Howdy, Stranger!

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

Epic Store will stop exclusives if Steam changes revenue split, CEO says

12346

Comments

  • AAAMEOWAAAMEOW Member UncommonPosts: 859
    Obviously epic store is just doing PR.  They are all business.  

    But at the same time steam is pretty shady that they don't allow games to sell cheaper on other plateform.  
  • DataDayDataDay Member UncommonPosts: 1,528
    Ridelynn said:

    Epic makes a lot of money on Engine licensing (Unreal Engine). That is their primary source of revenue.

    Valve makes a lot of money on Distribution (Steam). That is their primary source of revenue.

    Now, Valve also has an engine, but it was never very high profile, and Epic has Distribution, but it isn't high profile (yet, anyway)...

    So let's see... 

    Epic doesn't mind a bit of storefront revenue, but what they really want to do is sell licensing. 

    Valve depends mainly on that storefront revenue.




    There is a bit of nuance to be found in this dichotomy.

    Valve licensed and sold a game engine in the past, and made a big deal about releasing source 2 which would allow developers to make games and release them on the steam platform by 2015. They never hit that deadline, and opted instead just to pretend their previous announcements never happened.

    At Steamdays 2014, they were also heavily selling UGC (User Generated Content) as a viable approach to game development and revenue gain. Beyond some silly hats for TF2 and some armor/weapon models for Dota, we never really saw them push it further.

    Over all revenue: Left for dead, team fortress , half-life, and Dota were all bringing in the big bucks. They could easily bring in an extremely large amount of money if they just kept developing their franchises.

    Valve also is producing VR hardware (new physical headset) and is most likely licensing that VR tech out to 3rd party manufacturing. VR is still projected to be a multibillion dollar industry in the future by venture capitalist. So they have some revenue gain from that as well.

    I'd argue that Valve started to rely too much on "easy" revenue via distribution profits, and thus had no incentive or desire to actually deliver on their other projects, including the game development from which they were originally known for.

    For many of us, developers and consumers alike, we want to see Valve actually go back to developing games and following through with a lot of their previously hyped projects.

    -

    TLDR: Valve is not really as reliant on the steam revenue as many think, they just got fat and lazy from it.
    MadFrenchieChildoftheShadows
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member RarePosts: 4,924
    Or... hear me out, this is a wild looney crazy idea I just thought of. Release on both platforms and maximize profits instead of gambling, and triple dog daring the consumer base to pick one or the other. Crazy right?
    You ARE nuts! Let consumers choose? Blaspheme!
    ShaddyDaddy

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • ShaddyDaddyShaddyDaddy Member UncommonPosts: 146
    AlBQuirky said:
    Or... hear me out, this is a wild looney crazy idea I just thought of. Release on both platforms and maximize profits instead of gambling, and triple dog daring the consumer base to pick one or the other. Crazy right?
    You ARE nuts! Let consumers choose? Blaspheme!
    I have to say, you are crazy if you think that we, as consumers, know what is best for us! These company's know EXACTLY how we should spend our money, and we shouldn't question it. I'm going to go drink my koolaid now, and pay 15 bucks to see the ending of my next game. 
    AlBQuirky
  • BruceYeeBruceYee Member RarePosts: 1,527
    Or... hear me out, this is a wild looney crazy idea I just thought of. Release on both platforms and maximize profits instead of gambling, and triple dog daring the consumer base to pick one or the other. Crazy right?
    I mentioned this in another thread but STO offered different exclusive in-game items depending on where you bought the game(Amazon, Gamestop etc). Steam could offer a different in-game item than Epic then the player could choose which store to buy the game from based on that. Maybe if the items were tradeable people would buy a copy on both stores just to get both items.
  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,400
    AAAMEOW said:
    Obviously epic store is just doing PR.  They are all business.  

    But at the same time steam is pretty shady that they don't allow games to sell cheaper on other plateform.  


    This is the problem.  And it isn't just steam, it is pretty much everywhere there is a prominent place to sell.  If you want to sell your items on Amazon it has to be the cheapest price.  You can't sell on your own website for cheaper or any other place for cheaper. 

    If this sort of rule were disallowed then it would allow for more competition.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 959
    DataDay said:
    Ridelynn said:

    Epic makes a lot of money on Engine licensing (Unreal Engine). That is their primary source of revenue.

    Valve makes a lot of money on Distribution (Steam). That is their primary source of revenue.

    Now, Valve also has an engine, but it was never very high profile, and Epic has Distribution, but it isn't high profile (yet, anyway)...

    So let's see... 

    Epic doesn't mind a bit of storefront revenue, but what they really want to do is sell licensing. 

    Valve depends mainly on that storefront revenue.




    There is a bit of nuance to be found in this dichotomy.

