sale is tempting, as opposed to the 70% you get from selling on Steam, consider this:
If on Epic Store you sold 1,000 copies, but on Steam you sold 1,500 copies, which would've netted you the most revenue?
Well here's the maths for you ( * sign means multiplied by in case you didn't know ^^; )-
0.88*$10= $8.8 (Epic Store sale)
0.7*$10= $7 (Steam store sale)
$8.8*1000= $8,800 from Epic Store
$7*1,500= $10,500 from Steam store
It's not just how much the developer gets from a purchase, it's also how many buy that game.
EDIT: Heck here's a far BETTER example.
Which would be beneficial for an indie developer
a) Selling 1,000 copies ONLY on Epic Store
OR
b) Selling on BOTH Epic Store and Steam with the copies sold split as 1,000 and 500 respectively
Let's do the maths!
Epic Store only
$8.8*1,000= $8,800
Epic Store AND Steam
($8.8*1,000)+($7*500)= $12,300
Are those few extra copies sold on Steam really that offputting for an indie developer, to settle for selling their game/product on only 1 store front?
Now if you're still questioning the consumer base, remember this: Thronebreaker released on GOG first, and it was exclusive or only being sold on GOG. Less than 3 weeks later, they ended up releasing on Steam because it didn't sell as well as they'd hoped on GOG.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/thronebreaker-the-witcher-tales/thronebreaker-sales
They needed to go to the store that had the higher consumer base.
Also Steam allows for free key generation for a game. If your game is allowed on Steam, you can request for Steam keys for free and sell them on your own personal website among other sites such as Humblebundle.com or wingamestore and not incur whatever Valve's cut is so you'd be getting as little as say 85% of the sale made through that Steam key that was sold.
For example, Wadjet Eye let you buy their games on their website AND get a Steam key (I think they stopped doing that recently but that's how I got my key for Unavowed, by buying directly from their website).
They sell it through the Humble widegt
https://www.humblebundle.com/developer/widget
This reminds me that both Bandai Namco and Square Enix sell steam keys on their site too.
The fact that Steam/Valve are letting with YOU the developer getting up to 100% of the sale of your game sounds very good wouldn't you say.
Here is another useful feature to having a game on Steam which has been around for years (as opposed to Epic Store's current state)
The Steam User Activity Page: This right here is a great asset as it allows a user to share their reviews and screenshots of a game.
Using the Steam Activity feature, I've interested 2 friends to buy these games thanks to the screenshots I took and uploaded to my activity page-
Now far as I know...neither Origin nor Uplay have this feature, but I'd like to proven wrong cuz I'd love to use them! Keep in mind that these 2 have been around for years.
Now imagine if your game got mentioned in someone's activity feed via screenshots or a review, and another user or friend of that user got interested in it thanks to activity feed, that new person who bought it (even during a sale) could interest ANOTHER player, and that player ANOTHER one, etc.
If Epic can add this feature to its store, hey cool, but so far the Epic Store doesn't even have a forum to discuss the games! Someone who bought Ashen on Epic Store went to the Steam Community forums to ask for help/report a bug in the game!
https://steamcommunity.com/app/649950/discussions/0/1744479698799131347/
As is Epic's prospects are up in the air, but having games being sold on their store and only on their store so that they will get a cut regardless of how small it is seems very anti-consumer, because the PC gaming consumer seeks convenience, and one of those conveniences is getting games legally as possible and cheaply if they could. Even if sales are higher from a purchase made on Steam itself, you don't lose anything by making it available on 3rd party key sellers....which so far Epic Store isn't allowing.
Does this payment also include removing a game from being sold or made available on a console that that studio was going to release on initially?
Once again, Read the thread title; the game was removed from Steam. If it were not announced for Steam to begin with and merely announced for release on Epic store, we wouldn't be having this thread.
Therein is your key difference. The game could've been sold on Steam AND Epic Store and even if the developer got most of the sales from Epic store, that's all fine and dandy, because the consumer still gets to choose where to get the game from and that's pro-consumer.
The game now is only available on Epic store and Epic wants ANY of its sales to generate revenue for them; this is pro-Epic.
Last edited:
I understand, I don't like to spew things whitout at least googling up a little, but as you can see, that clearly is not gonna be the case anymore and the console model will eventually come to the PC market model. I'm not in favour of it by the way, nor defending corporations or anything, in fact I hate the free market, capitalism and everything it stands for (but I'm conflicted by it at the same time because without this model videogames wouldn't exist, but that's a discussion for another thread), just pointing out that this is what the current economic model allows, and there's little we can do about it. You can say "let's boycott them", but there's already factual evidence that gamers never follow through and it barely works out, so yeah. It's what we have to live with.
