That's a bold decision, store-wide sales are one of the most effective way to promote a webstore IMO.
That's a bold decision, store-wide sales are one of the most effective way to promote a webstore IMO.
Doubtful. It seems epic wants to go about it their own way and if sales take a nose dive I doubt they will change much.I wonder if they'll change their stance when their sales nosedive during seasonal sales events on other stores (not only Steam) as well as days like Black Friday and Cyber Monday.
This seems catastrophic for consumers; the presumption of influencer impartiality goes out of the window the second they are incentivized when people buy games. Evidently, the intent is to make influencers recommend Epic store games (where they can get a share of the revenue) rather than Steam games (where they can't).
As a developer myself, I want nothing to do with visibility that is obtained by paying off theorethically impartial sources like influencers. I want influencers to recommend my game if they think it's good, not because someone (me, Epic or anyone else) is paying them to. I really hope this is only for the first 24 months and then things return to a less murky state, but as it stands it's already quite a stain.
I've been a pretty strong defender of the Epic store regarding other controversial issues like "moneyhatted" exclusivity, but this is where I draw the line. Paying reviewers to recommend your game is fucking gross.
On YouTube, almost all the big names that do variety games are both.I would agree on most points, but there will be different filters for "press" and "influencers." The idea being that reviewers as such will not get a referral link together with a copy. I suppose we're to think of traditional outlet like Gamespot when it comes to press. Though the line between a reviewer and influencer can be blurry for certain channels.
I do the same. I browse the New Releases section of Steam every day. I do not like to rely on the automatic stuff.
Nah I doubt it's a survey because I haven't recieved one yet and I pre-ordered fortnite.A survey perhaps. Maybe something more questionable, but with privacy regulations looming over them I would really doubt that.
Same here. If I read curated lists then I know I might miss stuff that I like.
That's part of the reason I don't personally like steam though. Because the new releases list is exhaustive. I know that there's too much to look at, but I can keep on top of everything on Switch & PS4.
The game is made by 1 dude and still in early access. I don't think a game like that is getting marketing push anywhere but I may be wrong about Chinese influencers there. Though I came to know about the game because of the youtube trailer he made which was posted here on resetera, not because of steam.Actually it probably got marketing in China. If you turn off filtered reviews, there are ALOT of Chinese reviews, meaning that it's probably getting a push in China.
saying there's 0 marketing and 0 influencers when you're viewing it from exclusively a western perspective is a bit misleading?(In fact there's only around 200 english reviews, so we can assume that it's a popular/big title in China compared to the west).
In about five to six years' time, Galyonkin expects to achieve 50% of Steam's userbase. However, he doesn't know yet roughly how many Fortnite players will convert to buyers of other games, as it's too early to tell.
The game is made by 1 dude and still in early access. I don't think a game like that is getting marketing push anywhere.
Though I came to know about the game because of the youtube trailer he made which was posted here on resetera, not because of steam.
First of all, *huge* thanks to daxy for all the work you put into this.
The first thing that comes to mind after reading all of this, and his most recent tweets, is how... "fluid" Epic plans seems to be. They are throwing a lot of money at the problem, but hoping to fix a lot of things later. A good example would be the refund rights that they just implemented now.
The fact that the Fortnite audience has a small overlap with the Steam one is not that surprisingly really. You just have to look at this very forum to see the more hardcore gamer audience don't really reflect the huge popularity of the game. It also reinforces the notion that Steam was never the "monopoly" that many people kept repeating in all these threads. However, Epic is clearly going after Steam users, demonstrated by the games they paid for exclusivity that were already slated for release there.
And finally, about the discoverability.... well, those plans don't sound very good for smaller developers. As soon as the store has a bigger number games things are going to get buried really fast. And that's *if* you can get it in past the curation.
And yet one of the biggest complaints indie developers had in the past months is how the Steam algorithm changed and they were not getting visits to their pages. So it appears to very important.
I would agree on most points, but there will be different filters for "press" and "influencers." The idea being that reviewers as such will not get a referral link together with a copy. I suppose we're to think of traditional outlet like Gamespot when it comes to press. Though the line between a reviewer and influencer can be blurry for certain channels.
One of the top sellers on Steam, over 2000 reviews in 2 days and 96% are positive, 0 marketing, 0 "influencers" promoting it and it is basically paid demo at current state. If you do something interesting and unique word of mouth is more-less enough.