    Valve licensed and sold a game engine in the past, and made a big deal about releasing source 2 which would allow developers to make games and release them on the steam platform by 2015. They never hit that deadline, and opted instead just to pretend their previous announcements never happened.

    At Steamdays 2014, they were also heavily selling UGC (User Generated Content) as a viable approach to game development and revenue gain. Beyond some silly hats for TF2 and some armor/weapon models for Dota, we never really saw them push it further.

    Over all revenue: Left for dead, team fortress , half-life, and Dota were all bringing in the big bucks. They could easily bring in an extremely large amount of money if they just kept developing their franchises.

    Valve also is producing VR hardware (new physical headset) and is most likely licensing that VR tech out to 3rd party manufacturing. VR is still projected to be a multibillion dollar industry in the future by venture capitalist. So they have some revenue gain from that as well.

    I'd argue that Valve started to rely too much on "easy" revenue via distribution profits, and thus had no incentive or desire to actually deliver on their other projects, including the game development from which they were originally known for.

    For many of us, developers and consumers alike, we want to see Valve actually go back to developing games and following through with a lot of their previously hyped projects.

    -

    TLDR: Valve is not really as reliant on the steam revenue as many think, they just got fat and lazy from it.
    That's what happens with low effort high reward.
    Gdemami
  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,400
    There would be no upside to valve lowering the rake on games.  It isn't like they would get twice the volume by halving their take. 
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 959
    centkin said:
    There would be no upside to valve lowering the rake on games.  It isn't like they would get twice the volume by halving their take. 
    It removes the chances of others moving to a different platform. It won't happen overnight, but if developers are using something else so will players.
  • DataDayDataDay Member UncommonPosts: 1,528
    edited May 1
    Somewhat relevant news: Rocket League developer Psyonix agreed to be owned by Epic. Rocket League will go Epic Store exclusive later this year. Psyonix has worked closely with Epic in the past and wish to push esports further on Epic's platform.

    I guarantee you that a large part of the incentives given to the developer is the lower revenue cut as well as financing.

    Valve has also released information regarding its new $500-$999 VR headset (Valve Index), which will be released somewhere between june-july. They claim to also have a AAA VR game that they hope to release later this year.
    Post edited by DataDay on
  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,187
    Satisfactory seems to have sold ... 9 copies according to their developers. 

    It seems that Epic's demographic is very specific in their purchasing habits and those revolve around games similar to Fortnite. So Borderlands 3 will probably do well, other types of games, not so much.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 5,839
    Xasapis said:
    Satisfactory seems to have sold ... 9 copies according to their developers. 

    It seems that Epic's demographic is very specific in their purchasing habits and those revolve around games similar to Fortnite. So Borderlands 3 will probably do well, other types of games, not so much.
    Has it? Can't find any numbers on how well - or not - Satisfactory has done. I thought you might have posted about World War Z though and the 320k sales it has managed since launching on April 16th.

    Lots of links e.g.  http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/341895/World_War_Z_has_topped_320000_sales_on_the_Epic_Games_Store.php

    Good for Epic of course but I am sure Saber Ineractive are glad of those 320k 18%s.
  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,187
    They twitted about it. Maybe they removed the tweets at this point, it is a pretty embarrassing number tbh. I'm also reading that others started to avoid those exclusive deals, since they seem to damage their brand.

    World War Z is a game that, as I said, revolves around the specific Fortnite demographic, so that could potentially explain the positive reception. Did it achieve Epic's expectations? It would be the first game that it has if so.
  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member RarePosts: 4,924
    edited May 6
    Xasapis said:
    Satisfactory seems to have sold ... 9 copies according to their developers. 

    It seems that Epic's demographic is very specific in their purchasing habits and those revolve around games similar to Fortnite. So Borderlands 3 will probably do well, other types of games, not so much.
    That's scary considering I watched 4 (maybe 5?) streamers play that game...

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • mklinicmklinic Member UncommonPosts: 1,523
    Not sure if it was already mentioned, but has Epic extended the same offer to GoG or Discord stores (or any others)? I didn't see any reference in the PCGamer article. Otherwise, it looks like this is more about trying to hurt Steam rather then help developers and/or consumers...


    TorvalGdemami

    -mklinic

    "There's a point I think we're missing.
    It's in the air we raise our fists in."
    -from Behind Closed Doors by Rise Against

  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,187
    AlBQuirky said:
    Xasapis said:
    Satisfactory seems to have sold ... 9 copies according to their developers. 

    It seems that Epic's demographic is very specific in their purchasing habits and those revolve around games similar to Fortnite. So Borderlands 3 will probably do well, other types of games, not so much.
    That's scary considering I watched 4 (maybe 5?) streamers play that game...
    I can't tell whether they are brutally honest or really bad at sarcasm.


