Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

One Studio Would Have Earned +$350k If Its Game Could Have Launched on Epic - MMORPG.com News

13567

Comments

  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,370
    Steam provides some good services, as do both app stores, but that doesn't mean the cut they take isn't a problem.
    I agree, Steam deserves revenue for the community infrastructure and hosting services, but 30% seems large.

    Is there a hosting/portal service industry baseline for these kinds of contracts to compare it against?
    steam will monitor this new store and if it looks like it's getting any traction they will make an announcement about lowering their cut to match the competition. 10%?

    And if they are smart (or if I was running it) they will announce that for the next week they will only take a 5% cut so stock up on your best games!

    It's completely a non-issue for steam unless this new store suddenly becomes so amazing that everyone wants to jump ship NOW!

    Don't see how that would happen.



  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited December 2018
    Sovrath said:
    Steam provides some good services, as do both app stores, but that doesn't mean the cut they take isn't a problem.
    I agree, Steam deserves revenue for the community infrastructure and hosting services, but 30% seems large.

    Is there a hosting/portal service industry baseline for these kinds of contracts to compare it against?
    steam will monitor this new store and if it looks like it's getting any traction they will make an announcement about lowering their cut to match the competition. 10%?

    And if they are smart (or if I was running it) they will announce that for the next week they will only take a 5% cut so stock up on your best games!

    It's completely a non-issue for steam unless this new store suddenly becomes so amazing that everyone wants to jump ship NOW!

    Don't see how that would happen.
    It becomes an issue when/if revelatory successes such as Ark or, say, another Fortnite type becomes exclusive to Epic's platform.  Those kinds of titles aren't completely dependent upon the exposure Steam provides, and they can build a base for Epic's platform that makes it more attractive to devs who don't wanna cough up 30% when they can only cough up 12%.

    Steam offers more support in the form of the workshop and forums, but considering the popularity of Nexus with the modding community and it's purpose-built mod manager (and the small percentage of Steam users that use their forums with any regularity), I'm not sure those services are worth an extra 18%.

    image
  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 1,514
    As far as the services aspect goes, it looks like all the important stuff won't arrive until Q3 2019.

    According to Epic's own news post:

    Epic’s Online Services

    The service launch will begin with a C SDK encapsulating our online services, together with Unreal Engine and Unity integrations. We’ll start with a core set of features and expand over time. Specifically:

    • Cross-Platform Login, Friends, Presence, Profile, and Entitlements (coming Q2-Q3 2019 to PC, other platforms throughout 2019): Provides the core functionality for persistently recognizing players across multiple sessions and devices; identifying friends; and managing free and paid item entitlements. This will support all 7 major platforms (PC, Mac, iOS, Android, PlayStation, Xbox, Switch) to the full extent each platform allows per-title.
    • PC/Mac Overlay API (coming Q3 2019): Provides a user interface for login, friends, and other features in a game-agnostic, engine-agnostic way.
    • Cross-Platform Voice Comms (coming Q3 2019 to all platforms): Epic is building a new in-game voice communications service supporting all platforms, all stores, and all engines, which will be available for free. (For developers needing an immediately-available voice solution, check out Discord, Vivox, TeamSpeak, Ventrilo, and Mumble.)
    • Cross-Platform Parties and Matchmaking (coming Q3-4 2019 to all platforms)
    • Cross-Platform Data Storage, Cloud-Saved Games (coming Q2 2019)
    • Cross-Platform Achievements and Trophies (coming Q3 2019)

    The services described above are just our first steps. As you can see from our game and engine efforts, we’re also working on further support for user-generated content, enhanced social features, anti-cheat, and more.
  • HeretiqueHeretique Member RarePosts: 1,499
    edited December 2018

    SBFord said:



    Better 30% selling millions than 12% for hundreds...players don't want another launcher.


    Players didn't want an all-in-one digital launcher a decade ago either. They wanted to keep buying physical discs. 

    Life evolves. Games -- even game launchers -- follow suit.



    Problem is, now all these companies want their own launcher/store (and sell your info to 3rd parties, EPIC doesn't hide the fact). I'm perfectly fine with Steam, granted yes I was hesitant when WON ID's turned to Steam ID's but (IMO) I don't feel like I need 3+ launchers to play some games I enjoy and refuse to do so which directly impacts what I will buy in the future.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,416
    I would be surprised if Epic do not have a roadmap for the store.

