Excellent point and I have noticed this, it's what I was alluding to in my previous post.
Fantastic post and accurate.
Last edited:
-
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.
Tim Sweeney: “If Valve commits to a permanent 88% revenue share, we’ll stop making new exclusive deals” (Read Staff Post)
- Thread starter Carlius
- Start date
Excellent point and I have noticed this, it's what I was alluding to in my previous post.
Fantastic post and accurate.
having no community features sure is great for developers... but it fucking sucks as a consumer. people posting about problems on the steam community for games that released on egs always gets a good chuckle out of me. like i can't tell you how many times the community forums have been helpful in getting rid of technical problems / launch day problems with games in general or setting them up for 21:9 resolution or finding solutions for audio problems in game etc.
steam community forums are awesome
steam community forums are awesome
I'm actually very fond of Steam, especially since they added the refund for games which don't work properly (I lost plenty of money on games which I couldn't get working). On one of the PC games I worked on I was instrumental in the game leaning heavily on Steam Workshop and other community features.
I'm mostly fond of competition and market disruption. I use a Kindle to read books but I wish there were a viable competitor for buying and reading ebooks.
My apologies. My post was based on the fact that last month you said you don't own a game PC ;)
I'm also fond of competition. But not in the way Epic is doing right now. I want as much games as possible in as many storefronts as possible. Epic's current (and possibly future) strategy goes straight against this.
Seeing this recently gave me flashbacks of games released on ios and having reviews which were complaints about not getting new free content updates, regardless of it being complete.
Making a post like this proves one thing to me, that it is IMPERATIVE stores have user reviews and forums.
If you take issue with a consumer having a legitimate question about the state of a product they have purchased then please, I mean this in the kindest way possible, explain to me how a consumer is supposed to find out where their money has gone or what state the project is currently in?
Given the amount of games on Steam that have been abandoned in early access I think consumers also have a right to feel nervous when projects are left untouched for months.
This is another reason why EGS is dangerous for consumers, the lack of user reviews and forums remove their ability to ask sensible and reasonable questions like this, even if developers may not think they are sensible and reasonable and would prefer to not have these questions asked.
OP
OP
Windows store taking exclusives is bad but egs moneyhatting exclusivity is good cause its competition. Thats what the egs fanboy argument says.
You absolutely have to explain that statement. In what ways has Steam been hostile to developers?
Seeing this recently gave me flashbacks of games released on ios and having reviews which were complaints about not getting new free content updates, regardless of it being complete.
I fail to see the issue with this, at least within the context of steams supposed hostility to developers you mentioned.
Steamforums are ultimately just a way for people to talk about games, and in the case of early access games (I'm aware this isn't one) also nessecary.
Now obviously some people post dumb stuff and the forums could need some more moderation (tho i don't think that post in particular could need it), but i wouldn't say that makes the platform hostile for devs.
As i mentioned earlier, there have been early access games that have been in fact abandoned by the devs, as such i don't consider people asking or calling games abandoned to be hostile, even if some of them are dumb and will do it towards games that don't deserve it.
I find it very odd that so many indie devs come into these threads and say that steam is "hostile" but never explain why. An explanation would be nice for those of us that aren't indie devs. BTW, that also doesn't mean epic is or won't be hostile to indie devs either. EGS does have indie games but it seems like its more sucessful indie devs liked Supergiant or Team Meat and not first time devs that don't have a game under there belt.
There's a lot here, and I'm grateful that you're remaining polite and thinking the best of others. I am reading and I am doing all I can to understand the criticism. I think we should always remain critical of every platform we engage with.
Unfortunately I feel that some of what is being stated is a little hyperbolic, especially when they lead to conclusions. We simply don't yet know exactly how EGS will shake out for developers and consumers. Sometimes things seem entirely positive at first but turn out be negative, and vice versa. Often new markets work out as having plenty of pros and cons for everyone.
I was also excited about Ouya and Onlive. Games like 2064 Read Only Memories only got to be what they are based of money paid by Ouya for timed exclusivity.
I have seen an increasingly worrying trend between developers and consumers over the last few years where some (not all) developers think any form of criticism or questions are hostile.
The reasoning behind this is probably because a subsection of nasty individuals who really are hostile towards developers are being used as the measuring stick with which to view consumers as a whole for some (not all) devs/pubs.
I think that EGS are offering them a shield from the nasty elements but also from even reasonable criticism so of course some developers who have been on the nasty end of things would jump at the chance to protect themselves from that.
However, some developers (IMO, someone lile Randy Pitchford for example who has a history of miselling games and lieing to consumers) would use that as a way to avoid bad reviews or negative criticism, that's where it becomes dangerous for consumers.
