Well, if Epic is to be believed their exclusives have been doing quite well, so shouldn't that prove that Steam is not a monopoly?
-
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: 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
Well, if Epic is to be believed their exclusives have been doing quite well, so shouldn't that prove that Steam is not a monopoly?
I've already explained: Blizzard was already successful on PC before Steam was released.
I did you a favor by providing two examples of games that were successful without releasing on Steam (League of Legends and Minecraft). I am asking you to add to that list to prove your point "You never had to sell your games there to be successful." when that statement has only proven true for a handful of games.
They won't be cut out but they won't be offering 20-25% off Steam market prices anymore, unless you're telling me that globally (meaning worldwide) and unanimously developers and publishers will reliquinsh that money.
Or are you telling me that they'll escape the 30% revenue split, go to the EGS with claiming that's the motivation just to keep selling keys as if the 30% split was still in effect?
edit:
Because if you do I don't believe you, unless I see this happening across the board with the overwhelming majority of games sold on the EGS appearing on approved third party key sellers with the same % off they'd have on Steam.
That'd mean that the status quo for consumers is at the very least preserved if not improved, anything less and that's not "better" for consumers pricewise.
Last edited:
I hear you and I agree wholeheartedly.
As someone hoping to make a game in his lifetime, not once had I thought Steam has an obligation to sell my game for me. It just doesn't make sense, like how do they fairly market every game equally even?
All this makes me think is if I was a PC only user why would I ever back a high profile KS game when Sweeney will swoop in with cash to keep the game to Epic?
The man should just fund games outright and not do this song and dance like consumers are big old dummies.
The man should just fund games outright and not do this song and dance like consumers are big old dummies.
The casual game market like Hidden Object games, or Puzzle games or games for children also majorly exists outside of Steam. People tend to overlook those.
Or huge chunks of the hardcore simulator gaming market.
There is so much stuff out there not on Steam that calling Steam a monopoly is reaaaaaaaly stretching it even if we dont count Blizzard or EA for some strange reason
Or huge chunks of the hardcore simulator gaming market.
There is so much stuff out there not on Steam that calling Steam a monopoly is reaaaaaaaly stretching it even if we dont count Blizzard or EA for some strange reason
No, you said they didn't count. It's right there on the page still.
Many of the most successful PC games today and since the launch of Steam don't use Steam. It's not a handful, it's literally millions of players on PC everyday and the vast majority of revenue. This only increases when you move away from a US centric view of the world.
Edit: why do they have to be PC only? How is that relevant?
Last edited:
Funding games wont kidnap consumers.
For this industry tho we consumers are a necessary evil. So i dont give a single fuck when a publisher/dev asks for understanding/supporting.
Isn't that exactly what Epic, publishers and developers are doing? Are they not all saying 'f you, got mine'?
So what you're asking of us customers is this: Accept and excuse that Epic, publishers and developers are putting their own interests first, don't put our own interests first, live with the negative consequences that are present and real right now... for the vague promise that some day in the future some games might be vaguely better in some vague way? And you want us, the customers, to put our trust of that sort of thing happening in corporations and people that saw fit to break their promises to backers who trusted them sight unseen for more profit?
They were also already succesful on PC so probably doesn't count.
We apparently need to find a game not on Steam, from a developper who never released any succesful game before 2004 in order to prove that Steam is not a monopoly.
And what about all those MMOs that are not on Steam, what about more local niche markets in parts of Asia or south america or europe... huge parts of that arent on Steam either....
but I have the feeling me listing stuff wont change the opinion that Steam is a monopoly some how
but I have the feeling me listing stuff wont change the opinion that Steam is a monopoly some how
The Visual Novel market is largely not on Steam... doujin games... shmups.... what about erotic games... hardcore porn games... and on and on and on....
all these markets make money or they wouldn't exist anymore...
edit: ups DP, sorry
all these markets make money or they wouldn't exist anymore...
edit: ups DP, sorry
They're probably not successful enough to pass his goal posts, you've got to find that one VN selling as much as Fortnite and Minecraft combined and multiplied by 10.
yeah probably... cause we all know only really popular games count for reasons :P
How else do we boil down the narrative to a false dichotomy where the noble Tim Sweeney is toppling a monopoly?
I mean, the VN and porn market is exploding on Steam now since the R18 change. Ton of games getting an even bigger audience.
Tbh, while i def have sympathy for people who believed they were paying for something particylar and not receiving it, i feel like the majority of ppl who participate in kickstarters are mainly looking to play the game when it's complete. The tiers with gifts system is so wack to me, it's like theyre selling collectors editions of games
They still have some weird restrictions and are unreliable. A while ago they rejected an all-ages VN because of ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
and only course-corrected after some Twitter outcry. They still have ways to go on making it clear where they draw their arbitrary lines.
Alright, this is my last post in this thread for a while since I have to get back to work.
