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

12357

Comments

  • DaranarDaranar Member UncommonPosts: 376
    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?  
    It's not more consumer friendly.  It's not less consumer friendly.  I think he is saying Steam is more consumer friendly for other reasons.  

    And actually one can argue with higher fees you CAN be more consumer friendly because you have more resources.  I'm a big Amazon fan.  They are MORE than fair to me as a consumer.  They can do that because of their high fees to sellers.  Which is how they do such high volume, because consumers don't go to platforms that treat sellers the best, they go to the platforms that treat consumers the best.  And often (not always) the platforms that treat consumers the best are the ones that make the sellers pay for it.

    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.

    If we assume that sales numbers are the same and a dev genuinely makes more $$ with lower fees.  There won't be much of a noticeable difference to the consumer.  Someone above also mentioned how public game companies are horrible and all about their shareholders.   Everyone forgets that private companies also have investors to please.  If you are producing a quality game, you have artists, programmers, social media folks and management to pay...before the product was released.  That money comes from somewhere.  That somewhere is called an investor.  Even if it's a loan or a rich developers trust fund (he still wants that money back).  So when you make more money, most of it is going to go back to investors before it gets invested back into the product.  

    The game industry is comprised of products with short shelf life.  Financially there is a lower ROI for DLCs and such, especially for indie games that we are talking about.  Why?  Because gamers jump from game to game.  That's what happens in any flooded content based market.  So it's easy to argue that the extra $350k would not go to the consumer even through reinvesting in the game.  The best argument is that those profits could be seen by the consumer in the next game by that developer.  But it's all a stretch.

    Game developers, as artistic as some may be, are not non-profits.  They are for profit businesses.  Extra profit they make doesn't just automatically get reinvested into the company/game.  Only a small portion.
    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!


  • DaranarDaranar Member UncommonPosts: 376
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    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!


  • kjempffkjempff Member RarePosts: 1,633
    I always found 30% to be way too much for a digital store service. What is the more reasoble number I will not take guess at, but I would welcome a much simpler solution for a cut in those expenses. 
    Lets not forget that better games can be made if the developers that cut went down..significantly better games.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,157
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,151
    Daranar said:

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    To the contrary, I think it does impact me when games I like get more revenue.  That encourages companies to build more games that I like because they're more likely to be profitable.
    MadFrenchiegervaise1
  • DaranarDaranar Member UncommonPosts: 376
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
    The OP statement wasn't real.  It was wildly wrong.  Delusional.  I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want.  But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.   

    If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
    TorvalDhamon99

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


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,151
    Daranar said:
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
    The OP statement wasn't real.  It was wildly wrong.  Delusional.  I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want.  But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.   

    If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
    Actually, the difference between getting to keep 88% of the revenue and getting to keep 70% of it is a little shy of 26% more.  .88/.7 ~ 1.25714.

    Also, the sky is black.  I just checked outside to verify this.  It's definitely black.
    MadFrenchieLokero
  • LadyAugustLadyAugust Member UncommonPosts: 11
    edited December 2018
    Flawed logic.  That's assuming sales would have remained roughly the same.  It's a new platform and there is no guarantee they would have done anywhere near the sales they did on Steam.  Steam created many opportunities for indie developers to get their games out there that otherwise would not have been able to.  Now people want to bite the hand that has essentially fed them.

    Also, the idea that all a AAA publisher has to do is open their own store and they will do better than they would have sharing profits with Steam is also flawed.  Simply having your own storefront doesn't mean your games will sell.  I use Steam, and only Steam.  Release a game exclusively on another platform and it essentially doesn't exist to me.  That's lost sale(s).

    People being butt hurt about larger developers giving up a lower percentage is also flawed.  It's Steam's response to keep it's platform attractive to the big names, so they don't keep pulling their titles and going elsewhere.

    [quote]I'm calling BS. Once the next new title comes, player will use what ever means they can to get that title.[/quote]

    Not accurate.  I really wanted State of Decay 2, followed it for a long time.  Didn't come out on Steam, so the game is dead to me.  Same for other games.  I like having my games in one launcher.  Not on Steam, no sale.
    Post edited by LadyAugust on
    TorvalDhamon99
  • DaranarDaranar Member UncommonPosts: 376
    Quizzical said:
    Daranar said:
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
    The OP statement wasn't real.  It was wildly wrong.  Delusional.  I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want.  But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.   

    If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
    Actually, the difference between getting to keep 88% of the revenue and getting to keep 70% of it is a little shy of 26% more.  .88/.7 ~ 1.25714.

    Also, the sky is black.  I just checked outside to verify this.  It's definitely black.
    That math has nothing to do with what you said.  80% sales on Steam vs 20% on EPIC.  So....

    And if the sky is black then we are both wrong and no body has any idea what's going on.  Which is the likely scenario in all reality.
    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!


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,151
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    Daranar said:
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
    The OP statement wasn't real.  It was wildly wrong.  Delusional.  I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want.  But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.   

    If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
    Actually, the difference between getting to keep 88% of the revenue and getting to keep 70% of it is a little shy of 26% more.  .88/.7 ~ 1.25714.