I think the influencer idea sounds good on paper but I expect it to backfire spectacularly. There are so many pitfalls with giving an influencer money for a game recommendation:This seems catastrophic for consumers; the presumption of influencer impartiality goes out of the window the second they are incentivized when people buy games. Evidently, the intent is to make influencers recommend Epic store games (where they can get a share of the revenue) rather than Steam games (where they can't).
As a developer myself, I want nothing to do with visibility that is obtained by paying off theorethically impartial sources like influencers. I want influencers to recommend my game if they think it's good, not because someone (me, Epic or anyone else) is paying them to. I really hope this is only for the first 24 months and then things return to a less murky state, but as it stands it's already quite a stain.
I've been a pretty strong defender of the Epic store regarding other controversial issues like "moneyhatted" exclusivity, but this is where I draw the line. Paying reviewers to recommend your game is fucking gross.
So why are you blindly agreeing with them moneyhatting devs for exclusivity but this is where you say they step over the line? Both are equally bad.Please stop spreading "if your game is interesting people will magically start buying it" misinformation, especially if you aren't a developer yourself. Even if it's not based on ignorant, false assumptions about anecdotal cherry-picked examples.
So why are you blindly agreeing with them moneyhatting devs for exclusivity but this is where you say they step over the line? Both are equally bad.
I think the influencer idea sounds good on paper but I expect it to backfire spectacularly. There are so many pitfalls with giving an influencer money for a game recommendation:
1) The influencer is going to get hit hard with being called a "sellout". Potential loss in fan base for the influencer as viewership typically will not going to want to see a recommendation based upon money exchanged with the developer itself.
2) If scenario one doesn't happen this could lead to a worse situation where power to cover games can be negotiated by said influencer. So an influencer could say "I'll cover your game if you give me x percentage cut".
3). If power goes to the influencers for coverage developers now need to negotiate with every popular influencer to try and get coverage. If a popular influencer knows one of his or her competitors are getting X cut for covering a game then he or she will want a similar cut. Who knows how big of a percentage a developer will have to give to to get coverage from all popular sources.
4) This will be another case then of hand picking winners and losers because only the most popular influencers will get paid for coverage.
I really don't think epic intended anything nefarious with the influencer program. I just don't see it working out.
You can disagree with me all you want but you are wrongBecause... actually, you might want to sit down for this, it's going to blow your mind.
OK, ready? Here goes...
Because I disagree with you that they are equally bad.
Hopefully you can get over the shock of this revelation in a few days.
Yes, from time to time, something good & original starts winning traction by word-of-mouth, until it finally it gets viral, or receives a good review of a big site, or something like that. It happens.
It happens to... 2% of indie games. What are the other 98% of games is going to do? Your business plan can't be 'doing the best game possible and it will be recognized as such', because that's also what other thousands competitors are trying.
Most indie devs WANT exposures of influencers.
It is just a flat percentageI don't think devs/publishers would be able to set the percentage per streamer; I hope it's just a flat percentage for all referral links for a particular game. Even then, it's still wide open to ways to unfairly game the system for profit and there's still a chance smaller games get overlooked for more "click-worthy" ones.
Hopefully Epic comes up with ways to promote games that don't rely on paying for referrals.
This is what I have been always saying. They are chasing an audience that, most likely (can't back this up with facts) usually only plays F2P games. Add to that the lack of sales and well, it will be hard to convince them to buy games. Epic themselves should know that, considering how Paragon was dying and Fortnite basically nailed the coffin. And if the Battle Royale mode wasn't F2P, the store wouldn't even exist.So....60%(ish) of Fortnite's players don't use steam at all (either due to being a different audience, or not being interested in the bevy of deals/features Steam offers), and yet, you expect them to start buying non-F2P games at the Epic store?
....Good luck with that.
I think the influencer idea sounds good on paper but I expect it to backfire spectacularly. There are so many pitfalls with giving an influencer money for a game recommendation:
1) The influencer is going to get hit hard with being called a "sellout". Potential loss in fan base for the influencer as viewership typically will not going to want to see a recommendation based upon money exchanged with the developer itself.
2) If scenario one doesn't happen this could lead to a worse situation where power to cover games can be negotiated by said influencer. So an influencer could say "I'll cover your game if you give me x percentage cut".
3). If power goes to the influencers for coverage developers now need to negotiate with every popular influencer to try and get coverage. If a popular influencer knows one of his or her competitors are getting X cut for covering a game then he or she will want a similar cut. Who knows how big of a percentage a developer will have to give to to get coverage from all popular sources.