    Set store up. Make sure the downloads and payment processes work etc. Sort out the process of passing the money to the devs etc. Get the free game promotions in place. Beat the drum amongst devs. 

    Then leverage Fortnite:
    - future new players of Fortnite downloading it from the Epic store;
    - maybe a "free update" to Fortnite that existing players can download.

    Maybe they do it some other way but they will have a plan.
    SBFord
  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,370
    Sovrath said:
    Steam provides some good services, as do both app stores, but that doesn't mean the cut they take isn't a problem.
    I agree, Steam deserves revenue for the community infrastructure and hosting services, but 30% seems large.

    Is there a hosting/portal service industry baseline for these kinds of contracts to compare it against?
    steam will monitor this new store and if it looks like it's getting any traction they will make an announcement about lowering their cut to match the competition. 10%?

    And if they are smart (or if I was running it) they will announce that for the next week they will only take a 5% cut so stock up on your best games!

    It's completely a non-issue for steam unless this new store suddenly becomes so amazing that everyone wants to jump ship NOW!

    Don't see how that would happen.
    It becomes an issue when/if revelatory successes such as Ark or, say, another Fortnite type becomes exclusive to Epic's platform.  Those kinds of titles aren't completely dependent upon the exposure Steam provides, and they can build a base for Epic's platform that makes it more attractive to devs who don't wanna cough up 30% when they can only cough up 12%.

    Steam offers more support in the form of the workshop and forums, but considering the popularity of Nexus with the modding community and it's purpose-built mod manager (and the small percentage of Steam users that use their forums with any regularity), I'm not sure those services are worth an extra 18%.
    so then essentially what we get is a sort of "console war" where Steam will start investing in amazing titles or finally launch another game form an IP they own that will be Steam exclusive.

    They have Half Life, they have Portal, they have left 4 dead series, they have team fortress.

    All games that players would LOVE to get another entry into their respective series.
    SBFordMadFrenchie



  • BananableBananable Member UncommonPosts: 194
    edited December 2018
    "One Studio Would Have Earned +$350k If Its Game Could Have Launched on Epic"
    LOLZ 
    This tittle screams :"Epic games dunno how to promote their store."

    I could be a millionaire......
    if i know winning numbers
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,163
    Bananable said:
    "One Studio Would Have Earned +$350k If Its Game Could Have Launched on Epic"
    LOLZ 
    This tittle screams :"Epic games dunno how to promote their store."

    I could be a millionaire......
    if i know winning numbers
    You and others are misinterpreting the point.
    TacticalZombeh
  • trancefatetrancefate Member UncommonPosts: 145
    SBFord said:
    Better 30% selling millions than 12% for hundreds...players don't want another launcher.
    Players didn't want an all-in-one digital launcher a decade ago either. They wanted to keep buying physical discs. 

    Life evolves. Games -- even game launchers -- follow suit.
    Uhh, yes we did. No one wanted to keep buying physical discs, it's why they went away. This is not an "evolved" (lol?) game launcher, it's just another game launcher on my desktop (the 6th after steam, uplay, origin, battle.net, hi-rez launcher, and viveport.)
    JeffSpicolialkarionlog
  • DauzqulDauzqul Member RarePosts: 1,980
    Steam, Origin, Epic = SOE.

    Mind blown!
  • DauzqulDauzqul Member RarePosts: 1,980

    seldin said:

    Steam offers so much more than just a launcher to the publisher. It offers its customer base. Steam has what other physical companies have buying power. They offer their 125m+ active users/customers. It is the same reason that Walmart/Amazon Etc. get the product they sell cheaper than mom and pop shops. Volume matters. Indie developers depend on volume and do not have the luxury of being picky. Big Studios such as Blizzard/EA etc. already have an established player base/customers and don't need Steam to make it available to their clients. Using his same reasoning he could have made 100% of the profits if they had self published but then they would have had maybe 1% of the sales.



    There are so many games on Steam that nobody even notices them.

    If you sold a game for 10 bucks, steam would take 3 and the government would take 3. With the 4 dollars remaining, split that with your 1-3 partners.

    30 percent is too high.