So many successful PC games that skip Steam that there's too many to name? And we're talking about PC games in a thread on a PC storefront. I'm not sure how adding in console games doesn't further obfuscate the discussion.
I don't know too much about Asia/SEA games but my rudimentary understanding is that Tencent is the reigning publisher and I believe they have their own launcher. You can list games released there and I would acknowledge that PC releases in those territories can be successful but I view that as an entirely different although equally valid game market.
I don't play doujin or ero/pron games, but I mean, I would hope you would acknowledge the fact that those are an ultra-niche market that are not allowed to be released in an official capacity. Shmups though, I love those, and there are plenty of them on Steam!
So many successful PC games that skip Steam that there's too many to name? And we're talking about PC games in a thread on a PC storefront. I'm not sure how adding in console games doesn't further obfuscate the discussion.
I don't know too much about Asia/SEA games but my rudimentary understanding is that Tencent is the reigning publisher and I believe they have their own launcher. You can list games released there and I would acknowledge that PC releases in those territories can be successful but I view that as an entirely different although equally valid game market.
I don't play doujin or ero/pron games, but I mean, I would hope you would acknowledge the fact that those are an ultra-niche market that are not allowed to be released in an official capacity. Shmups though, I love those, and there are plenty of them on Steam!
Better than pre-Direct times where you got nothing, or we R18 where the situation was kinda eefy.
(They really need to make more clear guidelines on what content is not approved and give actual reasons when refusing some of the content from AT LEAST the big VN publishers).
Either you ignore the things you don't want to hear, don't know anything substantial or you argue in bad faith.
You claim to be concerned for the little guys and the revenue split but you can't name any little guy that got on the store without an exclusive payment. And most of those little guys or "indies" have billion Dollar companies behind them.
And your claim that Valve reduces the splits for their biggest Partners is FACTUALLY false.
Bethesda could release Game xyz and sell 25000 copies and would have to pay 30%.
A 1-man/woman developer could release a game that sells over a million copies and would get to a 20% cut.
And the real indies who had their cut slashed down to 25% and 20% by Valve is exponentially bigger than the real indies who even got the chance to release on the Epic store.
It's a carefully worded statement to make Epic look like the good guy in all of this.
When we secure exclusivity deals in the future we are going to work with our colleagues in other stores to provide keys. Knowing full well that those stores don't see any bloody reason in supporting the distribution of a product they aren't able to sell.
Gives Epic the freedom to say that it's not them, its those other mean stores not doing it. We're the good guys here, honest!
Frankly, the behaviour of Tim and the way in which Epic are conducting themselves is atrocious. Initially I thought another store bringing something new might push the other stores and apps to improve their offering and that's the sort of competition I wanted to see. Epic and Tim though are coming across like children moaning because the big kids are being mean to them and we should all be on their side.
When we secure exclusivity deals in the future we are going to work with our colleagues in other stores to provide keys. Knowing full well that those stores don't see any bloody reason in supporting the distribution of a product they aren't able to sell.
Gives Epic the freedom to say that it's not them, its those other mean stores not doing it. We're the good guys here, honest!
Frankly, the behaviour of Tim and the way in which Epic are conducting themselves is atrocious. Initially I thought another store bringing something new might push the other stores and apps to improve their offering and that's the sort of competition I wanted to see. Epic and Tim though are coming across like children moaning because the big kids are being mean to them and we should all be on their side.
its still all the PC market, doesn't matter how different or niche they are... and yes, there are luckily a lot of shmups on Steam these days... but there is still a sizable part not on it... the whole point I was trying to make with my series of posts is that there is a huge market for PC games outised of Steam, no matter how small or big. And that some of them are not allowed on Steam as you said even more shows that Steam is NOT a monopoly as you said.
I'm sorry but you never made any sense. What exactly are we allowed to include in the list? You just keep shifting goalposts every time and never provided a valid argument as to why anything should be excluded at all.
Why should people give you a list why you keep saying 'no, doesn't count' to every entry?
Can't help but notice you ignored my post:
The irony here is that Valve, whether you believe the bullshit that they're a monopoly as opposed to what they are -- the market leader, has consistently poured resources into improving their services and improving the state of the platform and industry. They created a market of third-party Steam vendors for competitive pricing. The consumer-side features of Steam are significantly ahead of any other platform, PC or console, and at no cost to users. Steam gives a lot of power and financial opportunities for content creators and the community. They pour a lot of money into open-source development, Linux, and key middle-ware developers. They're arguably responsible for the boon of indie development as it exists today (Ease of publication, Early Access). They poured a lot of time and money into VR development, and shared their findings to the world. Their continued support for an open-platform is unprecedented. They're still a business, but they believe their methods will have long-term positive gains.
Now what have other platform-holders done when they become leaders? As people here like to say, they become arrogant. They abuse their position and try to force bullshit down people's throats.
Now what have other platform-holders done when they become leaders? As people here like to say, they become arrogant. They abuse their position and try to force bullshit down people's throats.
