The worst thing about the dumb EGS deals is that they could be way better

[Araujo]

Aside from personal feelings and the overall arguments and discussion, i have my own option. the EGS game store is a shitty store, a front end for the consumer it sucks on multiple basic features and aspects. That being said, you can argue everything else about it as we all usually do anyways...

However, there is one thing that actually bothers me about all of it (and the people defending it) is that it was incredibly easy to take a better route than to just Moneyhat exclusives and cause all this stupid noise about epic's shitty store.

Right now it's a fact, an undeniable truth that Epic is pouring money on any exclusive they think will give them an edge over other stores. They pay for refunds, they pay up front, they pay LARGE and they pay up so much money that even people that deslike the EGS still can say "yeah if you are an indie developer you would be crazy not to take that deal" which, sure, fine. We can deal with that argument.

However... this forced, shitty exclusivity could be dealt in a much better, consumer friendly way.

Consider this "New Epic Deal":

You can still sell your game on any store you like. However, on EGS your game will be 40% off during the first week of launch, or even the first month. But Epic will cover that 40% cost out of their pocket. So the developers will not lose a cent on the deal.

..and that's it.

Now you still have Epic pouring stupid amounts of cash to cover their games, but developers are not losing a cent. Also there is no bad feelings of moneyhated exclusivity, plus there aint nobody shitting on developers that take the deal, plus there aint nobody looking sideways at their Kickstarter pledge thinking if they will even get what they pledge on. Consumers still have a choice, but now your choice is to not deny yourself a 40% discount at a brand new game at launch at no cost for the developer in exchange of simply embracing a new storefront.

To me, that's a much smarter strategy to be aggressive against GOG and Steam. You don't piss people off, you still put up a aggressive investment, you are essentially still paying the same stupid amounts of cash but instead of covering upfront deals and refunds, you are buying into good will with the consumer who will choose EGS simply cause it's the better deal. and you only really need to keep that up for the first week/month and the you can make Sales like steam does and maybe just renew that deal for Holidays and such.

EPIC offers a shitty service and their tactics is stupid. Once the cash flow dries up everyone just gonna turn back to their old stores, it's a stupid strategy. It is very much in fact anti-consumer, it only helps the early adopters in the Dev's side cause eventually you gonna salt the earth and the return will diminish with people growing tired and eerie of the "EGS deal" .

Meanwhile, there is no lack of games to play. EGS is a shitty service with shitty practice, so i'll gladly pick those exclusives a year from now with a sizeable discount while i play everything else there is around. Thing is, as a consumer, i'll pretty much remember those games i played now and will look forward to the next product from those teams... on the other hand, those games i skipped one year on cause they chose the EGS payout? Who knows if they will even be remembered when their next product gets announced...

 

[Deleted member 45414]

Quick point, before reading the rest of your post, Early discounts devalue games, and I don't think devs really want that.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Many developers wouldn't want to devalue their product by selling it for cheaper already at launch. They'd worry that it would deter people from buying the game outside that launch window until it hits as low a price again. This is likely why some developers tried to increase their prices during the EGS sale debacle

 

[sheaaaa]

They could easily have done something like Game Pass and actually disrupt the market and be lauded for giving people value, instead of the shit show we have now.

 

[ghostcrew]

As someone who works with big media releases for my job - we wouldn't do this. Your product that you've been working hard on for years releasing day one with a 40% discount sucks. It devalues the product and gives it an automatic price tag that is half of what you want it to be sold at. It doesn't matter if the store reimbursed you, I still wouldn't do it.

Obviously everyone's different and I'm sure some devs wouldn't mind. But, in my experience, a lot of creators don't want their product devalued day one. Future sales are good and they are an important part of retail (although some devs still say no to them. See Factorio and Monster Boy), but 40% day one sales on one of the biggest retailers is weird.

 

[Quantza]

Many developers wouldn't want to devalue their product by selling it for cheaper already at launch. They'd worry that it would deter people from buying the game outside that launch window until it hits as low a price again. This is likely why some developers tried to increase their prices during the EGS sale debacle

Click to shrink...

Then maybe they should learn a little bit of economics and provide their games at as many places as possible?