    Good move, EPIC! Wishing you success!
    RexKushman
  • MisterZebubMisterZebub Member LegendaryPosts: 3,584
    edited December 2018
    SBFord said:
    Competition in any market is good for consumers. Like @cheyane I want to see more money go to devs and less to distributors.
    Yes but how exactly is this going to be a boon for consumers? So they get a better percentage from sales if they sell through Epic. From this publishers example that sure as hell wouldn't have made them sell the game for a lower price. All it means is just one more middle man to have to go through to buy a game you want, while having to deal with however their service tries to sell you more shit you didn't ask for. Now a company like EA with a large stable of games, a self run service like Origin makes sense as they've cut out the middle man and all profits stay in house. But while Epic's smaller cut might be a boon to some companies I doubt that cut will be passed on to the consumer. Oh also I can't remember the last time I ever purchased a game anywhere near full price from Steam. With a smaller cut from sales I seriously doubt that Epic will be pushing their sellers to put their games on sale for anywhere near the ridiculous deals you can get through Steam.

    Sadly I think this is just going to end up like the current streaming content service industry. Each having a few decent big budget exclusives and a ton of filler low budget indie shit no one wanted to watch anyway.



    JeffSpicolimklinicTorval

    "You have kept me at your beck and call for fifteen years. I shall never again do what you demand of me. By every rule of single combat, from this moment your life belongs to me. Is that not correct? Then I shall simply declare you dead. In all of your dealings with me, you'll do me the courtesy to conduct yourself as a dead man. I have submitted to your notions of honor long enough. You will now submit to mine."

  • JeffSpicoliJeffSpicoli Member EpicPosts: 2,849
    @MisterZebub The current streaming content industry is a great example. The whole "cut the cord" is a load of Horse shit. I need my netflix for stranger things, i need my HBO go for Game of Thrones, I need my NFL package on the PSN so i can watch the games this , that and thensome before i know it im paying double what i paid for cable because every platform has their own exclusives  ? O did i mention netflix has 3 different sub options charging the most if i want to stream that sweet sweet 4k content. 

    How is this benefiting the consumer again ? With the cost of living today Im supposed to be concerned with a company missing out on a additional 350 K in profit ? LOL
    BloodaxesMisterZebub
    • Aloha Mr Hand ! 

  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member RarePosts: 2,874
    Dauzqul said:

    seldin said:

    Steam offers so much more than just a launcher to the publisher. It offers its customer base. Steam has what other physical companies have buying power. They offer their 125m+ active users/customers. It is the same reason that Walmart/Amazon Etc. get the product they sell cheaper than mom and pop shops. Volume matters. Indie developers depend on volume and do not have the luxury of being picky. Big Studios such as Blizzard/EA etc. already have an established player base/customers and don't need Steam to make it available to their clients. Using his same reasoning he could have made 100% of the profits if they had self published but then they would have had maybe 1% of the sales.



    There are so many games on Steam that nobody even notices them.

    If you sold a game for 10 bucks, steam would take 3 and the government would take 3. With the 4 dollars remaining, split that with your 1-3 partners.

    30 percent is too high.

    Good move, EPIC! Wishing you success!
    wrong really, taxes are based on your gains, so if you have a bigger gain, uncle state get a bigger pay, also note then steam and the dev will ahve to pay so if they sold 10 and steam take 3 dev would have to pay 2 to state and steam 1

    but on epic he get 1(lets round it up to make easy) company get 9 and pay 3 to state, and epci pay something like .3

    and of course that depend on country, some will tax steam more others less

    in the end if epic can give the same payments methods then steam have worldwide, then tehre is not problem, but if they can't, they will have a limited reach on people compared to steam.

    also lets get real here, devs will not stop sending his games to steam, they will also make use of epic together with steam and gog, no dev would limit his access to people just for a promised bigger share, if the said bigger share would mean less sales
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • k61977k61977 Member RarePosts: 1,245
    I see a lot of people love to jump on the band wagon and bad mouth steam. Well look at it like this steam is used by more people that any other game service out there. Think gog would most likely be second today. Steam allows devs to put out games that get a chance to be seen by millions of people that normally wouldn't if they had self published or went with another publisher. Steam was in the right place at the right time an pretty much got a monopoly these days. They replaced things like direct 2 drive which I used before I used steam. I like the fact that I can have all my games in one place and have them all update without me having to tell them to. The auto updating is a huge plus to me without having to run different programs just to do it. Having something else running just taking up hard drive space and memory just so another company can push it's own launcher/distribution platform isn't going to make me buy a game on their platform, I will continue to use steam and if it isn't there well they will just lose out on this customer. The refund policy on steam is also another thing that they have done right. I remember the days before where if you opened a game that was it there was no refund for a crap game. Could steam take a smaller portion yeah they could, but to be honest I doubt they will change anything other than what they just did.
    JeffSpicoli
  • Panther2103Panther2103 Member EpicPosts: 5,334
    edited December 2018
    SBFord said:
    Better 30% selling millions than 12% for hundreds...players don't want another launcher.
    Players didn't want an all-in-one digital launcher a decade ago either. They wanted to keep buying physical discs. 

