You mean, doing nothing ? Because the fact QD games are happening on PC has shit to do with Epic. What Epic did was to come in at the right time and buy a year exclusivity.
There are a lot of elements that shows it was planned long before Epic even announced EGS.
Depends on how hard you lean on certain platforms. It would be literally impossible for a single dev to duplicate what Steam does for linux gaming as a whole, for example. They are literally the best in class in that environment by a very, very longshot.
Then why aren't publishers releasing there without the moneyhat? If it's so good that it makes up for the lack of Steam features, surely they'd all want to be there, they wouldn't need any extra incentive.12% is enough to get developers' interest though, and if the percentage increases a bit once they've made a stamp then so be it. The point is it doesn't need to be 30% and until now developers have had few alternatives.
On the left, you have the situation before Epic. On the right, you have the situation after Epic.
12% is enough to get developers' interest though, and if the percentage increases a bit once they've made a stamp then so be it. The point is it doesn't need to be 30% and until now developers have had few alternatives.
Are you a developer?Oh please.
Valve is already doing more than enough to justify their cut.
They're not going to budge because some irrelevant billionaire, with nothing better to do, is jumping up and down and screaming at them.
Which wouldn't even be so terrible in itself, if at very least they could spare us the cheap rhetoric and the pretense of doing all of this as the "saviors of PC gaming" (that was actually doing mighty fine without them).Epic Games is very opportunistic company. Back in Xbox 360 times they shat on PC gamers because PC gaming was "dying", because "piracy" because... reasons. Now that PC gaming is booming again their major focus is PC.
With my admittedly near-nonexistent grasp of the law involved, I kind of suspect that Steam is functionally incapable of budging. 30% is not just the industry standard - it's the market standard. Most everyone else takes 30%, on PC and consoles. This is important because those "everyone else" are Steam's competitors, existing in the same market as them.I hope to see Epic change their way for the better, or Steam budging on the 30% and keeping the market lead.
Then why aren't publishers releasing there without the moneyhat? If it's so good that it makes up for the lack of Steam features, surely they'd all want to be there, they wouldn't need any extra incentive.
But they don't have to stop releasing on Steam, just have it on both stores. They can't even go through that trouble for the higher margins? They do for other stores selling Steam keys, GMG doesn't get their keys from Valve, they get them from publishers.Because customers have made it very clear they're on the side of Valve and don't want to use EGS. Without the moneyhat it's just another expense that'd bear no fruit. Nobody said it makes up for the lack of Steam features.
Parody post?Sounds reasonable, but of course Epic still gets shit on.
Epic trying to make the industry better, but pc gamers keep fighting back.
88/12 is unsustainable, one. Two, Steam is not a monopoly. Three, 30% is the standard across all industries. Four, publishers see that money not devs, unless they self publish.Why are people mad at Epic instead of Steam and their unsustainable monopoly pricing of 30%? I thought Era was pro-developers?
Yes he is.Isn't this the same guy that said the 88/12 share is not sustainable long term?
Why are people mad at Epic instead of Steam and their unsustainable monopoly pricing of 30%? I thought Era was pro-developers?
....88/12 is unsustainable? Proof please? All I've heard from people in the industry is that is plenty for a storefront. Why should devs/pubs get robbed, just because it is the standard line you said? What a terrible reason. Because it all goes to only pubs? Might be true, but how do you know that? And at least those people took risk on the game88/12 is unsustainable, one. Two, Steam is not a monopoly. Three, 30% is the standard across all industries. Four, publishers see that money not devs, unless they self publish.
That is not to say it is not right, but EGS is clearly practicing anti-consumer practices and Steam does not.
Tim Sweeney himself said that 88/12 is unsustainable.....88/12 is unsustainable? Proof please? All I've heard from people in the industry is that is plenty for a storefront. Why should devs/pubs get robbed, just because it is the standard line you said? What a terrible reason. Because it all goes to only pubs? Might be true, but how do you know that? And at least those people took risk on the game
....88/12 is unsustainable? Proof please? All I've heard from people in the industry is that is plenty for a storefront. Why should devs/pubs get robbed, just because it is the standard line you said? What a terrible reason. Because it all goes to only pubs? Might be true, but how do you know that? And at least those people took risk on the game
People are just being babies about the EPIC store not launching perfectly -_- and boohoo they'll have to download another client for some games
Whatever. My friends have epic store, I think its working and I'm glad
Oh, Nathan Grayson, also author of editorial masterpieces like "Valve needs to stop nurturing this TOXIC PRO-CONSUMER mentality among users", among the others.Like, Kotaku wrote a whole article about Why People Are So Mad About The Epic Games Store and didn't mention this once.
It would be a good thing if it were attainable without passing costs onto customers and running the store on a nonexistent profit margin.
Valve offer that rate to successful titles because they rely on the profit from Steam's operation to fund the entire company and all the pro-consumer and pro-developer initiatives they're running, unlike EGS that runs everything off UE4 licensing and Fortnite MTX money. Also Valve may or may not be bound by competitive law to maintain the industry-standard revenue split so as not to drive smaller competitor stores out of business.Valve can do close to that but they prefer to offer rates close to that only for AAA games and/or titles that already exceed millions of sales.
Tim himself has said that pushing fees onto customers is the only way to sustain the 12% fee in developing countries. Also idk who "in the industry" you're talking, but a vast majority of the industry seems fine with paying 30% for storefronts, including PSN, XBL, iOS app store, google play store, Nintendo eShop and more.
Why are people mad at Epic instead of Steam and their unsustainable monopoly pricing of 30%? I thought Era was pro-developers?
If this is ins't a blatant low effort flamebait then I don't know what it is.
Apple set the 30% standard.Why are people mad at Epic instead of Steam and their unsustainable monopoly pricing of 30%? I thought Era was pro-developers?
If this is ins't a blatant low effort flamebait then I don't know what it is.
Going from one strong player to two would be a start. Not ideal, but better than a single player owning most of the market share, and a bunch of small players fighting for scraps. None of the smaller stores are a threat to Steam. Epic games are. That's in itself is a healthy thing. If you don't have competitors that keep you up at night, it means you're not really competing. Steam had it too good for too long. Has that made them evil? No. They're a great company. But publishers are right that they want them to sweat a little.