  • TheocritusTheocritus Member EpicPosts: 6,739
    THe majority of Epic's playerbase probably has to ask their mom if its OK if they buy a game off the store......
    OG_Zorvan
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 5,839
    mklinic said:
    Not sure if it was already mentioned, but has Epic extended the same offer to GoG or Discord stores (or any others)? I didn't see any reference in the PCGamer article. Otherwise, it looks like this is more about trying to hurt Steam rather then help developers and/or consumers...


    I suggest its much more basic than that. "trying to help developers" or "trying to hurt Steam". Its about making money.  They are leveraging the success of Fortnite as well as tying it into their engine developer. Its been done before - Valve! Back then Epic missed out.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,253
    Xasapis said:
    AlBQuirky said:
    Xasapis said:
    Satisfactory seems to have sold ... 9 copies according to their developers. 

    It seems that Epic's demographic is very specific in their purchasing habits and those revolve around games similar to Fortnite. So Borderlands 3 will probably do well, other types of games, not so much.
    That's scary considering I watched 4 (maybe 5?) streamers play that game...
    I can't tell whether they are brutally honest or really bad at sarcasm.


    Take a look at the comments.  It's definitely sarcasm.  They had 34k users in their Discord channel in a tweet after that one.  They made the same sarcastic remark about only 9 users in that tweet.


    Also, if you look at the responses to the tweet you quoted, the devs are literally making jokes at the expense of the folks doom-calling any dev who chooses to go with Epic.

    image
  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,187
    edited May 6
    Bad at sarcasm then ;)

    I hope you have a better day than we're having. It shoudn't be that hard.

  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,253
    Xasapis said:
    Bad at sarcasm then ;)

    I hope you have a better day than we're having. It shoudn't be that hard.

    Well, the 9 users total, I think, is the dead giveaway.  Games like Shower with your Dad Simulator sold more copies than that.

    image
  • mklinicmklinic Member UncommonPosts: 1,523
    gervaise1 said:
    I suggest its much more basic than that. "trying to help developers" or "trying to hurt Steam". Its about making money.  They are leveraging the success of Fortnite as well as tying it into their engine developer. Its been done before - Valve! Back then Epic missed out.
    I'm not disputing that point; It's about Epic making money. My point was about the idea that they'd drop exclusives if some boogie man took certain actions and that it seemed disingenuous.

    The idea that they'll stop exclusives, under [x] conditions, for the betterment of digital distribution as a whole/consumers/devs/whoever, doesn't seem to stand up to any sort of scrutiny. I don't see their actions lining up with the sentiment they seem to be trying to portray in the article when other vendors are locked out by exclusivity as well and are not given the same option as Steam (as far as I have been able to see).



    GdemamiAlBQuirky

    -mklinic

    "There's a point I think we're missing.
    It's in the air we raise our fists in."
    -from Behind Closed Doors by Rise Against

  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,187
    edited May 6
    Xasapis said:
    Bad at sarcasm then ;)

    I hope you have a better day than we're having. It shoudn't be that hard.

    Well, the 9 users total, I think, is the dead giveaway.  Games like Shower with your Dad Simulator sold more copies than that.
    The first part by itself is surely sarcasm.

    The second part though by itself is genuine desperation.

    So they put those two together and it makes you think whether they try to mask their disappointment with humour?
    Gdemami
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,253
    edited May 6
    Xasapis said:
    Xasapis said:
    Bad at sarcasm then ;)

    I hope you have a better day than we're having. It shoudn't be that hard.

    Well, the 9 users total, I think, is the dead giveaway.  Games like Shower with your Dad Simulator sold more copies than that.
    The first part by itself is surely sarcasm.

    The second part though by itself is genuine desperation.

    So they put those two together and it makes you think whether they try to mask their disappointment with humour?
    The figure was an obvious joke, and it was sarcasm aimed at those who doom-call about Epic exclusive deals.  There's yet to be any true evidence cited that going with Epic is costing these devs.


    Stop with the gaslighting, man.  It was sarcasm.  Read the comments, specifically where the dev account responds.

    image
  • XasapisXasapis Member RarePosts: 6,187
    You can infer whatever you want from it. Personally I see a developer who sold 1M copies of a stupid Goat Simulator making these bad "joking" tweets and it just makes me wonder.

    Ultimately my opinion doesn't matter one way or another. Developers in the short term are definitely profiting from the Epic exclusive deals. The real question pertaining to this thread is whether:
    • Epic store itself is making any money.
    • Epic store is attractive outside the exclusive deals
    • Why Epic store is not targeting every other digital store using the same model with the question they posed on Steam.
Sign In or Register to comment.