    Life evolves. Games -- even game launchers -- follow suit.
    This. 

    I remember when Steam came out, I was an avid CS 1.6 player, and I remember all of the complaints everyone I knew had (including me). "Why do we have to install this software just to play a game", "This will use resources for no reason, just let me play it without it", and all of the disc based arguments, whats the point in buying the game if it's just going to require a program to always be running.

    The further we go into all digital, the more stores are necessary. People can complain all they want, but to further the market on a platform that allows multiple stores, you cannot have one company own 95% of the sales. That creates situations where they are allowed to have a 30% per sale fee to the devs and the devs just have to accept it, or lose out on a large portion of sales. 

    I think over time people will eventually be accustomed to multiple launchers. If people don't want to adapt then they will lose out, that's how it always works. I'll use whatever clients give me the games I want to play. I'm sure I'll always have steam running for the chat aspect, but it isn't hard to double click origin to launch a game, or double click uplay to launch a game, or GOG. 
    TacticalZombeh
  • BloodaxesBloodaxes Member RarePosts: 4,151
    Bananable said:
    "One Studio Would Have Earned +$350k If Its Game Could Have Launched on Epic"
    LOLZ 
    This tittle screams :"Epic games dunno how to promote their store."

    I could be a millionaire......
    if i know winning numbers
    You and others are misinterpreting the point.
    I won't speak for the rest, but I got the point. Epic takes less revenue so the developers get more money.

    So, yes it's good for businesses IF it become popular (Still way too early to say that). However, the customer gains nothing from this. The prices will be identical in both launchers, and it would be a terrible idea to put your game solely into a new application.

    With that logic, they shouldn't use epic client either. They would gain a lot more money if they sold their game only from their store/site. 
    TorvalJeffSpicoli

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Steam provides some good services, as do both app stores, but that doesn't mean the cut they take isn't a problem.
    I agree, Steam deserves revenue for the community infrastructure and hosting services, but 30% seems large.

    Is there a hosting/portal service industry baseline for these kinds of contracts to compare it against?
    steam will monitor this new store and if it looks like it's getting any traction they will make an announcement about lowering their cut to match the competition. 10%?

    And if they are smart (or if I was running it) they will announce that for the next week they will only take a 5% cut so stock up on your best games!

    It's completely a non-issue for steam unless this new store suddenly becomes so amazing that everyone wants to jump ship NOW!

    Don't see how that would happen.
    It becomes an issue when/if revelatory successes such as Ark or, say, another Fortnite type becomes exclusive to Epic's platform.  Those kinds of titles aren't completely dependent upon the exposure Steam provides, and they can build a base for Epic's platform that makes it more attractive to devs who don't wanna cough up 30% when they can only cough up 12%.

    Steam offers more support in the form of the workshop and forums, but considering the popularity of Nexus with the modding community and it's purpose-built mod manager (and the small percentage of Steam users that use their forums with any regularity), I'm not sure those services are worth an extra 18%.
    so then essentially what we get is a sort of "console war" where Steam will start investing in amazing titles or finally launch another game form an IP they own that will be Steam exclusive.

    They have Half Life, they have Portal, they have left 4 dead series, they have team fortress.

    All games that players would LOVE to get another entry into their respective series.
    One can only hope.  I loved TF2 before they started adding too many alternate weapons and other nonsense.

    Would love a TF3 without all that mess.

    image
  • Panther2103Panther2103 Member EpicPosts: 5,334
    Sovrath said:
    Sovrath said:
    Steam provides some good services, as do both app stores, but that doesn't mean the cut they take isn't a problem.
    I agree, Steam deserves revenue for the community infrastructure and hosting services, but 30% seems large.

    Is there a hosting/portal service industry baseline for these kinds of contracts to compare it against?
    steam will monitor this new store and if it looks like it's getting any traction they will make an announcement about lowering their cut to match the competition. 10%?

    And if they are smart (or if I was running it) they will announce that for the next week they will only take a 5% cut so stock up on your best games!

    It's completely a non-issue for steam unless this new store suddenly becomes so amazing that everyone wants to jump ship NOW!