Or, realise that this industry is becoming increasingly top-heavy? (AAA studios focused)
If smaller, independent devs stopped developing games, inducing a crash, would that fix things more quickly than a delayed slow-bleed of inconsistent income?

 

[hydrophilic attack]

Then maybe they should learn a little bit of economics and provide their games at as many places as possible?

Or, realise that this industry is becoming increasingly top-heavy? (AAA studios focused)
If smaller, independent devs stopped developing games, inducing a crash, would that fix things more quickly than a delayed slow-bleed of inconsistent income?

Click to shrink...

I don't understand how this reply follows what I wrote

In any case, developers that take the exclusivity deals likely make sure that the money they get from epic more than make up for expected sales from steam

 

[Hamchan]

Last time Epic tried throwing a bone to customers with the $10 off deal, the developers either pulled their games or raised their prices.

 

[Deleted member 49535]

Aren't a lot of these deals for 1 year or more? One month discount is nothing compared to that.

Last time Epic tried throwing a bone to customers with the $10 off deal, the developers either pulled their games or raised their prices.

Click to shrink...

Also this.

 

[Hamster Plugin]

Quite many publishers actually took games off the Epic Store during their $10 mega sale discount. This is why Tim Sweeney's claim that game prices can go down with a lower Epic store cut will never happen in reality.

The current model of business is that Steam is the most expensive store at the $60 RRP, but allows the generation of free product keys which lets other stores also sell Steam games with better prices. It's the best possible model we have under our shitty capitalist system. Games do not get devalued in the publisher's eyes because the official price is still $60 and Steam Store will be selling it for that price, while those who want a better deal can get a slightly lower price elsewhere.

The worst possible model is what we see in Ubisoft's Epic deal where Ubisoft games are exclusive to either Epic or Uplay and nowhere else. You pay $60 or never get the game. No deals for anyone. You also see some fuckery in the Humble Store where Humble is giving a 20% off discount of all games on their store if you have a Monthly subscription... except for Epic launcher games which are exempt from the deal.

 

[Shelbyville Milhouse]

Epic could also just use their money to fund games from the beginning instead of swooping in at the end when it becomes clear that the game will be sought after.
But that's obviously a risk and won't pay off until years in the future while just snagging up known titles months before their release is more or less risk free.
Like, they are not gonna fund the next Swery game from the beginning, obviously

 

[spineduke]

I have a better idea, Epic invests in the developer EARLY on, not at the tail end of development and assumes part of the development risk/cost.

dammit Fantastapotamus

 

[gozu]

Now you still have Epic pouring stupid amounts of cash to cover their games, but developers are not losing a cent.

Click to shrink...

To those who say devs don't want to devalue their game price, that's not an issue. The deal can be structured so you get credits worth $20 or whatever that 40% is worth for every game you buy full price, that you can apply towards the next game. Devs can't complain about that. The price of the game will remain unaffected.

The problem is giving 40% off to customers would probably cost Epic significantly more than money-hatting exclusives. The other problem is exclusivity has been proven to work by Sony and Nintendo. So why go the costly, experimental way, when they can go the cheaper, proven route?

It's a no-brainer on Epic's part...

 

[mclem]

Many developers wouldn't want to devalue their product by selling it for cheaper already at launch. They'd worry that it would deter people from buying the game outside that launch window until it hits as low a price again. This is likely why some developers tried to increase their prices during the EGS sale debacle

Click to shrink...

I wonder if the perception would change notably if it were presented as "full price, but Epic gives you an $x rebate". The rebate being in EGS currency, of course.

That has the added factor of encouraging a second purchase within Epic's ecosystem, too.

 

[EloKa]

De-valuation doesn't sound that harmful on paper if you only go by numbers and logic.
But customers go by emotions and an early de-valuation can actually kill your product pretty fast.

 

[ShiningBash]

EGS is a shitty service with shitty practice, so i'll gladly pick those exclusives a year from now with a sizeable discount while i play everything else there is around.

Click to shrink...

You wrote so much fleshing out an idea that you think would be appealing, but then admit that ultimately you are not a fan of the EGS and don't mind waiting a year to play games elsewhere. Why do you think a 40% discount would sway anybody who feels this strongly about the EGS?

In other words, ppl who are willing to wait a year to play a game probably won't be moved by anything short of an end to the exclusive deals.

 

[Eumi]

I guess you just weren't paying much attention to the EGS despite your lengthy feelings on what it should be doing. Because they themselves proved how much devs dislike their games being devalued.

 

[Quantza]

I don't understand how this reply follows what I wrote

In any case, developers that take the exclusivity deals likely make sure that the money they get from epic more than make up for expected sales from steam

Click to shrink...

I agreed with you, just indicating that smaller devs have bigger problems to deal with than the perception of their game's value as a one-off.

EDIT: Unsure about what I said earlier.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I wonder if the perception would change notably if it were presented as "full price, but Epic gives you an $x rebate". The rebate being in EGS currency, of course.

That has the added factor of encouraging a second purchase within Epic's ecosystem, too.

Click to shrink...

You mean as in you get a large chunk of store credit for buying the game at launch? I think developers would be ok with that

 

[mclem]

You mean as in you get a large chunk of store credit for buying the game at launch? I think developers would be ok with the

Click to shrink...

Yeah, I wondered that; since it's a blanket store rule, it's not strictly interpreted as a discount on the game, which should preserve some perception of value.

 

[werezompire]

Most storefront contracts have a clause that says you can't offer substantially better prices on a competing storefront. Now, that doesn't mean that you have to do sales at the same time for all platforms, but a massive sale at launch on only one store? Yeah, that's getting you in serious trouble with the other storefronts who will most likely demand similar treatment under threat of being delisted.

 

[Deleted member 203]

Yeah people already mentioned the devaluing of new games that that would do.

But also, Epic is banking on the vocal detractors of EGS being a minority that won't greatly affect their effectiveness at drawing new people in. If they're right, then getting exclusive rights is MUCH more effective than only offering the games more cheaply. And, sadly, they probably are right.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Quick point, before reading the rest of your post, Early discounts devalue games, and I don't think devs really want that.

Click to shrink...

As a game dev: it wouldn't be a problem for me (quite the opposite) because a) it's a discount that won't repeat itself (unless you want to, and you probably won't for a while), and b) Epic is shouldering the discount. What you're getting is a huge boost to initial sales at what's effectively full revenue to you.

Note that it's a slighly different case to the store-wide Epic-funded discount of a few months back, because your sales window doesn't overlap, and therefore compete with, literally every other game in the store.

 

[daybreak]

They could easily have done something like Game Pass and actually disrupt the market and be lauded for giving people value, instead of the shit show we have now.

Click to shrink...

If competing with Game Pass were easy, everyone would be doing it. There's a reason Microsoft is leading the market when it comes to a games subscription. Paying for a year of exclusivity is far easier and more straightforward for Epic and developers alike.

ResetEra isn't going to come up with better ideas than the gigantic company making all the money in gaming right now.

 

[Lueken]

To those worried about devaluation of games, hasn't it already hit? More indie games are being released day one on Game Pass, Microsoft's first-party games will be on Game Pass day one, Ubisoft has their own subscription service, Epic is giving out free games, Sony's exclusives are heavily discounted within a year. Even Nintendo is doing a voucher system where you can pre-order games ten dollars off. A game has to really speak to me to buy day one let alone full price. The backlog is too large along with so many services where my dollar goes farther.

 

[Deleted member 45414]

As a game dev: it wouldn't be a problem for me (quite the opposite) because a) it's a discount that won't repeat itself (unless you want to, and you probably won't for a while), and b) Epic is shouldering the discount. What you're getting is a huge boost to initial sales at what's effectively full revenue to you.

Note that it's a slighly different case to the store-wide Epic-funded discount of a few months back, because your sales window doesn't overlap, and therefore compete with, literally every other game in the store.

Click to shrink...

It might be good for initial sales, but isn't the worry that revenue will drop off a cliff as soon as the discount ends. Is the boost going to outweigh the drop?

 

[Weltall Zero]

It might be good for initial sales, but isn't the worry that revenue will drop off a cliff as soon as the discount ends. Is the boost going to outweigh the drop?

Click to shrink...

Almost certainly, yes. Games get their sales peaks at launch and sales. A launch sale is an effort to get a larger spike by combining both, which is why so many games do it nowadays even if it sacrifices potential initial revenue. However, in this case, it's Epic shouldering the discount: it's literally win-win for developers. The thing you have to keep in mind is that, like any other business, money in hand now trumps potential money later. You need to get that ROI as soon as possible or you might not be able to keep the lights on long enough to make a second game (or support the first).

People that buy games after launch, statistically, mostly do so during sales. Since you're removing the reason to wait, in aggregate you are sacrificing (or rather, turning) sale-waiting customers (that is, less money, later on) into full-paying customers (more money, right now). It would be quite silly not to take that deal.

 

[Deleted member 45414]

Almost certainly, yes. Games get their sales peaks at launch and sales. A launch sale is an effort to get a larger spike by combining both, which is why so many games do it nowadays even if it sacrifices potential initial revenue. However, in this case, it's Epic shouldering the discount: it's literally win-win for developers. The thing you have to keep in mind is that, like any other business, money in hand now trumps potential money later. You need to get that ROI as soon as possible or you might not be able to keep the lights on long enough to make a second game (or support the first).

People that buy games after launch, statistically, mostly do so during sales. Since you're removing the reason to wait, in aggregate you are sacrificing (or rather, turning) sale-waiting customers (that is, less money, later on) into full-paying customers (more money, right now). It would be quite silly not to take that deal.

Click to shrink...

That sounds reasonable to me, though I do wonder why 2k pulled Borderlands 3 Pre-orders during the mega sale...

 

[khamakazee]

They should do something that is kind of like U Points that Ubisoft offers but more rewarding to the consumer. Developers/publishers have shown they are not interesting in having their retail price lowered.

To those worried about devaluation of games, hasn't it already hit? More indie games are being released day one on Game Pass, Microsoft's first-party games will be on Game Pass day one, Ubisoft has their own subscription service, Epic is giving out free games, Sony's exclusives are heavily discounted within a year. Even Nintendo is doing a voucher system where you can pre-order games ten dollars off. A game has to really speak to me to buy day one let alone full price. The backlog is too large along with so many services where my dollar goes farther.

Click to shrink...

This tells me there is a glut of games out there. Nintendo does hold onto their value more than anyone because they control their pricing better.

 

[Mikebison]

This just in: Video game forum poster thinks he knows how to run billion dollar business. We'll see how it pans out after weather.

 

[ghostcrew]

To those worried about devaluation of games, hasn't it already hit? More indie games are being released day one on Game Pass, Microsoft's first-party games will be on Game Pass day one, Ubisoft has their own subscription service, Epic is giving out free games, Sony's exclusives are heavily discounted within a year. Even Nintendo is doing a voucher system where you can pre-order games ten dollars off. A game has to really speak to me to buy day one let alone full price. The backlog is too large along with so many services where my dollar goes farther.

Click to shrink...

I would personally think of access via a subscription service to be a separate thing. Think of it in terms of an artist being ok with their new record releasing on Spotify but also not wanting iTunes or Amazon to sell the record for $3 day one.

 

[Deleted member 15440]

the only way they could do something like this would be to just give all of their users store credit. like everyone's said developers wouldn't want to encourage the perception that their game is a cheap product, but just throwing $20 into every EGS user's account would basically be another subsidy for devs.

the real point though is that epic doesn't give a fuck that some people don't like the exclusive deals, unless they see some kind of real blowback (and i can't even think of what that would be) they're going to keep throwing money at devs because it's the simplest way to quickly juice your MAU numbers. they're trying to replace steam as the top dog in this market, you don't get there by playing nice.

 

[justiceiro]

IDK if could be done much better, but op idea is much worse.

What would stop devs from simply raising the price in 40% during the first week?

Besides, op, they kinda already do that: since the cut in epic store is smaller, devs could simply offer a smaller price on epic store, but they don't. Why? Because there is also the possibility of steam users getting angry angry about paying a higher price and, instead of going to other store, skipping the game, just like some are doing now out of spit.

To my last point, 40% of some games that will sell a small number, specially on the epic store, is really a bad deal for developer. Since epic right now pay for hundred of thousands of copies, they would need to sell a million to get the same amount of money for this discount.

