And compulsive spenders that curb their issues by not tying their credit cards to online stores.
-
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: Epic Games will cover future refunds and work with other stores to ensure key availability for crowdfunded games that go Epic exclusive
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
This is an argument I commonly read, but honestly I feel like it's mostly from people who haven't actually followed what Steam is doing. Which, incidentally, are then often also the first to argue that "it's just a desktop icon" -- because they really don't know all the things Steam does for PC gamers as a platform.
If you actually look at the major features introduced by Steam, there's a consistent cadence with at least one major feature a year and plenty of smaller but significant improvements. This is all documented in changelogs too, so I don't feel like I need to get into list wars here.
Actually, no, I know that lots of developers do appreciate Steam. Read e.g. the gamasutra articles by David Galindo, the interviews with the legendary Swen Vincke, or Jeff Vogel's talks on the topic.
Or ask me ;) -- in fact, if we release a game for which we have full control over distribution it will likely be on Steam due to all the features it provides that would be a huge pain to set up otherwise. (Steam input, mod hosting, leaderboards, and all of that fully cross-platform with Linux)
The reason I have backed games on KS (to the tune of 100s of €, just saying), and the story often used for that, is for developers to make games without the "business" bullshit imposed by publishers.
Now, from my perspective, there's nothing more "business bullshit" than not giving the people who believed in your project that game on the platform they were promised just because you were paid not to after the fact. That's actually far worse, from a personal trust perspective (which is what KS is all about) than e.g. realizing you cannot support a platform due to technical constraints.
No, third party sellers like GMG, Voidu or CDKeys.
Who sell completely legitimate copies and often allow you to get games at launch for ~20% lower than MSRP.
Competition!
A far demanded product in this case is the platform itself, not any individual games for sale on the platform. I.e. Steam could have a 99% market share while everyone else combined only amounts to 1%, it technically isn't a monopoly but in actuality it might as well be. You are arguing way too literally over the usage of monopoly and not recognizing that de facto monopoly is an actual term.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/d/de-facto-monopoly/
It's very very clear you did not read that link before posting it
That's a fair point! Though it has nothing to do with the split. just Epic's greed and maybe a lack of business sense with dealing with emerging markets. I'd definitely change the strategy on that front.
Steam (and other online RETAILERS) are the retail store of the Internet. The barrier of entry by obscurity (too many games on Steam released monthly to make an impression without a marketing budget) is what makes Epic store that much lucrative.
Lmao. Did you immediately just google a second link when the first one was shot down on you?
Way too literally? I suppose if we're making up meanings for stuff it can mean anything you like then
Actually, thinking about it, here's something Tim could have done that I would probably have been okay with:
Epic would run a crowdfunding site; projects on it would be absolutely explicitly exclusive to Epic Game Store on PC (and at least slightly curated, akin to Fig currently); pledgers know that going in. However, the funding target is fixed - for example $1M - as is the default pledge amount (say, $10) - and Epic would *match* any pledges that are made at a 1:1 ratio, so if the 50k pledges reach $500k, Epic will match that and the target is met - but then pledges beyond that point adjust Epic's ratio - it makes sense, they're buying more customers this way - if there are 100k pledges, Epic stumps up the full cost and the pledgers get it for free (and at this point the project is locked; enough interest has been shown)
I've only done napkin maths on this so I'm not sure if it's flawed - I'd need to study the pledge value adjustment - but I think that's a mechanic which would get exclusives that people are interested in and reasonable goodwill; it's a system that demonstrates driving money to developers producing interesting projects.
That might be your perspective but KS's function is to crowdfund development of various things. It isn't necessarily about publisher interference. It could just be no publisher was interested in their game for example.
Eh sorry but no.
Ubisioft: Retail game margins are 55% (vs 70% digital), Sony/MS/Nintendo take $12 in COGS per game
25% is the retailer's margin ($15 at $60, $5 at $20). 20% is the licensing fee + cost of goods from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo for making a retail game ($12, and from previous conversations with industry figures, this is static regardless what you're charging). By comparison, it's a flat 30% with...
www.resetera.com
And you claim "delivering phisical goods is a lot more expensive than digital". The thing is, you see a storefront only as a way to deliver a good. You're completly missing the ecosystem aspect. Apple and Steam aren't just middlemen. They're also building an entire set of tools and ecosystem so that the user experience is cohesive. That I buy my game from Best Buy or Walmart is the same thing. There's no strings attached to the product. In a digital environnement though ? There's a lot more to it than just delivering you the product. There's also how the product interacts with your ecosystem and the other products. How it integrates to the whole user experience. And that's something you're completly skipping. Hence why other launchers are terrible, save for Uplay who has been doing progress. Because while they take 100%, they're also lacking in every other departments.
You're claiming a digital storefront is taking same for less, okay i'll take it at face value:
- Does Gamestop provides tools for the games such as APIs for matchmaking, achievements, mods ?
- Does Gamestop provides servers for the hosting of user created content such as mods, screenshots ?
- Does Gamestop provides dedicated servers for multiplayer ?
- Does Gamestop provides an API for your game so that controller support/operating system support/VR support is handled by the launcher and not the dev ?
- Does Gamestop provides a space for the devs to manage their own shelves ?
Basically, you're looking through it in a simple way that completly skip the important thing: The customer experience and the reality of developpement. Basically you're seeing the game as a product that is delivered in any way the same way it would be for a physical product. The reality is different though.
For your second paragraph, it's already the case. 70% is bigger than 30%. But then again, you have a simple way of seeing digital distribution. Basically, you envision it as glorified FTP server where customers download the game. You see it as a shelve. It's more than that. It's a wide subset of tools that completly change the way the customer enjoy their product. You can think it's petty but I'm sorry to tell you this: It matters to customers. Why do you think Apple products are selling a shiton for a huge markup ?
For your last sentence, changing the split is worse for the customer already. As I said before, that 30% cut gives a leverage for 3rd party stores to exist and compete. GreenManGaming, Humble Store and such. With that 30% cut, they can compete on price. They can offer discounts, from 10 to 25% to customers. The saving I make as a customer, it goes toward other games. A better distribution of my euros basically.
You don't believe me ? It's concrete facts: Take any game EGS exclusive sold on Humble Store: You cant apply the 10% off if you're a monthly subscriber. And the % you get back is also lower. It might also apply to charity. Because at 12%; you can't do much.
GOG also lowered their cut. What did it mean to customer ? They killed their fair price program:
How does Epic maintain a 12% cut ? By making the customer pay any overcharge and by keeping their service cost effective by killing features.
There is a way for Epic to "win" for itself, developers, and consumers (assuming that money is no significant barrier):
- fund projects that would otherwise go to KS or other publishers itself (this would result in an extended period of EGS exclusivity beyond what seems to be the current one-year window)
- maintain the 88/12 split
- allow the developers of those funded projects to sell the game anywhere after the EGS exclusivity period ends as current
- fund projects that would otherwise go to KS or other publishers itself (this would result in an extended period of EGS exclusivity beyond what seems to be the current one-year window)
- maintain the 88/12 split
- allow the developers of those funded projects to sell the game anywhere after the EGS exclusivity period ends as current
What's frighting is that your argument is actually that we should be banning some people from releasing games at all.
I mean it's not fair there's so many games right? I guess the government should step in and start banning developers until we get the number back under control.
It's truly disgusting to see so many people argue that not allowing people to have their games on EGS is a good thing. That we should be cheering Epic saying to some developers 'no, you don't get to sell your game at all'
I'm pretty sure next to no indie developpers could self publish retail copies of their games before digital took over, so there was at least 2 middle men before (the retail store, a publisher and/or a distributor) instead of one now (Steam).
That's why in my post I said 1 middle man and not the middle man.
Myself and my wife wear glasses, so we have to go to the opticians. The Scrivens opticians next to Sheffield Uni is fantastic! Just the best service ever. Their selection of frames is good, but the Scrivens staff are amazing, so we will always go to a Scrivens if given the opportunity.
How do other opticians stand a chance? Well, they have to come right out the gate and say "We're better than the market leader, and here's how! Please try us." Because in the case of both Scrivens and Steam, it can - as you point out - be argued that the games are secondary to the service. So the only way to compete is on service.
Tell me how Epic competes on service..
Edit: Also, this is why one of the reasons why Amazon enjoys market leader position - their service is fucking amazing, a lot much of the time.
The nuance that people often miss is that while competition can be great, Epic isn't competing for you, it's competing for developers. (and a certain, small subset of developers at that). That's very much not the same thing!
Last edited:
The first one wasn't shot down, I got a second source to reinforce that it is an actual term used by people, not whatever you are trying to twist it into.
As of now: cheaper prices (varying on region), free games, and games exclusively available on the platform for a period of time. But I wasn't trying to argue about how Epic competes, instead showing that the term you are scrutinizing is an actual defined one.
Last edited:
And this shows how Steam is not a monopoly because other storefronts exists and the biggest games on PC are in fact not on Steam, maybe read next time.
and your new definition still doesnt hold up for shit...Dominance sure, but a de facto monopoly would mean that a game on steam wouldnt have 80 million monthly players, but it turns out, league of legends does
The day when i can play lol, crossfire, WOW, Fortnite, FFXIV, any EA, Ubisoft, Activision or "insert x games from x company" EXCLUSIVELY on Steam i can call Steam a monopoly, but right now, it's not. Steam has a huge market share, just like PS4 has a huge market share on the console market, does it make both Steam and PS4 a monopoly in their respective markets? Absolutely no.
It's an actual term that doesn't apply in the way you want it to. The simple fact is the idea you 'have' to sell your game on steam has always been a lie.
Before Epic came along there were multiple options to sell your games. Steam even actually supported those multiple options out of their own pocket.
You could sell DRM free direct to consumers, sell on multiple different launchers, sell DRM free retail specialist copies and collectors editions.
People were free to sell their games in any way they chose to without restrictions.
Not now though. Apparently 'competition' means options are dead.
So no, Steam has never been a monopoly of any sort. You never had to sell your games there to be successful. I really have no idea why people keep insisting on repeating it
Steam is such a monopoly that I'm hard-pressed to remember the last time I bought a Steamworks-enabled game from it rather than GMG, Fanatical, Game Billet, or any of the other nearly dozen storefronts where I have established an account!
Valve really needs to step up its monopoly game (pun fully intended) here!
Valve really needs to step up its monopoly game (pun fully intended) here!
EGS has a margin of 12% and the costs of those gift cards is also already at ~12%. Epic simply can't afford to provide such cards with their cut.
the 88/12 split is such a red herring at this point
not a single game has been released on the store just for the split and it hasn't meant jack shit for anyone considering most of them most likely haven't sold through their bonus yet
you can say you'd want higher pay for indie devs (artists should be paid more, wow the oldest take in the book) but leave egs out of it
id make an analogy for it but apparently that just results in whole page arguments about what an analogy is
not a single game has been released on the store just for the split and it hasn't meant jack shit for anyone considering most of them most likely haven't sold through their bonus yet
you can say you'd want higher pay for indie devs (artists should be paid more, wow the oldest take in the book) but leave egs out of it
id make an analogy for it but apparently that just results in whole page arguments about what an analogy is
devs shouldn't need to kickstarter their games anymore, not with epic here to help them all out.
I mean, that sort of BS (Steam hasnt done anything in years and has stagnated) has been a continuous thing that gets paired with "EGS cannot really compete with Steam in features because Steam had a ton of time!".
As I said half a year ago:
It is also funny that nowadays any change or upgrade that Steam is doing is viewed as "Competition based" instead of being an evolution of their service that has started years ago, as is the case with the new Library UI and with the free servers (first notice of them in documentation was in early 2018).
The sad fact is that even if Steam is "stagnating" and "barely improving", we should take a look at the rest of the competition and see that they have barely improved in years (GOG not withstanding as GOG Galaxy 2.0 seems like a proper upgrade, but they had been pretty static for some years). EGS is also following a similar profile (and has already said they will not compete with Steam with features and view the current store market (like uPlay or Origin) as good enough for the consumer.