    Don't see how that would happen.
    It becomes an issue when/if revelatory successes such as Ark or, say, another Fortnite type becomes exclusive to Epic's platform.  Those kinds of titles aren't completely dependent upon the exposure Steam provides, and they can build a base for Epic's platform that makes it more attractive to devs who don't wanna cough up 30% when they can only cough up 12%.

    Steam offers more support in the form of the workshop and forums, but considering the popularity of Nexus with the modding community and it's purpose-built mod manager (and the small percentage of Steam users that use their forums with any regularity), I'm not sure those services are worth an extra 18%.
    so then essentially what we get is a sort of "console war" where Steam will start investing in amazing titles or finally launch another game form an IP they own that will be Steam exclusive.

    They have Half Life, they have Portal, they have left 4 dead series, they have team fortress.

    All games that players would LOVE to get another entry into their respective series.
    One can only hope.  I loved TF2 before they started adding too many alternate weapons and other nonsense.

    Would love a TF3 without all that mess.
    I played TF2 competitively until they added alternate weapons and went hat crazy. The game completely changed. You can still go back and play the vanilla version on the xbox 360, it's a trip. 
    MadFrenchie
  • HorusraHorusra Member EpicPosts: 4,140
    until Epic gave me the options and abilities of Steam I will not buy games there.
    JeffSpicoli
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,801
    Wow! Apparently, Blizzard is not the only master of marketing. Then again, gamers' desire to swallow PR bullshit they want to hear is only superseded by the insatiable desire for studios to make even more money.

    So did this studio put their money where their mouth is and pull the game from Steam and publish with Epic exclusively? No? That should tell you something right there, but hey believe what makes you feel good.

    JeffSpicoliMisterZebub
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • ManestreamManestream Member UncommonPosts: 936
    Horusra said:
    until Epic gave me the options and abilities of Steam I will not buy games there.
    2 things to note.

    1st is there are not many games scheduled there as of yet so steam has no worries.

    2nd they say they aim to give a free game out every 2 weeks. Subnautica (14th-27th dec) will be the 1st starting tomorrow, followed by super meatboy (28th dec -(not sure 10-12th) Jan.

    Now i own subnautica anyways and super meatboy never interested me but i can grab that and see what its about. I am however not sure if there will be any stipulations with them. But its a nice gesture.
  • DaranarDaranar Member UncommonPosts: 376
    edited December 2018
    30% is not greedy.  How quickly we forget that devs had to pay publishers to manufacture and distribute their games to brick and mortar stores who then took a nice slice themselves.  30% publisher fee for digital distribution on the world's largest platform is nothing.  Game Studios have higher profit margins than they have ever historically had.

    According to UbiSoft, their profit margins are 55% on physical vs 70% on digital.

    For many games, moving from 30% fees to 12% publisher fees is a loss in revenue when the 12% publisher fee has a significant lower market share.  Very few publishers will pull their games from Steam.  They will publish on both.  The publishers that have pulled out from Steam or the ones trying to launch their own.  And even UBI still keeps their games on Steam in addition to their own crappy launcher.  Steam will still remain the top platform.  Though studios may have a higher margin on EPIC, they will pull in more revenue from Steam.

    EPIC would have to make MAJOR investments to pull exclusive publishing rights to some of the big games to earn any significant market share.  That or they will have to pass some of that discounted publisher fee on to the consumer (which they won't) and even then, a few dollar difference isn't enough to pull that much market share because convenience of consolidated launchers is worth a buck or two per game.


    If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!


  • SovrathSovrath Member LegendaryPosts: 27,370
    Ultimately I'm about a particular game.

    If that game is on Steam at a reasonable price I'll buy it. If it's on another platform for "a little less money" I'll still buy it on steam because I can't be bothered with saving pennies for more effort.

    If it's a significant savings I'll just buy it on the new platform.

    If it's only on that platform and I really want to play it I'll buy it on that platform.

    Whatever gets me the game I want to play.
    ConstantineMerusTacticalZombeh



  • DaranarDaranar Member UncommonPosts: 376
    SBFord said:
    That's a significant chunk of change...
    They may have earned $350k more on EPIC (with wild false assumptions) but they also would have earned millions less without Steam, if they had to physically ship and buy shelf space.
    Torval

    If I want a world in which people can purchase success and power with cash, I'll play Real Life. Keep Virtual Worlds Virtual!


Sign In or Register to comment.