4) This will be another case then of hand picking winners and losers because only the most popular influencers will get paid for coverage.
I really don't think epic intended anything nefarious with the influencer program. I just don't see it working out.
I suppose Epic got the biggest game in the world by being fluid/swapping things on the fly, they must wanna apply that to the store and see what works?
Their cross-platform stuff becoming a thing in fall for everybody tells me they want like eight Fortnites, not just one
This is what I have been always saying. They are chasing an audience that, most likely (can't back this up with facts) usually only plays F2P games. Add to that the lack of sales and well, it will be hard to convince them to buy games. Epic themselves should know that, considering how Paragon was dying and Fortnite basically nailed the coffin. And if the Battle Royale mode wasn't F2P, the store wouldn't even exist.
A good example here would be the success of World of Warcraft that, as analysts explained to us ten years ago, has "vastly expanded MMORPG market beyond all expectations".
Except it didn't. It created a new market, World of Warcraft market, gathered new audience from other games in different genres, attracted quite a few people that haven't played before, but haven't expanded MMORPG market much. There were no big successful MMORPGs after World of Warcraft not because WoW took all the audience, but because there were never too many people in "MMORPG but not World of Warcraft" market to begin with.
Please remember companies are not making pro consumer moves , they make decisions that are good for business first and if that happens to be good for you then great but as soon as a better business opportunity comes along they will shift their strategy.
Same here. If I read curated lists then I know I might miss stuff that I like.
That's part of the reason I don't personally like steam though. Because the new releases list is exhaustive. I know that there's too much to look at, but I can keep on top of everything on Switch & PS4.
There is no significant different between influencers and reviewers anymore (if there ever were such). For all intents and purposes influencers are every bit as much a reviewer as someone on GameSpot's payroll.
Even that is incorrect. Epic is actually the first storefront owner paying 3rd party devs and publishers to keep their games away from competing storefronts. They deserve all the shit they get for this.
It's UE4, the engine by default looks that good graphically. Plus there's the marketplace to buy assets from, and I guess the developer may have had some friends to do concept art in case he didn't do it himself.I was really surprised to read it was made by one person. WIth those production values -- like, how?
Seems like Sergey is about to correct some of the points:
https://twitter.com/galyonkin/status/1084872739343814656
This actually isn't true. Facebook does this with their Oculus store. And I don't mean paying for the full development of a game (which they do), but just paying developers of games that are already well on their way to have them be exclusive to their store, timed or otherwise.
Well they are trying to aim for 4-5 years from now, by which point a lot of those kids will end up earning money and pay for games on a store they have been using for years. The retention is more important. Short term they'll get the other audience from other stores via exclusivity. That is my guess atleast based on what he said about aiming for the future.So....60%(ish) of Fortnite's players don't use steam at all (either due to being a different audience, or not being interested in the bevy of deals/features Steam offers), and yet, you expect them to start buying non-F2P games at the Epic store?
....Good luck with that.
- There is more on external pricing can't be lower than Epic, extra influencer charges to developers and so on.
From what I understood, that's all fine. The base price of games cannot differ from the EGS's base price (i.e. the pre-discount price in both cases). While Galyonkin says that this isn't a good deal for devs because those third party stores take a higher cut in comparison to Epic's store, nothing is stopping devs from putting their games on them anyway (once they can generate keys). In the future, GMG and other distributors like it may well have EGS games with post-discount prices for pre-orders lower than EGS.
Oh, one thing I forgot to mention was that Steam's policy change to their cut was a response to EGS launching. According to Galyonkin, Valve got word of Epic's plans through its partners and rushed out the change ahead of Epic's announcement. Spicy!
A survey perhaps. Maybe something more questionable, but with privacy regulations looming over them I would really doubt that.
We collect some information automatically when you visit our websites or use our games, game engines, and applications. If a combination of information that we collect does identify you as an individual, we will treat the combined information as personal information. We typically aggregate the data that we collect automatically and use it in statistical form to determine trends among groups of users, rather than using it to identify individuals.
We collect information automatically through technologies such as web browsers, cookies, log files, web beacons, and our back-end servers collect usage data transmitted from our games and other software. We use the information for purposes such as modifying or improving features, managing advertising, addressing technical issues, preventing fraud or misuse of our services, and conducting data analytics. The type of information that we automatically collect may vary, but generally includes: