What i am curious about is the fallout for those devs that did take the exclusivity money? will it be worth it in the long run for them? This is something that I wanna see the results in a year or so.
-
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: "Battles will be won on the basis of game supply, consumer prices, and developer revenue sharing"
- Thread starter qrac
- Start date
They've said they won't focus on sales events.
Another reason why the quotes from Tim in the OP are bloody laughable.
No.
Their mantra basically is that the consumer is merely cattle. A non entity in this equation.
Given the way some defend their shitty practices, I can definitely see how they would think this.
Not sure I understand. Why wouldn't they be able to make money on Steam anymore?
Presumably if it's because they're having problem selling their product (and not because they're banned), then yes, it would suck if they weren't able to seek an alternative. This is partially an indictment against EGS, but also does bring to light how monopolized the PC market is. I do want to add another caveat here, which is that I think the EGS scheme works fantastically for the people on EGS. Not for consumers, not for people who aren't on EGS. That's implicit. For those people, there are still the other platforms, I suppose.
I think you can never discount financial stability, especially for a startup. Making games takes a long time and is expensive, and the major role of studio leadership at that point is just flying around the world trying to secure funding. Until you release your game, you're just draining money, and without that financial security, you're gonna have a hard time even retaining talent. And if your product bombs at launch, chances are your studio's just going to keel over and die then and there as talent flees or everyone has to go without pay. At one of my gigs, when launch didn't work out well, this is exactly what happened. I personally went without pay for half a year so we could retain vital junior talent and keep operations going.
Having money in the bank means you can not only make concrete plans for your product (e.g. budget out DLC or post-release support, but also start thinking about future products.
After reading this, I don't understand that people are still believing that Epic is even remotely interested in bringing healthy competition in pc gaming. Instead of giving us any reason to use their client, their strategy seems to be to make pc gaming worse by keeping 3rd party games away from other (and better) storefronts. This is not how I see healthy competition for pc gaming, so I won't support Epic with this annoying anti-competitive and anti-consumer strategy.
Which is fair but they are going to have to deal with the fallout of less sales not to mention the fallout from people that would have bought their game but won't for a very long time. I just hope this was a good decision for them in the long run and I just don't see how it can be.
I think if Microsoft can manage to promote their own store while putting their biggest PC release to date on multiple storefronts (and no one would have held it against them if it had been W10 exclusive, people basically expect first party exclusivity for all stores now), then Epic officially has no excuse.
The fallout of less sales is offset by the "moneyhat" and the financial security of having cash in hand.
Obviously without very specific information, we don't know how much money they got for the deal, nor do we know their financial situation.
But just from my perspective working in startups, security really does override everything else, because no one prefers to gamble their livelihood.
Which is why we will probably see more of what is the cause in a year or two. I agree that they are doing this for security.
I mean they most definitely are when they've taken games from other services and removed any chance of competition, but also in doing so have increased the base price of the product to charge me more for what I could have had. That is pretty tight-knit on the thieving part.
So to the point of why an indie dev can't make money on Steam anymore is inherited by the moneyhatting of EGS, causing them to no longer have multiple revenue streams which is realistically what the PC market should be about. For places like EA's Origin or Ubisoft's Uplay most of those games offered are their own, so fair enough that some can be restricted (like Anthem) to the store because that is their IP. In the instance of indie devs, EGS is either outright saying no to titles because of their bizarre curation system (which they then point out is totally fair and all for indies) or they are saying yes but with restriction on where to sell meaning the dev no longer has multi-revenue streams.
This is really bad for the development scene on PC because it creates a rift where those who are selected get the chance at a 88/12 revenue split BUT can no longer gain anymore revenue due to contract terms AND also suffer because the uptake is waaaaay less than Steam or other platforms combined AS WELL AS far less opportunity for customers to gain decent deals on the price and be more likely to purchase their titles. What we have with Steam and other platforms is actually pretty decent, with no actual monopoly in sight due to games being made available wherever the developer pleases. If they want only Steam then that is up to them, but there is nothing inherently stopping them.
What we have with EGS is entirely the opposite, where you have the company exclaim they are going to be the death knell to the Steam "monopoly", implanting a imaginative narrative into the consumers minds that Steam is suddenly bad and EGS is the best thing on the PC platform. It is clear that is not the case, and what EGS is doing is actually actively creating a monopoly system because they believe that it is the only way to create their storefront and have an impactful presence, due in part to laziness on wanting to create a good storefront and have their pie without a need to bake it. From their tone when speaking about issues to their initial launch and even now, they have been bullish and complacent where they can so they don't "do too much" as if that is a bad thing to do.
Theoretically what should be happening on the PC platform is complete openness. Developers can place their games on whatever storefront they want and those storefronts are competing for market share based on client performance/features, revenue split and curation methods. Curation is good, to a degree, but too much and you have the EGS which gives developers no actual chance at gaining customer dollars. The same can be said for Epic's current moneyhatting scenario where they are actively removing customer's choices (and being celebrated for it which is gross yet ironic) and have even gone so far as to make games cost MORE than what they were offered on competitor stores. You then have situations like the crowdfunded game announced this morning that they were going EGS which is another mark against Epic and what they are trying to do. All of this is profit driven with no consideration for the actual customer and a thinly veiled attempt at being for the developer.
Epic's store isn't a bad CONCEPT, but the execution is so pitiful it is actively hurting the PC platform by encouraging console-like tactics that do not work on this platform. Again, curation is fine and to an extent moneyhatting is fine as long as the storefront is actively helping in development and not using the game as a figure for increasing their storefront presence. Epic is very much inflated by Fortnite's success and it is really pushing them to do a lot of stupid shit in short term that is affecting their long term presence. This store won't be around if it keeps doing what it is doing because developers will start to con on that they aren't making much more profit when the revenue cut is nice but the actual sales figures are stupidly lower.
But that comes back to the main point: why are developers even doing this? Obviously money factors in as development is fucking hard, I know. Yet despite that they are still going out of their way to hurt their bottom dollar and their reputation, all for a quick buck.
That fallout will become more apparent as time goes on when the launch developers begin to realise that financial security isn't worth gambling your reputation and sales figures. Financial security is nice, but if you don't have any revenue coming in for a whole year due to the contract requirement of being on EGS then you are most definitely shit out of luck.
Last edited:
I've wondered about this myself.
The biggest cut for me came in the first wave of these announcements when Double Damage announced 12 the month exclusivity of Rebel Galaxy Outlaw.
It was near the top of my most anticipated 2019 releases, but now it's no longer even on my radar. I'll likely check it out in 2020 when it launches on Steam, but I'm curious what the overall level of interest will be at that point on a broader scale.
Right now you have a whole lot of 'Never Epic' PC gamers. What happens with that segment 12 months after Outlaw launches on EGS? Will they even care? The die-hards franchise fans may, but what about those with a middling interest who might have given it a shot but have since moved on? New Release Hype comes and goes but I think it pulls in a lot of on-the-fence customers during that initial release window when everyone is talking about the game. Will that draw have the same level of impact 12 months later when the "Now on Steam" banners show up on the Steam storefront?
This is what confuses me about developers willing to buy into financial security on a smaller storefront for short-term gains. Perhaps Epic covers the losses of catering to a smaller audience and that's fine. But do these developers even care about seeing their games enjoyed by a wider audience? Using imaginary math, is 20 million upfront from Epic paid for exclusivity worth it against say 15 million in actual sales from actual customers when the install base on EGS is 20% of what it might have been on Steam?
Of course more money in your wallet = good. But is it ultimately worth it if only 1/5 people are actually playing your game? Seems like a monkey's paw proposition.
I suppose if the game gets more attention due to being on EGS when it comes to Steam it might still sell well enough, and if they have the moneyhat money to secure them for another year or game, then it's probably better for the developer than going on Steam, getting lost in the mire and selling a few thousand copies
That said, everything has an element of risk, and right now the EGS seems to only be moneyhatting games that would be fine without the moneyhat, but once they get a foothold they might instead go for games they think could do well and/or be hits if given the right push
Because this one is not a direct criticism towards EGS.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/wh...tly-to-titles-that-dont-really-need-it.86250/
https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...is-not-good-for-anyone-by-david-galindo.86246
https://www.resetera.com/threads/ep...ustomers-using-certain-payment-methods.93026/
https://www.resetera.com/threads/lets-discuss-the-awful-epic-game-store-refund-policy.86741/
https://www.resetera.com/threads/co...ng-out-a-decent-video-about-epic-store.87111/
https://www.resetera.com/threads/la...ce-subnautica-players-to-turn-to-steam.89162/
Everything is locked and directed into one 'EGS store general discussion'. People don't simply go to a 'general discussion' thread because it's not interesting. Thus, lots of information were lost, including how lacking the features are, how devs were actually getting paid for exclusivity, how it's not preferable over Steam (even other stores) and so on. The lack of those threads leads to lots of people being ignorant about PC users' concern about EGS, and this is where we are now. Lots of drive by posts from those ignorant posters.
