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

123457»

Comments

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    edited December 2018
    Quizzical said:
    Torval said:
    gervaise1 said:
    Daranar said:
    gervaise1 said:
    As someone else mentioned earlier, it appears that Epic is more dev friendly than steam, but steam is a bit more consumer friendly.  As a consumer, I know where I'm going...
    Charging 30% rather than 12% is more consumer friendly? Seriously?  
    <snip>

    I think you may not be understanding that there is virtually no benefit to the consumer in the difference in fees.   I know someone earlier mentioned that with lower fees the devs could give a better product.

    <snip>
    Read my previous post.
    Summary: even if the price we see is the same if devs make more money then that will help devs stay afloat (had some closures this year). More devs = more games = more competition.  
    The market seems over saturated to me. This could actually just prolong the inevitable crash that follows prolonged over saturation. Or if the fragmentation results in lower sales, hasten it. Either way it doesn't resolve the issues that crippling some kinds of PC games development.

    Ten years ago this entire thing might have mattered, but now I don't think so. Even back then it probably would have just hastened to the timeline to over saturation.

    In this instance Capitalism is working against creativity. More competition is going to bring better games that make more money, not more creative diversity and quality of product. In other words, I think over saturation will lead to fewer less lucrative games and more competition amongst the high money makers. That will mean fewer narrative driven types with DLC/xpacs and more GaaS. Even then I think longevity will be shorter lived if those games don't meet revenue expectations. My examples are the long string of online titles that have come and gone. Rumor has it HotS may be next on the list.

    Just something to consider. Maybe propping up a ton of mediocre indie studios is a bad idea for the health of the better studios, artists, and programmers.
    The market is over-saturated, but that's due in no small part to the dominant gaming platform giving up all pretenses of actual, professional curation of their storefront.

    If Epic and Discord will actively curate theirs to weed out the bullshit, half-assed titles Steam allows to fester freely because they're, quite frankly, too lazy and cheap to spend money continuing to curate for their customers, then that helps the quality dev studios, too.

    However, for it to help, consumers have to actually buy into the idea that not having to deal with bullshit money grab titles is worth downloading another launcher.
    Curation to keep out junk is not that easy to do.  Obviously, you want to exclude junk like the Steam games whose only reason for existence is to make it easy to rack up a ton of cards and achievements.  Even Steam tried to crack down on that to some degree.  And you obviously don't want to exclude good quality indie games.

    But there's a ton of space between those two things, and people will disagree on where exactly to draw the line.  No matter where you draw the line, there will be a number of games that are very close to it, and people will argue as to whether the game should be allowed in the store or not.

    Even with their policy of allowing just about everything, Steam has still run into controversies over what exactly constitutes adult content that they should exclude.  And even most of the terrible games are pretty obviously not adult content.  Try to make a curated library that only allows games that are actually good and your only chance at not constantly dealing with one controversy after the next is if nearly everyone decides to just ignore your store entirely.
    I think you may be overplaying the fear of controversy here.

    Steam has repeatedly made moves to open the gates wider to just about anyone who can throw together a program that merely manages to execute when called.

    And Steam has no responsibility to provide an open marketplace for all games; they can exclude a game for whatever reason they like, really, and when it comes to quality, they can definitely do so.  I'm arguing that's one of the least controversial areas to draw a line.  You start discussing censorship or removal of games based on the ideas presented within the game, as opposed to whether the game functions well and has at least an adequately entertaining loop, that's when you start inviting consumer ire.  Consumers don't mind you weeding out bad products for them, it's when you weed out offensive products that everyone loses their minds, grabs their helmets and spears, and forms up on either side of the battlefield.

    We recognize Valve has the ability to tell a dev "we don't think your product is a high enough quality to deserve our marketing it to consumers."  We generally have no issue with this as a rule.   We, as a general population, tend to have an issue when Valve says "based on our moral values as a company, we don't think your product's ideas or themes are worthy of marketing to our consumers."

    image
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,153
    Quizzical said:
    Curation to keep out junk is not that easy to do.  Obviously, you want to exclude junk like the Steam games whose only reason for existence is to make it easy to rack up a ton of cards and achievements.  Even Steam tried to crack down on that to some degree.  And you obviously don't want to exclude good quality indie games.

    But there's a ton of space between those two things, and people will disagree on where exactly to draw the line.  No matter where you draw the line, there will be a number of games that are very close to it, and people will argue as to whether the game should be allowed in the store or not.

    Even with their policy of allowing just about everything, Steam has still run into controversies over what exactly constitutes adult content that they should exclude.  And even most of the terrible games are pretty obviously not adult content.  Try to make a curated library that only allows games that are actually good and your only chance at not constantly dealing with one controversy after the next is if nearly everyone decides to just ignore your store entirely.
    I think you may be overplaying the fear of controversy here.

    Steam has repeatedly made moves to open the gates wider to just about anyone who can throw together a program that merely manages to execute when called.

    And Steam has no responsibility to provide an open marketplace for all games; they can exclude a game for whatever reason they like, really, and when it comes to quality, they can definitely do so.  I'm arguing that's one of the least controversial areas to draw a line.  You start discussing censorship or removal of games based on the ideas presented within the game, as opposed to whether the game functions well and has at least an adequately entertaining loop, that's when you start inviting consumer ire.  Consumers don't mind you weeding out bad products for them, it's when you weed out offensive products that everyone loses their minds, grabs their helmets and spears, and forms up on either side of the battlefield.

    We recognize Valve has the ability to tell a dev "we don't think your product is a high enough quality to deserve our marketing it to consumers."  We generally have no issue with this as a rule.   We, as a general population, tend to have an issue when Valve says "based on our moral values as a company, we don't think your product's ideas or themes are worthy of marketing to our consumers."
    Certainly, Valve has the right to refuse to publish junk on Steam--legally, morally, and in any other sense you can think of.  The problem is that there is so little agreement as to which games are good and which are bad.  If they tried to carefully curate their library, we'd have an endless parade of studios behind rejected games making a big fuss about it anywhere and everywhere that they can.  That's why Steam hasn't tried to be restrictive about it.  Epic or Discord or anyone else will face exactly the same incentives.

    I played Hyper Universe for a few months early this year.  If you try to look up information on it, trolls whining about censorship will be a significant fraction of what you find.  The "censorship" that they're complaining about is that a few characters showed about an inch less of skin in the later betas as compared to the earlier betas, and you'd never guess that the new models were "censored" if someone didn't tell you so.  But if you read about a game considering whether to play it and instead of finding people saying that the game is fun because of this or that, you find trolls who don't even like the game whining about censorship, you're less likely to play it.

    If Epic tries to carefully curate a library and rejects a lot of relatively low quality indie games, a considerable fraction of what people hear about their game store will be "we made this awesome game and Epic is trying to ruin our company".  That's not good marketing for a game store, especially if you think that an occasional rejected title is actually good and you want to play it.
    MadFrenchie
  • cagancagan Member UncommonPosts: 445
    thanx for the article, got my free subnautica :)
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,787
    @Quizzical you get to keep the games. Twitch Prime does something similar with free games and perks throughout the year.

    @MadFrenchie GoG is well curated and still over saturated. I don't think curation is the answer to saturation although I would appreciate a much better curated Steam. Also, curation is expensive and I don't always like those decisions. Asset flips and cash grabs suck though I agree. Hate that noise on Steam right now.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    @Quizzical you get to keep the games. Twitch Prime does something similar with free games and perks throughout the year.

    @MadFrenchie GoG is well curated and still over saturated. I don't think curation is the answer to saturation although I would appreciate a much better curated Steam. Also, curation is expensive and I don't always like those decisions. Asset flips and cash grabs suck though I agree. Hate that noise on Steam right now.
    Yeah I won't attempt to argue poor curation is the sole reason, but it certainly contributes to have such an easy route to your title being placed in front of so many customers with very little in the way of checks.

    I've began using GoG more lately even so, because they make at least some effort to curate their library.  I've grown quite sick of the amount of garbage I have to sort through on Steam to, say, check out their specials list.
    TorvalSedrynTyros

    image
Sign In or Register to comment.