Huh, wonder how Valve has managed to create a giant storefront without doing it then. Maybe because they've focused on features and flexibility instead of buying up games so the competition couldn't have them.
Weird.
That's a lot to reply to, and I'm having lunch as I type this, so the two things you're overlooking here are:
- It's not a given at all that a game will sell more on Steam than on Epic store. In fact I'd go on a limb and say it's likely the opposite. Steam (and to a lesset extent GOG) are supersaturated with games. There are literally thousands of games released monthly, every one of them competing for the same eyeballs. The Epic store, I assume, has far less games. This means a huge increase in proportional visibility for game developers. Again, it's the exact same principle why indie games are making 10x on Switch with 1/10 the user base. Why is this so different to understand in this particular case?
- It's not a given that both stores' audiences have zero overlap. Sure, some people may only buy it if it's available on Steam, but there's a lot of people who could buy it in either of them. They may buy it on Steam if available, but if not, perhaps they'll buy it on the Epic store. In this case, it's on the dev's best interest to actually ensure they buy it on the Epic store.
I'm not saying it makes sense for every developer to sell their game exclusively on the Epic store. I'm saying that some developers might decide this is their best bet (and with all the commotion over this and free publicity for Satisfactory, I think they're onto something). Do you think it's highly unlikely a developer might decide on Epic store exclusivity on their own accord? Well, that unlikelihood correlates with the fact that it's only been one game that's done it out of tens of thousand of Steam games.
Those uppity fucking game devs doing what they believe is best for their studio!!! Who the hell do they think they are???!!!!
You came back to these threads after doing a first driveby and people adresssed your statements and now you are doing another with another straw man?
What drive by? What straw man? I think you must be confusing me with a different poster.
How ironic too, after seeing your own drive by posts on the first page.
User Warned: Platform Warring / Antagonistic Behavior
this is like the definition of competition. What storefronts offer games is money. how the games get the money is a matter of implementation.
Anyway: good, fuck steam. Not paying any developers for exclusivity ever, the super predatory % cuts, and the clearing house "any game can sell here as long as we get our % of it, fuck off to anybody small wanting front page placement" are all examples of steams anti-developer policies.
You kids can live with missing out on a game or two, or, heaven forbid, buying it from one bad storefront instead of another bad storefront, if it means healthier and more consistent pay for indie devs.
Anyway: good, fuck steam. Not paying any developers for exclusivity ever, the super predatory % cuts, and the clearing house "any game can sell here as long as we get our % of it, fuck off to anybody small wanting front page placement" are all examples of steams anti-developer policies.
You kids can live with missing out on a game or two, or, heaven forbid, buying it from one bad storefront instead of another bad storefront, if it means healthier and more consistent pay for indie devs.
It's ultimately the game devs decision to choose where to go. It's not like they have to choose steam or they won't ever be accepted back. If they want to force people to go to another market where more revenue goes to them, that's all to them. It's a risk considering they have to build the install base of users.
Incidentally, I did the math and assuming I got nothing wrong, it's in a developer's best interest to publish exclusively on the Epic store if they believe that, out of 10 people that would potentially buy the game on Steam, 8 of them at least would buy the game on the Epic store instead, and 2 of them at most would rather skip it entirely. This may be a bold belief (I personally do not hold it, and thus wouldn't publish my game exclusively to Epic's store), but I don't think it enters the realm of the utter insanity. To think that a single developer out of the thousands out there might look at these numbers and think "yes, this sounds about right", with no money hat involved, frankly seems like a pretty reasonable null hypothesis.
This is, of course, not taking into account increased visibility on the Steam store, which frankly as things are now might not be that academical of an assumption.
I don't think this is a reasonable view to hold, either. Steam takes the lowest cut out of the major platforms, and has the lowest entry fee for devs. There is a reason why so many developers publish on Steam first even with all the competition between titles, and it's not just that building for PC is the easiest.
This is, of course, not taking into account increased visibility on the Steam store, which frankly as things are now might not be that academical of an assumption.
I don't think this is a reasonable view to hold, either. Steam takes the lowest cut out of the major platforms, and has the lowest entry fee for devs. There is a reason why so many developers publish on Steam first even with all the competition between titles, and it's not just that building for PC is the easiest.