Heck, we had a seismic change in Steam less than a year ago with the introduction of R18 games being sold in Steam.
Too many posts to answer at once sorry. G2A came to mind as I just watched the Jim Sterling video on them...
What I can say is this: things are not packages, no matter how they are sold to you as - revenue split is not inexplicably tied to cutting out third party sellers for example.
Yes, that was the perspective I was trying to highlight, because that is where I'm coming from. The trade-off on moving towards 88/12 for consumers is negligible, because the split itself is arbitrary, it's not based on services by the middle man, but on tradition. There are trade offs to specific Epic store policies - which I don't approve of and would fight against. But forcing the entire industry to rethink the 70/30 split? That's a noble goal I think, that can bring a lot of good and make the industry a better place to work with. Siding with a megacorp that has a de facto monopoly (yes, a de facto monopoly ;)) on the market, not so much. There are also many other facets to this problem: like content curation (none vs restrictive, so Active Shooter vs. Epic turning down indie games because they don't look pretty enough), policies and so on, too many to name.
Ok, I see there are 4 more replies waiting, I'll never dig out of this conversation :D
Epic will buy games that are already made (or close to) and have some public interest.
Lol if only that were true, but it'd be good of them not to pretend to give out keys if they secretly hope to be approached by epic
Just because you insist its a monopoly it doesnt make it one, not by definition and not by its presence on the market.
If they take someone's money on one promise, then change the terms of the deal and offer a refund years later, they've essentially had an interest-free loan off of that person. That money can be better spent elsewhere.
And another thing, if developers are breaking their promises or betraying backers' trust, why would anyone want to continue crowdfunding games?
Legalities of what people are entitled to aside, people who feel they have been fooled or scammed by a crowdfunding project, or those who see it happening to others, aren't going to be so forthcoming with their money in the future.
That's my point.
How many examples of PC-only games being successful and skipping out being releasing on Steam can you name? Not counting for publisher exclusives like Blizzard with Diablo/Starcraft/Warcraft. Minecraft, before it was bought by Microsoft? League of Legends?
Borderlands 3 metro exodus division 2 annapurna games and various other games i could list right now isn't appeasing indie games/devs, don't try and sit there and churn that bullshit out because it doesn't fly my friend, epic is far and away from supporting indie developers,
Eh sorry but no.
Ubisioft: Retail game margins are 55% (vs 70% digital), Sony/MS/Nintendo take $12 in COGS per game
25% is the retailer's margin ($15 at $60, $5 at $20). 20% is the licensing fee + cost of goods from Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo for making a retail game ($12, and from previous conversations with industry figures, this is static regardless what you're charging). By comparison, it's a flat 30% with...
How does Epic maintain a 12% cut ? By making the customer pay any overcharge and by keeping their service cost effective by killing features.
The first one is true, because you've got 2 steps to it, digital is one. Though if you have publisher, they can also take a cut above the 30%.
What? I didn't say anything of the sort. I said Steam is overcrowded with shovelware so it's hard to be noticed even if you have a good game, hence it's good there's now an alternate place you can go to try sell your game.
Yes, but the developer is still paying the costs of that 'phantom' middle-man ;) I.e. either by being forced to take on a digital publisher (for marketing/visibility) or having to pay for that yourself. The shelfspace in a store is limited, so you knew your game would be there somewhere. It was similar to this on Steam in the early days; Steam provided some of the things a publisher originally did. But now, with unlimited 'shelf' space, your game can effectively diapppear on a storefront.
If you ask me, they should work it out with the devs; make a different split for gift cards. It's really not that hard to do. What I suspect is happening is that Epic just doesn't want to go into gift cards. They either don't see a profit in them or consider them a hassle. Which is a shame.
Did you just 'my friend me'? :D Epic is going for the big money with those titles, same way as Steam reduced the split for their largest partners (but not for idies, oh no). Nevertheless, Epic store IS an opportunity for the indie devs.
what I never get, why are people expecting Valve/Steam to market games for the developer? they are a store, they sell your game, but its your job to make it known to the people that might be interested in it.
the argument that the Epic store is better for devs cause its less crowded doesn't make much sense in that regard. It might be right now cause it hasnt many games on it anyways. But what happens when the store gets more crowded, do you think Epic will market individual indie dev games?