I'm highly disappointed.
All of those threads were in the same timeframe and were supposed to use the Epic Game Store megathread as was agreed upon, something you assuredly know
No actual information was lost, and if something newsworthy happens, and it can be corroborated, we let it rock
So is it okay to create such threads right now to inform people why PC users are against EGS?
Because lots of information were still lost, as I said, we can still see drive by posts every day in every Epic thread.
If you wanna make a thread you can and we'll cross that bridge when we get there
I was incredibly hyped for Metro exodus and I've basically forgotten it exists a month later. If early 2020 is light on games I might check it out if it goes on sale for $20 or less at that point, but thats it. Even then, I'm not sure I'd even want to come back to support a company that thinks such deals are acceptable, even if I am a fan of the franchise. Theres more than enough to play out there - no need to give money to a shitty company like that for sloppy seconds.
i really cant imagine a game like Metro played well to an audience primarily built around Fortnite either. I can't see how squandering goodwill and being available to a smaller audience works long term, no matter what epic is paying
I think hes right. If they really want to become a big competitor to Steam, they have to do something more drastic to get a foothold.
In a figurative sense, you can say that they are thieves in that regards because the games are "taken" away from Steam, but these are deals made between Epic and whatever publisher it might be. Its up to the publisher if they want to do that, so nothing is stolen in that regards.
You are correct in that sense, yes. I just feel that it is a pretty scummy thing to do when the whole premise of Epic's store is better revenue split yet I end up having to pay more because I'm in Australia. Makes no real sense to me.
Also I don't agree with you in saying that Epic needs to do this. They don't, and they very much can do with not doing it but they have chosen to force their storefront down people's throats rather than entice them with better deals. Instead of building a good storefront that offers devs a chance to gain better revenue cuts while offering customers a cheaper deal they opt to force a monopoly (while stating they totally aren't one) on the PC platform and in the long-term more than likely hurt developers because of the backlash at such a acidic move to customers.
He's right, game catalog is very important. See linux vs windows, for example. Many find linux to be better but still remain on Windows because of the games.
Yeah, this is really an ethics question worthy of exploration.
It's not lost on me that times are tough and competition is fierce. I imagine the the ease of access in the digital age has both pros and cons for developers of all stripes. Easy access into the market struggling against a higher bar for attention & adoption it creates.
Feels like a lot of attention is being focused on the ethics of viability in an increasingly competitive market. On paper it makes sense take the cash upfront to clear the bottom line. But what's the ultimate cost? Alienating your consumer base by pushing them into a sub-optimal ecosystem?
'Cause that what it feels like the argument is now. "We can't compete in an overcrowded field so we're taking the easy money and herding the consumer into a lesser experience."
Keeps the lights on for the developers but much like the 401K alternative to traditional retirement funds of the past, it's the end-user that gets shortchanged in the end.
It's quite troubling to see money used as a weapon to finance and give consumers less choice. Don't claim to have the solution, but it feels like dirty tactics that ultimately ends in a loss for the end-user. Feels like competition can ultimately be won at the expense of the paying customer.
Which could include funding entirely new games to be exclusives (much less bad PR), developing new games internally to be exclusive to their store (They already have a little game called Fortnite but haven't even bothered porting their back catalogue of historical games over), encouraging developers to bring games to their store with strong incentives (they have the lowered cut but could include strong developer support and payments to cover the cost of setting up the port without necessarily making the games 12 month exclusives). They could offer good sales for developers where Epic subsidizes the cost of the discount as a loss leading measure. They already give out free games so why the hell not? Make the Epic Game Store a deal that seems extremely attractive for the right reasons, not like something you're being pressuered to use to get a game that's been on preorder for Steam for a year or got crowdfunded with the explicit promise of a Steam/GoG version. You don't have to 1:1 match every single Steam feature but if you're not offering a huge array of basic features that multiple competings services do, why have you even bothered to launch it? Performing a bait and switch on the storefront including people who preordered physical copies only for your client to be crummy anyway is like salt in the wound.
Encouraging people to use and buy games on a client regularly is an uphill battle but his answer was distracting from the central point of why people are pissed off. His way was a strategy, not the only strategy.
I see what you're saying. But better revenue split also need sales if it should have much effect. I guess they think that very few, relatively speaking, would bother using another storefront if its also available on Steam.
You're right that they could offer better deals, like lower the price, but maybe they think this isnt a good strategy in the long run. Lets say that they cut the price on new games by $10 compared to Steam, and Epic cover this cost themself. That would be a good insentive for consumers to buy the game on EGS, but doing so, maybe they condition the consumer to expect all new games to be e.g $10 cheaper, and if they go back to the normal price, maybe it could be seen as a $10 price increase. I dont know. It can be debated how much they need to have the timed exclusive games, but i do think its a good insentive in terms of getting consumers on board at least.
But it still remains to be seen if these timed exclusive games will be a thing or not in the years to come, or if this is just an initial thing to get more traction.
Yeah, definitely, but i dont think anyone has claimed otherwise though. Same thing that consumers arent owed that all games should be availabe through Steam for example. But if Epic wants to get a bigger marketshare, they need to do something to make that happen. If i was well invested in the Steam ecosystem, i think i would need some good insentives to start using another store front. I think Sweeney is right that simpler features isnt enough to make people change storefronts. Maybe not timed exclusive games are the only way to go, and i can see why some people dont like whats happening, but business wise, i think the move makes sense.
You're right, they could do other stuff as well, so its not the only strategy indeed, but i think time exclusive games is one of the strongest card they could pull in terms of getting consumers to use their storefront. I would guess that Sweeney is aware of that not all people dont like this, so i dont think hes trying to deflect or distract from the issue. I think he just mean that they have to do something, and he feel that this is one of the best ways to do it. Not that its the only thing that they can do.
Its also true that could also drop the price on the games as an insentive to get consumers on board, as you mention, and cover that price drop difference, so that the developers get the same amount of money. But maybe Epic think this is a bad idea in the long run, that they dont want to set up a premise that games are e.g $10 cheaper on their store, and suddently they need to "raise" the price $10 at a later time.
Does Epic have any problem getting developers/publishers on board to their store by the way? (In regards to what you say about covering the cost to set up the port). I always viewed the timed exclusive games as a move to get consumers on board their store, not developers. From what i can see, for developers, it would be a win-win situation regardless, since it just mean that their game is available on another storefront, and they get a bigger cut if games are being bought through Epic's store. And after all, theres already many games available on their store thats also on Steam etc., its only a handful of games that are timed exclusive, as far as i know.
Last edited:
I think that is going to be the biggest call on whether this type of deal if worth it to the devs or not come next year when the exclusivity ends and they come to Steam. Will they have been forgotten? Or worse yet ruined any form of good will they could have had to customers?
I just really don't see the long term benefit here from the devs, unless the moneyhat pay is on par with selling what they would have sold plus whatever extra sales they do get which I really doubt is much. It's kind of funny how having the guy who created SteamSpy on your storefront and we now don't have any stats on how their games are doing. I really don't think it's well, rather it's the complete opposite and the engagement is barely there as Fortnite players aren't converting like Epic think they would have.
In the end, I believe the best strategy is competition on prices, not exclusives. When Steam actually isn't a monopoly, then Epic claims they are but then goes out of their way to then be a monopoly with their store, the irony is just too much. I can easily see them being able to compete on price alone, and that $10 difference is hugely enticing for a customer looking for the cheaper game. I'd be there in a heartbeat as I already pay a ridiculous amount being in Australia so an extra $10 off is music to my ears.
Plus, the price wouldn't go up. The revenue split is where developers can actually compete with their price on the store because they are getting back far more than they would on Steam so the ability to cut back means way more sales. Hell if Ashen had of been on Steam and Epic, and on Epic it was $29.99 instead of $39.99 you bet your bottom dollar is be on Epic. Money talks.
Its hard to say, but as long as people are interested in the games, and that the games are released on their favorite storefront (sooner or later), i personally think that is what holds the most weight for most people. I dont think many will hold a long time grudge (if thats the right word) over this. In the big picture, its a fairly trivial thing for the consumer, at least from the details i know.
Regarding prices going up, i mean if Epic holds a price promotion going, that several of new games are being e.g $10 cheaper on EGS compared to Steam. Basically, Epic paying those selected developers $10 for each sales being made through EGS. In the end, such price promotion would likely end, and games that might be expected to be $10 cheaper compared to Steam would start to have the same price as Steam, which in a sense could be seen as a price increase in that regards. Maybe Epic wants to avoid such senario, but that is just speculation from my side.
That said, i do agree that Epic could have done this type of price promotion instead. But i think they thought the timed exclusive thing is a better way to go about it. They might do such price promotions as well. As someone else mention above here, they have been given away some free games, so the timed exclusive games are probably not the only thing that they will do.
You're also right regarding revenue split. If a game sell for $10, the publisher get $8.8 instead of $7 compared to on Steam. Even if they sell their game for $9 on EGS and $10 on Steam, they would still be making more money on EGS. It shall be curious to see if publisher want to do this. I can see people complaining about that, in the sense of "why are you charging more money for the exact same game on Steam compared to EGS?". But we'll see what happends :)
Last edited:
And guess what company brought down that barrier last year and made gaming on Linux close to gaming on Windows without making developers need to update their games?
Epic is basically pulling an Uber (operating at a loss in a big manner) with exclusivity deals on top of that to make the competition irrelevant.
I hope you do know that if it ends up working game prices will go up. Pretty sure that's already the case in certain territories.
I hope you do know that if it ends up working game prices will go up. Pretty sure that's already the case in certain territories.
Gamers have very short attention spans. In a year or two nobody is going to care, the people that waited for their favorite games to come on steam will buy it on steam. The internet out rage over this does not equal the vast amount of people who buy games. Developers know this, Epic knows this, that is why they are doing this.
Look at how it worked out for the Tomb Raider franchise though. And that's with the console crowd.
The trust issue, regarding promises, backer handling and investors handling, that will linger for these devs though.
Anytime they ask customers to trust them in any capacity, this will be brought up.
Prices for all Epic exclusive games went up already because that is only place to buy them from.
It is actually funny, because Epic's store doesn't have local currency support Division 2 is actually MORE expensive on their store then uPlay. Hell it is more expensive than brick and mortar stores. The hell is that?
That happens when you remove options for users. Also that 30% that people complain about are big reason why you can buy games up to 25% off day 1.
these are the people who remembered who Julian gollop is and then have been waiting for two years so I'm not sure their attention spans are that short
Great but underrated post. I agree wholeheartedly that Steam need moderation, not curation.
Let me get this straight: so how does EGS who don't believe in sales, wouldn't hold any discount event, could be ever viable alternative to Steam? Or to put it more bluntly, how does it even mean something good for customer? We're not even talking about displacing Steam's 'monopoly' here, we are asking about EGS reluctance to lower the price on their store. Don't you, the proponent of free market, healthy competition, and all of that jazz measure such success by the lowering price of commodity? If this couldn't happened in the slightest, how could you keep the delusion that EGS is a viable alternative to Steam?
"Free Market" superstition that competition instantly makes thing better.
Also such belief is laughable with how naked Tim Sweeney is with his intention to strong arm the market in the most, un-free market way.
I mean, so far the evidence is pretty stacking towards Epic's game store being not at all favourable to the consumer and only pro moneyhat. There is no AUD pricing, there currently is no ability to buy the game's on offer elsewhere thus eliminating competition, prices are ridiculously high even for indie games (that's not to say they can't be) and on top of all of this we are getting slim pickings higher indie tier games plus a couple AAA games. Wowweee, what a game store.
It's all about making it easier for the consumer. Remove features, all while removing options.
You could argue that removing "option paralysis" could be good for devs and consumers.
No PC gaming store front/platform has ever been successful by removing features, options and locking consumers into one choice.
Those who remembered Julian Gollop paid special attention to him. Most people (AKA general audience) does have short attention span to things they don't paid attention including myself (we are all honestly, it's impossible to keep everything that is not extremely mainstream) and for less known games, this is crucial.
Better watch this video to know what they're talking about
tl;dw Valve have improved their Linux compatibility massively over the year.
If Tim is serious about EGS never having discounts or sales, then I really don't know what to say.
Did he come up with that idea after snorting 30 lines of pop rocks and paint chips?
Did he come up with that idea after snorting 30 lines of pop rocks and paint chips?
The only price-lowering effect from the bigger share so far is Metro Exodus and that only applied to the US buyer and not anywhere else. This actually led me to believes that Deep Silver only cut the price as part of PR attempt, and let other region compensate for the cut.