 

[Deleted member 15440]

That sounds reasonable to me, though I do wonder why 2k pulled Borderlands 3 Pre-orders during the mega sale...

Click to shrink...

if you're guaranteed royalties up to a certain point there's no reason to have prerelease or launch sales

 

[werezompire]

Besides, op, they kinda already do that: since the cut in epic store is smaller, devs could simply offer a smaller price on epic store, but they don't. Why?

Click to shrink...

Because doing this would get you delisted on Steam (or in fact any storefront).

 

[Wintermute]

noooppppe.

dont force devs to devalue their games.

we saw this already with epic doing price cuts on unreleased games which developers opted their games out of (temporarily withdrawing the game from the store during the sale), because they dont want to set a false expectation as to the normal price for the game.

god im tired of threads about egs. just use it if you want a game, dont if you decide it isn't worth your while.

 

[justiceiro]

Because doing this would get you delisted on Steam (or in fact any storefront).

Click to shrink...

In the eShop, seems like you are free to price your game way higher than in any other plattaform.

 

[Lueken]

I would personally think of access via a subscription service to be a separate thing. Think of it in terms of an artist being ok with their new record releasing on Spotify but also not wanting iTunes or Amazon to sell the record for $3 day one.

Click to shrink...

Ahhhh, that makes sense. Didn't think of it from that angle. Thanks!

 

[dgrdsv]

They don't care about gamers paying less or developers earning more, that's just pure bullshit aimed at those who can't see past an obvious lie. The only thing they care about is making money for themselves on the market where Steam is more or less uncontested right now. And they are willing to spend some part of the insane amount they're making off Fortnite right now on this effort. The cheapest way to achieve this is to pay for exclusives obviously. Which is what they're doing and will be doing for some time as they simply aren't interested in competing for customers by providing a better or unique market value as this will in fact require a bigger investment on their part.

 

[werezompire]

In the eShop, seems like you are free to price your game way higher than in any other plattaform.

Click to shrink...

Different consoles are a different story. If there were 2 eShops - one run by Nintendo and one run by a different company - you'd better believe they'd have to maintain price parity for any games sold on both.

Any PC storefront contract is going to have a clause saying that you can't undercut your own game on a different PC storefront.

 

[sheaaaa]

If competing with Game Pass were easy, everyone would be doing it. There's a reason Microsoft is leading the market when it comes to a games subscription. Paying for a year of exclusivity is far easier and more straightforward for Epic and developers alike.

ResetEra isn't going to come up with better ideas than the gigantic company making all the money in gaming right now.

Click to shrink...

You've provided zero reasons why it wouldn't work beyond "Epic make a lot of money so they must be right", so OK? Both companies are blowing millions trying to establish a user base but one has been hailed as providing tremendous value and as a good addition to the PC gaming scene while the other has generated incredible anger and toxicity. I know which I'd rather see.

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

Besides, op, they kinda already do that: since the cut in epic store is smaller, devs could simply offer a smaller price on epic store, but they don't. Why? Because there is also the possibility of steam users getting angry angry about paying a higher price and, instead of going to other store, skipping the game, just like some are doing now out of spit.

Click to shrink...

Developers don't offer a smaller price because they don't want to. It has nothing to do with Steam users upset about paying a higher price because Epic's already taken the game away from them for a year.

 

[Inugami]

The way to handle the perceived devaluing would be for egs to have a store credit or reward system. Games would retain their value, and you retain your customer base since they would have to come back to spend their credit each sale.

Day one games with a "earn 15 EGS bucks" for future games would accomplish ops goals.

 

[Araujo]

Rebate in store credit is even better. Keep the money in the system, returns investment into the platform.

It's also exploitable alongside a refund policy... but... any system will have it's quirks to be worked out.

Honestly, i don't think an EGS funded upfront limited exclusive discount is going to devalue game. It's all about message. You are not saying the game is worth less, you are saying that EPIC is giving you a bonus if you buy 1st week on their store with no downside to the developers. It's all about how you present the bonus.

And yes, an in-store credit rebate would work things out fairly well. As long as the chunk is sizeable enough to make the deal undeniably better than other stores, it would only create positive feedback.

Point being, EGS current line of operation sucks and there are way better methods to avoid this shit show