Yes, this is what I felt he was saying too. That makes more sense, at the very least
I'm sure developers appreciate him and his store. The problem is he doesn't have to fuck over customers while he does that.
-
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.
Tim Sweeney: "Battles will be won on the basis of game supply, consumer prices, and developer revenue sharing"
- Thread starter qrac
- Start date
Yes, this is what I felt he was saying too. That makes more sense, at the very least
If by "It's nearly perfect for consumers already" he's talking about Steam, then sure. It has important flaws that should have been addressed long ago, but it offers so much to its customers that no other gaming service or platform can compare. If he was referring to the Epic Store, then it's a blatant lie and I'd bet money he doesn't believe this himself.
As for the "displacing a dominant storefront" part, that may or may not be true, but it certainly isn't a valid excuse not to try. Having all these useful features doesn't guarantee that I'd start using it, but the lack of them ensures I won't even download the client for the free games.
I'd still like cloud saves and stuff like a dedicated screenshot function but honestly he's right.
I bought Exodus on there because its a good game and thats where it was for sale. And honestly once I launched the game I just kinda forgot about all the other stuff.
The same way people will play Forza and SoT on Windows store, because in the end its the games.
I bought Exodus on there because its a good game and thats where it was for sale. And honestly once I launched the game I just kinda forgot about all the other stuff.
The same way people will play Forza and SoT on Windows store, because in the end its the games.
Yes that's why I typed "unlike other corps".
Idk why you had the need to post the obvious.
One is doing more to earn my business though. That's the difference.
So we should support bad consumer practices because the EGS doesn't have a better business strategy?
Is this resetera or did I fall into another forum?
Yeah, this was my read.
He's right. This is the only way to disrupt; otherwise they just join the middling graveyard of other storefronts.
I think there's an implicit acknowledgement that this isn't best for consumers, but I doubt they'd come out and say it.
He is telling his paid developers to do PR and claim this is good for consumers.
So they know what they are doing is bad for consumers.
If that was implicit, I'd hate to see what overt acknowledgement would be. Probably ad buys from google following everyone who searches for steam saying "We have what you want and you've got no choice. EGS!"
Yup. Ultimately, it comes down to the games for most people.
Y'all can do all the hot takes you want about the Epic Store, but he's not wrong in this instance. If it gets to where devs use it more because it's more money for their pocket and it's reflected in the prices for consumers, that grid of Steam features that shows up in every Epic thread will become less and less important to your average consumer.
Now if we don't see this reflected in supply and savings (which is where we are at now), it will be interesting to see consumer response (in sales, not forum feedback). At the end of the day, the front end deals wouldn't be sustainable for Epic if the games don't sell, and if the games aren't selling as well obviously the dev has to weigh their options.
Now if we don't see this reflected in supply and savings (which is where we are at now), it will be interesting to see consumer response (in sales, not forum feedback). At the end of the day, the front end deals wouldn't be sustainable for Epic if the games don't sell, and if the games aren't selling as well obviously the dev has to weigh their options.
Then why is he having his developers do PR to claim this is good for consumers.
And people need to stop taking about prices.
The EGS is not cheap and will not be cheaper. AND they are deliberatly cutting any way of getting games for cheaper. See The division 2
The Article said:
I can't help but wonder what exactly is going to happen once Fortnite stops bringing in the cash. I hope Epic have a more sustainable strategy for the store than throwing exclusivity deals around.
This is something they will have to reckon with in the long run, but in the short run, there really isn't a better strategy.
By writing pay checks for exclusivity deals we totally empower developers and not publishers and shareholders. Please, Please believe us: our intentions are altruistic. The consumer's only role is to pay us. He doesn't deserve features or anything, what we are offering is good enough. Please come to us publishers *erm* I meant developers. We only care about developers, they benefit so much from those deals we make with publishers after all. The best deals ever. Unbelievable deals! We are the deal experts! Make gaming great again.
OP
OP
Some people don't have a problem with money hatting. As he said it's one of the ways Epic can compete with Valve.
I'm convinced they know Fortnite's popularity will wane in the coming years, and they're throwing money around while they have it in order to build a more sustainable business model. The problem is it's not consumer-friendly at all, and is doing the opposite of what they want - keeping people like me away from their store.
You don't have to support anything you don't want to support and you certainly wont find any post of mine telling you or anyone else to support it.
Also, frankly speaking, you being "inconvenienced" doesn't mean the practices are "bad" or "anti-consumer" (which is a word that's been so diluted here it no longer means anything).
It's pretty clear to me that he talks about the overall market.
That's why they obviously try ...
For a limited time.
You can't survive on money hats alone.
What would you consider to be "anti consumer"?
So I guess forcing consumers to pay their payment processor fees is no longer anti-consumer?
Why would a business try selling their products in the best possible light? Is that what you're asking?
And as for prices, I guess I would ask why you feel this is the case given the current state of the store has existed less than a year?
User Warned: Drive-by Trolling
He's right about Steam.
Y'all wild if you can't see it, but Steam zealots are pretty wild.
Y'all wild if you can't see it, but Steam zealots are pretty wild.
i already said this in another thread about the same article but it bothers me that they just admit they can't come up with anything better
like come on there's tons of stuff you could do to make your client more competitive, sure they might take time and energy but your one option isn't just throwing money around
it's honestly sad to me how uncreative or adventurous they are
like come on there's tons of stuff you could do to make your client more competitive, sure they might take time and energy but your one option isn't just throwing money around
it's honestly sad to me how uncreative or adventurous they are
Lying is the operative word here. Because he literally says here he isn't thinking about consumers with his business strategy
And yet it's somehow good for consumers in developer paid Epic store PR? But oddly Epic themselves stopped claiming this
So in the future when when they have less money because Fortnite will at some point become diminished they will cut prices for the benefit of consumers?
How does that math work out?
"Steam Zealots are pretty wild"
This is how to start a discussion about this. Sure.
You didn't expound upon what you felt he said right about steam nor what "Steam zealots" couldn't see what they should have seen.
So you really don't have any arguments after the last thread and are just name calling at the outset now?
Aka 'prices won't go down'
And they already said they don't beleive in discount sales
Yeah moderating the forums is TOTALLY going to counter a company spending millions to moneyhat.
So I guess you would support Steam just up and doing the same as Epic? Buying up exclusives and forgetting about their features now?
"PC games distribution is pretty much perfect right now. So, please, let us ruin that by dropping our store rates to 12% so we can't afford to put games on sale, and making the devs pay Youtubers out of their own sales cut, destroying the third-party key market, and then paying off publishers so the only place you can buy the game is from our storefront. That one last step towards perfection!"
I love going back to the gaf threads anytime something was moneyhatted (whether its a game or DLC) and seeing people give a shit about being treated poorly by companies.
Then coming here and seeing the posts after Epic's Store got introduced. Its unreal. Pun intended if you prefer.
More like Epic's whole initiative has been so anti-consumer from the start that hearing it repeated over & over simply becomes white noise to EGS apologists.
Well, I can tell you from personal experience that my local Louis Vuitton and Gucci stores never have sales.
Perhaps they want to be on that level. :-)
Maybe.. That actually makes sense. Especially considering the games that are the EGS currently; AAA and high profile polished Indie titles.
EGS, for the discerning and dev supporting gamer!
I'm not supporting anyone in this "fight", it's just that I have reasons to enjoy seeing Steam getting some heat. That's more enjoyable than any game one of these platforms could buy exclusivity for.
That also requires them to deny any and all third party sales.
Like with the division 2
The market is so good for consumers, too good in fact that Epic wants to take choice away from the consumer.
Nice to have this from the horse's mouth. Maybe dumbshits can't stop saying "where's your proof it's a money hat?", "How do you know their internal contract with Epic" despite being transparently obvious to everyone with a functioning brain that it was a moneyhat
Not offering refunds for instance.
I've no idea what this means, do you get charged more than the 60 bucks Metro costs if you buy it from the Epic store?
He's not wrong in that this is potentially a viable disruptive market tactic.
He's in the wrong because his company has shitty consumer practices and his product has shoddy features for users and they're selling this as good for users.
They are also, potentially, bad for the market. I have no faith that Epic, if it were to become the market leader, would be a superior benevolent industry/market force than Steam. Already we have a lack of free key generation for 3rd party websites, for instance.