Are people mad at Amazon that some new hidden gem indie movie that just got released on blu-ray isnt marketed by them and just goes under in the flood of movies that get sold on Amazon? Or a new book?
Why is it only with valve that the producer of the good that is sold demands that the store who sells it also needs to market it? And what would be a fair solution anyway? Valve already has so many ways to discover and kinda promote games on Steam to show them too customers. I mean what else should they do?
Its not valves job to market your game, as it isn't Amazons job to market your book or movie.
I hope it kinda makes sense what I typed cause I am down with a cold at the moment and cant think straight.
I just mention this cause people often say Steam is too crowded and games don't sell anymore cause of that instead of seeing it as a positive that everyone can use the infrastructure and can sell their product. Which is a net positive to everyone
the argument that the Epic store is better for devs cause its less crowded doesn't make much sense in that regard. It might be right now cause it hasnt many games on it anyways. But what happens when the store gets more crowded, do you think Epic will market individual indie dev games?
Are people mad at Amazon that some new hidden gem indie movie that just got released on blu-ray isnt marketed by them and just goes under in the flood of movies that get sold on Amazon? Or a new book?
Why is it only with valve that the producer of the good that is sold demands that the store who sells it also needs to market it? And what would be a fair solution anyway? Valve already has so many ways to discover and kinda promote games on Steam to show them too customers. I mean what else should they do?
Its not valves job to market your game, as it isn't Amazons job to market your book or movie.
I hope it kinda makes sense what I typed cause I am down with a cold at the moment and cant think straight.
I just mention this cause people often say Steam is too crowded and games don't sell anymore cause of that instead of seeing it as a positive that everyone can use the infrastructure and can sell their product. Which is a net positive to everyone
Valve, the megacorp.
As opposed to Epic, the... indie startup valued at over 4 times what Valve is valued at, per quick Googles.
.......why would you exclude anything? Are they somehow not PC games suddenly?
There's not a lot of games skipping Steam indeed. The problem is you're looking at it the wrong way. For you, people cant skip Steam because it's a de-facto monopoly. The reality is it's just a better tool.
Basically, I'll make a simple analogy of the situation. You're asking 100 person the following thing: There's two plates here. One is a chocolate cake, the other is a plate full of dirt.
People will take the chocolate cake. Because it's just the better. Steam isn't lacking competitors in term of numbers when it comes to launchers. But the others, save for GOG which might be relevant in the next few months, are all terrible when it comes to their tool suite. You're basically whining that the people prefers the best tools right now.
When it comes to storefronts though, Steam face a more fierce competition, that they entertained themselves. When more than half of the reviews for DMC5 comes from sales outside of Steam, I see healthy competition at play here.
Except many people can't sell their game there? Do you even know what you're talking about? How do you sell a game on EGS if Epic says no?
Not counting them because reasons, i see you keep streaching it 🤣
Because this is always the argument they resort to so they can win a debate. "Name X success story, but you must follow my arbitrary restrictions because it ups my chance of appearing right!" They're betting on the other party not being a living Wikipedia that have memorised every sale figure of every game so they can win at this.
Because this is what you said:
So I'm asking you to provide examples of games skipping out on Steam and being successful, aside from someone like Blizzard, who was established in the PC space before Steam came along.
Why would it matter if they were established before Steam? Either Steam is a monopoly or defacto monopoly as you say it or it's not.
on top of my head, dwarf fortress....
I know it will release on Steam soon, but it was major successful for ten years now without steam...
What? Why would you exclude anyone? You're not making sense. In what way are the games you listed yourself not PC games? You already listed games that were successful without being on Steam. You haven't provided any argument on why they don't count
We are seeing peak logic contortion to defend a company that treats their employees like shit, breaks backers' promises, gatekeeps indies by only allowing 'not crappy games', and offer the base minimum services to their customers. That's what people are contorting to support.
There are a few small, modestly successful games that have avoided steam over the years, such as every single Electronic Arts game since 2012, Minecraft, League of Legends, and Fortnite.