Somebody get me a good reaction gif for this. "Not paying for exclusivity is an anti-developer policy" is almost as spicy as "the steam marketplace is money laundering."
Also 30% has been the industry standard for ages, no curation has resulted in tons of great games being given access to a wider market, and they A. Give out front page placements to small games constantly (because surprisingly enough, programmatic discovery algorithms care about what people buy, not what has a big marketing budget). Over half of what I see on the front page is usually indie. And B. Rimworld just got a major front page promotion with the full banner and everything just a little while back. Thanks for spreading more misinformation. The discourse appreciates it.
Stable up front pay to guaranteed a place on a platform has been one of the most stable and valuble revenue models for entertainment through all of history, and has been a major part of games on consoles, on storefronts as "free game" exclusives, and going further back on pc, on past indie game incubators like flash game sites. It offers developers something of immense value (money, up front, guaranteed), offers storefronts the prestige of publishing very good games, and is one of the only true systems developers have available to make sure a good game gets money, rather than gambling with market whims or investing massive up front marketing that they probably dont have the cashflow for.
30% has been the industry standard because the industry has long been able to charge exploitative rates. That makes it all the better that epic is cracking those chains a little.
"a select few games get front page placement in a sea of garbage" is hardly a strong counterpoint. Anybody who was buying or making games a few years ago knows that the curated (or even, greenlit!) steam market offered indies vastly more exposure and page time than it does now, unless that game is a unicorn massive seller in the first place. You can find postmortem sales charts from basically any time in the last several years and see a downward trend for just about every developer sharing data, too, with spikes for every new steam curation policy.
i have no affection for the epic store in specific, but breaking the monopoly of necessary exposure on steam because they have such a dominant market share is only ever a good thing, and nearly any cost for "consumers" is worth it. It's not like you guys are crying tears over Itch.io having to wait out the timed exclusivity.
Last edited:
Many people have already mentioned that Steam allows developers to generate keys of their games and sell them in their own websites, allowing them to get 100% of the transaction.
But no, evil Valve and Gaben having a monopoly with Steam and ripping off developers by taking 30% of the purchase.
Right, but the basic value proposition of selling on any storefront (for digital or physical goods) is that that storefront has already captured a significant % of consumers, and you cannot easily (or maybe even possibly) draw them off to buy on your personal site instead. That's worth a lot of money, but probably not ~30%.
The thing is, though, unless another storefront who has managed to capture a large audience comes in to compete with a lower cut, you can't really avoid paying the entire 30, because what choice do you have? your game isn't going to sell big numbers anywhere else. This is the concept of "monopoly price", in a slightly less extreme example.
(Another awy of looking at this is, the store is selling something, and the developer gets to choose which product to buy, at which price. If epic is paying a given game for exclusivity, that effectively makes their cut _even smaller_ than 18%. If epic is offering their service that cheap, and they might be able to offer enough visibility to get significant sales, why shouldn't a developer seriously consider choosing it instead of the services offered by valve?)
Another wonderful thing of creating keys: you can put them in other storefronts. Humble, GMG, Nuuvem, and many others sell Steam games. And each of these stores have a significant amount of consumers. And Valve doesn't get a single dime from these transactions. This is competition.
For what I understand, Epic doesn't allow this. Don't know if they will in the future, but so far, only way to buy Epic Store exclusive games is through their store. That is a monopoly.
The market share of those other storefronts is minuscule compared to steam. Epic offers a "monopoly" on selling games through epic's storefront, sure, but that's far from the common definition of monopoly, which is to monopolize a given commodity (or service.) (such as selling games through digital storefronts in general.)
People are only saying this isn't competition because games are being taken away from their precious Steam and they don't want to use a different launcher. Das it.
No that's not it. Explain how exclusivity is good for PC gamers and gaming in general. I'll wait.
Can we put "Steam is a monopoly drivel" on a warning/ban list as most drive-by posts already? It's annoying to see the same "monopoly" thing in every thread about Steam or other store launchers (in this case).
More on topic: not going to bother with Epic Store until it has regional pricing so suffice to say I'm not a fan of store-locking exclusives it started to acquire. It feels like they knew it's not going to be a thing in China, so the rest of the countries with weaker economies and currencies can forget about the store too.
