Its business but one business decision benefits me as a consumer , the other doesn't. I certainly dont begrudge indies for taking the deal but I wont support them or the EGS cause I dont like their business model and I fear that EGS succeeding with said strategy will be detrimental to the pc market place.
Nowhere did I try to prove anything other than that a high UA spend is normal.
Is that not what I said in the first place?
This i totally get. Some people however go crazy on the developers.. (But i understand being upset if you're a Patreon backer)
I stated seeing this kind of spending is unprecedented, you brought up other examples in other markets. You tell me.
Not UA budgets that almost entirely consists of third party exclusives and free games.
And I agree harassing and deaths threats are certainly no go areas and Im very much against this. For the most part I think you'll find that the pc community on this site is largely respectful of indie developers who are open and candid about why they are taking the deal.....But then you have developers(you know the one) who are extremely snarky about the situation, developers wholl break patreon promises and AAA publishers who'll happily preach the virtues of the EGS whilst ignoring stores with some of the same virtues and inconspicuously not mentioning the money upfront...... Those guys I wont harrass same as any dev but I wont respect or defend them either as they have absolutely no moral high ground in my book.
In the age of subscriptions I think the argument of console sized cuts needs to be addressed as well. However please explain how Epic's brand of disruptions will be better for the pc market?
No. This is a negative for customers. This is limiting competition with money hatted exclusives. Actual competition would be having the publisher list it on both stores.
It was still less than a year after the game released. You can be pissed at Epic all you want, but a game going to GamePass is about the lowest bar you could go for to measure a games success. Seriously.
Except it won't, because everyone knows it's not sustainable.
why wouldn't it just lead to valve copying their exclusive strategy instead?
Fair point and I do agree if steam where to lower their rates(along with console makers) that would be great......But, as we've just finished discussing in this very thread, there are other storefronts which offer even lower cuts than steam or Epic and yet they dont seem to being supported so clearly whilst the cut is good on paper developers and publishers just dont want this alone.......so what is it that they want?
Some people said Fortnite wouldn't have a big enough population on pc, not being on steam when the BR early access started. If a game is good people will find and play it on PC. Not all people if they very determined to only play games on one or specific apps of course.
Competition made it so their pay for multiplayer attempt was shut down. Thank goodness. People had options. Last gen people had options on console with PS3 and WiiU/Wii vs Xbox 360's pay for online multiplayer, now they don't on console unless they stick to free to play and subscription based games on PC and I think Switch.
I don't see how any action on Valve's part would stop Epic from paying millions of dollars up front in exchange for exclusivity.
Lowering the cut won't make any difference when Epic is paying upfront for exclusives <- that right there is the real draw for publishers. And it's why there's little reason for Valve to budge on their 30% fee.
On the other site, and I'm sure reddits. Just like most games that intend to be big but not be put on Steam, people laugh about it and say it's needs to be on Steam if they want players. I'll do a quick search but I doubt I'll be posting a link to that other site here. I never really used reddit when Fortnite BR Early Access launched but I'm sure it was there too. I was very close to all of this since I was anticipating Fortnite Save The World to get out of early access at the time and the BR EA was free to play without buying the Fortnite EA (didn't want to buy it just for it to be free the next week or month, and the darn thing is still pay to play haha).
As a Paragon fan this one hit close to home. Though I didn't really have problems finding quick matches on PC, especially with PS4 crossplay.#383 said:
#15 said:
That's because Ubisoft and EA aren't poaching games from other stores, which as you say yourself is "VERY scummy". It's not something I want to support. That's why I'm happy to use Uplay (now it's not a mess) and Origin but will never touch EGS. Because Epic is covering the cost of sales publishers would get if they released on other stores means we can abstain from buying from EGS without it hurting the developers. Weird, huh?
I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation.
We rarely have any indication of exactly how much money Epic is paying out, but when we do, it's in the millions. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that a lower Steam store cut would have such an impact that Epic would actually be unable to find many developers or publishers willing to take millions of dollars up front for an exclusivity deal.
Well this paragraph doesn't signal your position at all :P . Whilst I agree that the story in the OP doesn't progress the discussion, it like all other discussions on the topic exists to highlight and discuss the information we know and how it compares with industry positions overall. Throughout the past 2 threads alone you'll see that people still cling to an antiquated view of pc gaming as a whole and its nice to get the chance to hear from developers on the matter. It would be interesting to compare concurrent release data but I doubt epic would let that happen as that would show definite weakness on their part. Also for the record if the EGS store is still lacking in features consumers can "whine" all they like cause Epic wants their money after all.
Also just for the record I asked that user how Epic's specific disruption strategy would be beneficial for the pc market place and I am happy to engage, discuss and even concede on some of his views just as Im happy to read up some of the relevant literature you've suggested.Disruption is a topic where I work as well but just as important is analysing your respective market, identifying the need/gap and tailoring your product accordingly . As you've correctly noted disruption does not always benefit the customer and whilst its a comforting thought the know that the market will reach an equilibrium, observations like these are the intellectual equivalent of "water is wet" because they dont address any observations or risks associated with one market strategy over another.Coming into a conversation and pointing out that Epic wants to be a disruption whilst ignoring the greater conversation of why people dont support the disruption when youll agree that disruptions dont really have to succeed or fail is kinda......white noise.