Do you genuinely believe that developers of that caliber would be let onto the store? With their current curation process, signs seem to point to the contrary.
Haha, that's true! I do almost all of my PC gaming on my Alienware Alpha R2 thing which sits next to my PS4 and games run at similar speed. Or my laptop. :)
Of course we know how EGS will change things. We already see it in action: Higher prices and worse services.
No one needs to be able to foresee the future to know that a 12% cut instaured all over the board means two things:
1) A store running on razor thin margins, which means less features and the cost moved onto the customer.
2) The death of the 3rd party store market because they can compete and leverage prices on their 30% cut.
We have concrete exemples right now of the first point (Dangerous Driving lacking any leaderboards on PC because Epic's api sucks, customers being overcharged for some payment methods) and also the second one (Anno and The Division 2 prices took up to 20€ in term of price since their exclusivity and even Borderlands 3 that was allowed to be sold on GMG and Humble Bundle couldn't see a discount bigger than 10% on GMG while Humble Bundle cant offer their 10% from the monthly membership on it).
For the record, I do not think you are arguing in bad faith here and I do not believe you are purposefully acting against the interests of consumers with your opinion on things, I happen to disagree with you on many things you have said but I hold no ill will towards you or anything of that nature, like you say, it's good to have dialogue in a polite way about these things.
I do agree with you that we really don't know long term how this will shake out, EGS and Tim may change their stance completely in the future.
However, as things currently stand with the store and if it remains as it is and keeps its current policies, based on the evidence we have I don't see how it will ever benefit the consumer and I also think it's bad for developers.
I think some of what has been said is hyperbolic, like with any discussion that revolves around things people are passionate about but honestly for the most part I think the criticisms and worries about Epic, Tim Sweeney and the EGS have been completely valid and based on the evidence we have at hand with the current state of things.
I think reading into the future is obviously hyperbolic but I can understand people when they say they are concerned about where this will lead, people are only basing their future predictions on what is currently happening, which is all we have to go by.
You haven't followed the conversation.
This is the argument.
The result will most likely that devs and pubs will just pocket the cash and increase their margin.
Which is really whatever as far as companies like Ubisoft or Rockstar is concerned (choosing who is more 'worthy' or some cash between megacorps isn't a discussion worth having if you ask me).
But it could certainly help smaller developers.
I would also add that there is an argument that Steam hasn't been particularly good for value retention of games when it trains customers to expect low prices for games and thus make it harder for sellers to get a decent margin on their wares.
Valve doesn't care because they take a cut of the global revenue anyway so 2 games sold at 5 bucks is the same as 1 game sold for 10 bucks to them.
This isn't a new problem, mobile is suffering from the same issue which isn't a problem if you don't mind f2p games.
Last edited:
This is all very reasonable and why I don't believe that most "future predictions" are hyperbolic about this issue because they are based on the knowledge we have to hand.
What you have said is accurate if things remain the way they currently are on EGS.
It also means that store owners, if they want to make money, need to supplant that with revenue from elsewhere, like a endless-crunch-driven service game like fortnite.
Don't worry they'll do that anyway.
Recurring revenue is a target for AAA publishers for at least 10 years now.
They don't even need the justification to subsidize a store to go into GaaS models.
On top of that, I'll had that the notion a store is allowed to sell games thanks to a "deal with the launcher maker" is a toxic idea af.
More competition is welcomed. But with competitors like Epic, you don't need a monopoly. Because Epic's plan is basically to act like one until they can become one.
It's a transposition of the reality of physical media where sellers make deals with publishers to carry their goods.
Now if that applies to 2nd hand market there is a major problem that needs to be stomped down.
I also agree but I'd like to expand the latter part of the sentence into "if things on EGS continue on the path we currently know them to be set on.", to include the notion that we do know of the planned features roadmap for EGS, and don't merely mean the state of the platform as it is right now. Because I just know someone will try to point out that the platform will be improving. Given everything we know of both what EGS is, and what it is planned to be, our concerns remain valid.
It's irrelevant of if being a transposition of the reality of physical media. The reality as of right now is the following:
In the current landscape, stores dont have to ask Steam's permission to carry out Steam keys. Developers can freely generate keys. Developers can freely sell keys. Where they want.
It is a major problem on any market.
That 3rd parties can't generate keys isn't that much of a problem if you ask me, that a market sprang up from the goodwill of Valve is good but not a given.
Devs should absolutely be able to generate keys for the product they sell, that goes without saying.
Secondary market should have no obligation to have ties to the initial storefront or it's not a secondary market at all.
What do you mean by 3rd parties ? I don't think we're on the same length here.
My point was the following:
As of today, for a store to be allowed to sell EGS games, they seems to need approval from Epic.
As of today, devs can't freely generate EGS keys and sell them on their store of choice.
My point is that, with a low cut, you can't just be a storefront. You have to have a separate revenue stream to prop up the low cut storefront.
I think for many of us, especially myself, there is a heated tone because the consumer is increasingly being reduced to "a given" or what seems like "a necessary evil". This is in other aspects of gaming but this sentiment is increasingly so when it comes to Epic's charge in the PC Market. Valve has no place in this discussion for me. This is not a defense of Valve for me.
It appears that our concerns and questions are either outright ignored or reframed into some reductive narrative of "entitled babies" or "toxic fanboys". This reductive implication is on par with "lazy dev" (which I do not agree with as a term in discussions about the game industry) There are truly toxic consumers but they are not the majority. I am disgusted by them as much as devs are, so reducing my voice to their level feels like an insult and disingenuous deflection while shaming me to go along with any pro-business plan (not saying anyone in this thread has done that recently - but it has happened).
When you hear this over and over and over and over again, skepticism and frustration skyrockets.
I don't begrudge Devs wanting to make an honest living at what they are passionate about. I don't want them exploited at the hands of companies like Epic or BioWare and others. I want them to flourish when they make works of art and enjoyable experiences. I have spent more money before in support of games and devs I was impressed by.
But on the flip side, I don't want to be reduced to a necessary evil in this entire equation in which the rest of the industry thinks they can ignore the voice of.
It appears that our concerns and questions are either outright ignored or reframed into some reductive narrative of "entitled babies" or "toxic fanboys". This reductive implication is on par with "lazy dev" (which I do not agree with as a term in discussions about the game industry) There are truly toxic consumers but they are not the majority. I am disgusted by them as much as devs are, so reducing my voice to their level feels like an insult and disingenuous deflection while shaming me to go along with any pro-business plan (not saying anyone in this thread has done that recently - but it has happened).
When you hear this over and over and over and over again, skepticism and frustration skyrockets.
I don't begrudge Devs wanting to make an honest living at what they are passionate about. I don't want them exploited at the hands of companies like Epic or BioWare and others. I want them to flourish when they make works of art and enjoyable experiences. I have spent more money before in support of games and devs I was impressed by.
But on the flip side, I don't want to be reduced to a necessary evil in this entire equation in which the rest of the industry thinks they can ignore the voice of.
Last edited:
The problem is the bold, that's asinine.
The other part doesn't strike me as particularly bizarre as they need contact with Epic in some way to generate non counterfeit keys anyway.
I guess Steam found a way to automate the process to make sure 3rd parties are selling legit keys.
I guess if it's going to come to EGS, it's gonna come after the shopping cart.
My point is don't worry EVERYONE is jumping on that train anyway.
The first part is totally problematic. If you have no issue seeing that Epic has to allow a competitor. Wow. I have no words.
If you think it's okay that Epic may have to allow a storefront to sell games, I think we'll just never agree.
You are really knocking it out of the park with your posts, honestly it's like you are reading my mind, I honestly could not agree with you more.
Are we talking game's keys or Epic store keys?
Because the former is preposterous and I kinda feel insulted you would think so little of someone to think that they would argue that point.
For the later, I don't think they really thought about it and it's more a matter of EGS being rather undercooked at the moment.
I don't really see that much of a problem with a competitor not being allowed to sell EGS keys without approval at all.
3rd parties are selling keys the game owners generate automatically on Steam. The keys themselves, once generated, are nothing more than text, just a plain textfile. They can be traded, emailed, stolen (if printed out), etc. Stores selling Steam keys to customers operate on a level of trust - customers trust the store to sell them working keys, and it's in the store's interest to do so properly - i.e., make sure each key is only sold once, etc - if they want to continue operating as a store, because that trust can be very easily lost.
Thank you! Right back at you as well!
I just want the rank and file devs to realize I don't have hostility towards them. I support them 99 times out of 100. The most unfortunate thing about the EGS is that it is acting like a wedge, when it doesn't have to be.
That process should still be doable on EGS, I don't imagine that the keys are anything more complicated than what has been standard in the software industry for literal decades.
3rd parties being able to sell keys without any contact to the initial key generator or the right owner seems like a system ready for abuse.
Right owners being unable to generate keys to do as they please is a level of control I'm absolutely not ok with.
I think I expressed as much since the beginning (if that wasn't clear, my bad).
3rd parties shouldn't be able to sell keys without any contact with the developer. They should be allowed to sell keys without any approval from the key generator (Epic or Steam).
Plain and simple.
Epic can make system for automatic key generation but they won't for a simple reason, they can't afford that 20-30% of games on their store are sold outside of their store for 0% profit for them. That's the main issue. That is why they are working with stores like Humble Bundle and GMG to make sure that sales outside of Epic Store are minimal.
I guess I addressed that part here
If devs can generate keys at will to do as they please they can sell these keys in whatever store of their choosing.
They can't really wave all the advantages they give to developers if they get 0 from the selling of keys.
They do wave Unreal fees off games sold on their store, they won't destroy their Unreal Engine profitability for EGS.
They tried leveraging UE for EGS but they haven't thought the whole thing through.
I think the initial point was that with Steam, any store can sell Steam keys legally if they obtain them - usually from developers, otherwise they can't guarantee that the keys will work (which would bring the legality of their operation into question).
With EGS, a store must explicitly have permission from and contract with EGS to sell EGS keys.
Unless they are independent it is unlikely developers will see any of this money. Publishers will. Dont know how many times this has to be said.
I guess I misunderstood the point there.
EGS having more control over keys than right owners seems like something right owners shouldn't take part in if they want full ownership of what they sell.
It wouldn't be a problem if devs could use other keygens to sell their games but that's where the exclusive deals come to bite.
I guess the exclusive deal is also about ceding part of the ownership rights to Epic as well in the current system.
And?
While the discussion for big publishers is important and all, they will thrive even if EGS has a monopoly and it won't really affect them all that much compared to a Steam world.
indies(and smaller publishers) are why this discussion is important.
That is how Valve operates Steam. Publishers/Developers and customers are treated equally no matter where their games are sold. If Epic makes conditions for key generation and sales outside of the store that is not good. And if they tie UE4 fees to mandatory sales only on Epic Store that is not good for anybody but Epic. That is one of the reasons why that 12% cut is problematic.
On the mandatory UE4 fee, it makes sense to wave the UE4 fee if they through their store.
Otherwise you're basically asking Epic to just wave their UE4 fee for no reason at all, it's literally the same argument that Sweeny is making about Valve cutting their fees to "stop Epic from getting more exclusive".
It makes no sense to cut your margin for no reason at all for such a small gain.
Epic waving its fees in their store is a goodwill measure but I don't think anyone expect Epic to cut its nose for no reason either.
It depends how myopically you look at it and is in no way as simple as they simply get a bigger cut. Perception of EGS in the market, being limited to potentially a single marketplace (and no longer being able to sell keys for a 100% cut for themselves), how strict Epic are with curation and dozens of other things need to be considered.
Most people seem to just say "its better for devs" without actually thinking about it or considerinf that 7 out of 10 times it is simply the publisher getting more money amd devs still getting fucked.
If keys are Epic Store keys then they need to treat those sales as they are done on their own store, like Valve is doing or developers won't sell keys anywhere else. But that is probably their goal. They already said multiple times that they don't see a reason why should developer sell keys on 3rd party stores. They backtracked a bit only because there was backslash, same was with their refund system where they backtracked and implemented similar system that Steam has after backslash.
I mean that the discussion about EGS vs Steam is pointless if we just look at it from the lens of big publishers.
EA is going to survive just fine without having to deal with either of them if they so choose.
Its devs are going to get treated similarly anyway.
The discussion is vital for smaller players who would profit from Steam lowering their cut until they reach a certain size or access to EGS.
I don't think anyone is for Valve lowering its fees for ATVI or R* or that even if they do it's going to have any impact but fattening bulging purses even more.
We'll see about that, in practice I don't think devs would choose to limit themselves to EGS for a marginally better cut.
I would guess that Epic has a pretty good idea on how much their customers are selling their games even outside of their store (they have a percentage of revenue as their cut after all).
There is otherwise no gain in letting companies use their systems if it just means lowering their revenue.
Return policy being standard is something else if you ask me.
Currently Epic is pushing things as far as they can and then backtracking if there is backslash. They are already trying to push for less payment methods because they can't handle the fee, they are pushing against any customer voice on the store because they don't want to handle any messy things and they are already pushing against open store with their curated approach even though when Steam did that developers complained. And they will continue to push because they want to force market to adapt to them instead them adapting to the market. In the end main issue with Epic Store is not cut, it is philosophy of their approach.
They're all pushing to see how far they can get to.
Valve had to be pushed to allow refunds after all.
It took years for Steam to be in the current state it is, Epic will probably learn the same lessons Valve learned years ago.
They made a lot of announcement and didn't properly thought a lot of things through.
The waving of UE fee is one such thing, they paraded taht part to have dev flock to their store NOT to have devs use their system and direct customers elsewhere.
Welcome to capitalism, enjoy your stay.