More on topic: not going to bother with Epic Store until it has regional pricing so suffice to say I'm not a fan of store-locking exclusives it started to acquire. It feels like they knew it's not going to be a thing in China, so the rest of the countries with weaker economies and currencies can forget about the store too.
While funding games is all very well and good,
A. Valve does do what you're demanding, albeit by buying up the studios outright and integrating them into Valve. Most of their titles came from this approach.
B. The reason people are throwing around the word moneyhat is because, until someone says otherwise, it looks like Epic just threw cash at already funded/completed games to get exclusivity, rather than funding them themselves. I mean, wasn't Ashen already pulling funds from MS? That doesn't look like Epic supporting a starving indie, but instead playing kingmaker (and with a game that already had financial backing). It could be different for some of them, and I wouldn't begrudge an indie if Epic really was supporting them, but it doesn't look like it.
You know what, in most storefronts, I'll agree with you. 30% is a pretty bullshit rate for something like the iOS store to be taking. That said, as someone who makes use of a massive swath of the features that Steam provides, I fundamentally disagree with you that Steam is being exploitative, and I doubt we'll ever see eye to eye on this. I think they literally make games 30% more valuable to me (and they've surfaced a lot of games to me that I've never even seen discussed in forums, let alone in media, so in my experience, they've done a good job of providing exposure for devs).
Regarding indies on the front page, I can't stress enough, it's not "a select few games". Without even logging in (which would tailor my results to be dramatically more indie-centric), going on Steam right now shows the following: Northgard and Kenshi are both in the carousel. Tooth & Tail, as well as the 5-indie game Big Bad Boss bundle are highlighted as sales. The Cynical Brit curator appears beneath with 3 more indie titles (I'm seeing Cuphead, Aztez, Road Redemption, and Tooth & Tail again). Below that, the new and trending tab has re-highlighted Kenshi and also has Project Warlock, Battle Princess Madelyn, and Beholder 2. Then the popular upcoming tab appears to be nothing but indie titles. That's 14 distinct indie titles, versus, by a rough count, 15 distinct titles from large publishers (a few more if you count all the Stellaris expansions as separate). That's pretty equitable. And again, if I were to log in, I'd start getting more recommendations for smaller games because I'm subscribed to a lot of small publishers and curators that focus on indie titles.
Further, the idea that Steam is a sea of garbage is fallacious. Steam isn't overrun with garbage, but overrun with way too many good games. Devs can't count on a Steam release being marketing in-and-of itself, which is certainly rougher for devs, but the alternative is curation, where devs can simply fail to get onto a storefront and then never even have a chance in the first place. Steam isn't a meritocracy, but curated systems are even less of one. (And worse, since Epic is controlled so much by Tencent, you can bet that games with queer themes aren't going to be much a priority when Epic decides what to let in. That's something I have a huge problem with.)
Ultimately, I doubt we'll agree, since you seem convinced that Steam provides far less value than it takes with its 30%, and you also seem convinced that curation is better than an open system, but hopefully you can at least see why I (and others who really value what Steam provides) would hold a different position.
I've made sure to talk up the likes of GOG or Itch just to avoid this bullshit. I have absolutely nothing wrong with alternative launchers and will often support them if they offer something of merit.
But they should actually compete. Removing consumer choice by spending money on buying exclusivity for nearly complete indie games rather than trying to develop features people might want to use is not competition. It's fragmentation. This is what Epic and Discord are doing which GOG and Itch are not.
To be honest I am a consumer and more interested in what benefits me not what benefits developers.
Without the consumers there is no one to sell your product to.
You can enjoy Steam's features and still agree that 30% is too much. That's probably close to $2BN income to Valve this year, and there's no way their costs have been rising in sync with revenue growth. I am certain Steam could also offer 12/88 and still be extremely profitable. If Steam competed that way, then devs would be less likely to leave Steam and go to the Epic Store. They don't want to.
But it's the same split on the psn and Xbox store? So what then?
I did the math, and selling the game on Steam at an higher price while keeping the inital price on Epic store ( so the margin of both sales is the same ) would lead to more money being earned in any possible scenario.
I hope nobody supports this EPIC exclusive bullshit.
I'm not an active PC player but I sure know that I don't want to have my whole games collection split to even more shops and clients now. That's ridiculous.
I'm not an active PC player but I sure know that I don't want to have my whole games collection split to even more shops and clients now. That's ridiculous.
What of it? Isn't this a PC-centric thread? 30% is too high there too.
Are you factoring in the people boycotting your game for having different prices in each store? :)