I mean, you have games like Escape from Tarkov, the Hi-Rez games, Warframe, World of War series etc, the Stardock games, MMOs all on their own standalone launchers. All of those have been successful, and there are more I'm missing.
basically most MMO's in the market. Even with just million sellers, we have several dozens here.
Then there are:
Minecraft
World of Tanks
And most on this list:
List of most-played video games by player count - Wikipedia
There isn't a big count in your abritary list because of reasons. As a non-MMO without an Infrastructure you have no real path to success without going to one of the big guys. But that is like saying that the Discounter market is a monopoly because you can't be successfully selling your milk without selling through the different discounters
what do you mean by "not allowed to be released in an official capacity. "?
The thing is, there has always been fantastic competition in the PC games market, between games themselves. To be honest outside of massive hits (Fortnite, Minecraft etc...), I'm not convinced the buying market is increasing at anywhere near the rate at which fantastic games are being made. Many great games fail for various reasons, don't find an audience, release at the wrong time, wrong genre at the wrong time, decide marketing is not a thing they need to do, poor support etc... The whole curation argument feels more like my game should succeed above all others because I made it and that's it.
I imagine that's why a whole lot of average devs have been successfully weaponised by Epic games, my game failed not because of me, not becuase the market is competitive but it's all Steam's fault and their greedy margins. Funny thing some are realising that Epic doesn't care about them, if you don't have a baked in audience they can poach from steam, Epic doesn't want to know you. Epic have done the same with every tinpot content creator, promised them referral riches. In a highly competitive creative risk-based industry some, many, projects will fail and some will suceed. If you want a guaranteed income become an accountant.
I imagine that's why a whole lot of average devs have been successfully weaponised by Epic games, my game failed not because of me, not becuase the market is competitive but it's all Steam's fault and their greedy margins. Funny thing some are realising that Epic doesn't care about them, if you don't have a baked in audience they can poach from steam, Epic doesn't want to know you. Epic have done the same with every tinpot content creator, promised them referral riches. In a highly competitive creative risk-based industry some, many, projects will fail and some will suceed. If you want a guaranteed income become an accountant.
maybe he thinks just cause Steam or your random game shop doesn't sell those that they are not allowed to sell at all... also not every country has the same rules for this stuff
This is a complicated subject due to the nature of the agreements between developers, publishers, stores and 3d party key sellers. Developers can make deals with 3d parties, the question is, will they want to share that regained %. What are the incentives for going 3d party seller? I.e. why do the keys pop up there in the first place?
Isn't that what everyone in a capitalistic system is doing? We can go all the way up with this type of logic ;)
I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm offering a perspective from the other side of the fence. Valve is not some benevolent entity some of you want to believe. Steam is a business and has a dominating position on the PC market. You can dislike some the things the Epic store is doing (I do), but uniformly rallying behind Steam is misguided.
So I'm either ignorant, stupid or evil. Ok, this will be an EoT from me after this respones.
You still haven't told me how that isn't going to affect those 20-25% off Steam price aside from being vague and trying to brush aside the topic.
edit: as I told you I do not believe they'll want to share that regained % globally (meaning worldwide) and unanomously, unless we believe trickle down economy?
I haven't backed Shenmue III but the events that happened will stop me from ever back a game on Kickstarter again. Thanks Deep Silver, thanks Epic.
Developers can make separate deals with 3rd party resellers with a different split or rules. I believe that's how Humble Bundle works in the first place?
I know the perspective from the other side of the fence. "88% is better than 70% and we like money". "We like bags of cash". It's not complicated. The fact of the matter is that we, as customers, like money too. We don't want to spend them on bad products and services and we don't like wasting them. People are "uniformly rallying behind Steam" because Valve is offering a vastly superior service. There is nothing misguided about choosing the better product.
That's vague and up in the air and also reliant upon developers deciding to forgo the money they claim they're trying to obtain.
The deals as you put them involve the developers selling keys to the resellers and the latter reselling keys at a discounted price.
However if a developer sells their keys for 88% to the key sellers, the latter won't be selling them for less (outside of very special promotions) unless they are in the business of bankrupting themselves.
Those deals would imply developers are selling keys for about the same as now in order to maintain the status quo, they won't. Why would they?
edit: we're literally in a thread created as a result of multiple entities backstabbing part of their audience in an effort to get money and you want me to believe companies will reduce their potential increased revenue out of their good hearts.
Last edited:
And yet from all Games Media PR being thrown at us about epic and developers, we are suppose to pretend they benevolent and that good things will be given to us if we just support Epic now. Like somehow, w are suppose to believe Epic and Developers are not in it for profit, unlike Valve.
Capitalism isn't a one-way street. If developers and Epic have the right to choose the better deal, so do customers.
I really dont get this better deal stuff, like i understand steam as being a far superior platform and i get that for some ppl it's no steam no sale, but how are you choosing the better deal when you're choosing between playing something and not playing something? Like it's literally play or dont play, i see no deal