    Also, the sky is black.  I just checked outside to verify this.  It's definitely black.
    That math has nothing to do with what you said.  80% sales on Steam vs 20% on EPIC.  So....

    And if the sky is black then we are both wrong and no body has any idea what's going on.  Which is the likely scenario in all reality.
    If you want to quibble with my 5% number above, then the math is easy enough:

    (0.2 * 0.88 + 0.8 * 0.7) / 0.7 ~ 1.05143, or an increase of a little over 5%.

    Really, though, choosing something as weird and variable as the color of the sky makes a terrible analogy for claiming that someone is factually wrong.  It's like asking the color of a clear sheet of glass without acknowledging that it depends on the light source behind it.

    The cause of the sky appearing whatever color is pretty well understood, though.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,780
    Quizzical said:
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    Daranar said:
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
    The OP statement wasn't real.  It was wildly wrong.  Delusional.  I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want.  But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.   

    If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
    Actually, the difference between getting to keep 88% of the revenue and getting to keep 70% of it is a little shy of 26% more.  .88/.7 ~ 1.25714.

    Also, the sky is black.  I just checked outside to verify this.  It's definitely black.
    That math has nothing to do with what you said.  80% sales on Steam vs 20% on EPIC.  So....

    And if the sky is black then we are both wrong and no body has any idea what's going on.  Which is the likely scenario in all reality.
    If you want to quibble with my 5% number above, then the math is easy enough:

    (0.2 * 0.88 + 0.8 * 0.7) / 0.7 ~ 1.05143, or an increase of a little over 5%.

    Really, though, choosing something as weird and variable as the color of the sky makes a terrible analogy for claiming that someone is factually wrong.  It's like asking the color of a clear sheet of glass without acknowledging that it depends on the light source behind it.

    The cause of the sky appearing whatever color is pretty well understood, though.
    More sky color options could force God to make more sky colors though and indie sky color developers will get to eat dinner and Tiny Tim won't die. For fuck sakes think of all the sky children in your wildly academic scenario.
    ConstantineMerus
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • ConstantineMerusConstantineMerus Member EpicPosts: 2,691
    Quizzical said:
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    Daranar said:
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
    The OP statement wasn't real.  It was wildly wrong.  Delusional.  I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want.  But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.   

    If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
    Actually, the difference between getting to keep 88% of the revenue and getting to keep 70% of it is a little shy of 26% more.  .88/.7 ~ 1.25714.

    Also, the sky is black.  I just checked outside to verify this.  It's definitely black.
    That math has nothing to do with what you said.  80% sales on Steam vs 20% on EPIC.  So....

    And if the sky is black then we are both wrong and no body has any idea what's going on.  Which is the likely scenario in all reality.
    If you want to quibble with my 5% number above, then the math is easy enough:

    (0.2 * 0.88 + 0.8 * 0.7) / 0.7 ~ 1.05143, or an increase of a little over 5%.

    Really, though, choosing something as weird and variable as the color of the sky makes a terrible analogy for claiming that someone is factually wrong.  It's like asking the color of a clear sheet of glass without acknowledging that it depends on the light source behind it.

    The cause of the sky appearing whatever color is pretty well understood, though.
    I was absolutely sure that you'd get there. ;)
    Constantine, The Console Poster

    • "One of the most difficult tasks men can perform, however much others may despise it, is the invention of good games and it cannot be done by men out of touch with their instinctive selves." - Carl Jung
    • Song of the Week: Blackfield by Blackfield from Blackfield (2005)
    • Currently Playing: Devil May Cry 1
    • Favorite Drink: Bruichladdich Black Art 5th 1992
    • Gaming Timeline: Arcade, Commodore 64, Amiga 500, SEGA, IBM, PS, PC, PS2, More PCs, PS3, Giant PC, PS4, No More PCs, PS4 Pro.
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member RarePosts: 1,157
    Daranar said:
    Daranar said:
    Quizzical said:
    What stops developers from simply offering their games for sale on both?  If they get 20% of their sales through Epic's site and 80% through Steam, then they get to keep more than 5% more revenue than if they got the same number of total sales through Steam alone.  That seems like it would pay for any added costs of offering the game on both sites.
    Now you get it.  That's how it works in reality.   They may make 5% more, not 18%.  Pretty sure the math works to less than 5% increased revenue in your scenario, but I don't feel like doing it myself, lol.   Though the more platforms you sell on the more customer service flows you need to handle and your costs rise a little as well. 

    So now we understand this initial scenario is completely bogus.  Yes devs may get a slight boost to revenue with EPIC's launcher IN ADDITION but it sure as hell ain't no 18% and it sure as hell isn't going to impact the players.  
    The OP was a statement on the difference between the costs and what it could mean for a developer. The fun police on this site took it to a level that wasnt called for per usual.
    The OP statement wasn't real.  It was wildly wrong.  Delusional.  I mean you can live in fantasy land if you want.  But just because it's intellectually stupid to suggest a company could make 18% more revenue because they could sell the same number of copies on a new service that no body uses doesn't mean I'm the bad guy.   

    If you tell me the sky is Green and I tell you that you are high and it's blue, that doesn't make me the fun police...
    It is literally the Hypothetical of the same number of sales at 12% vs 30% and why a service like this, if it takes off, will be good for the industry and especially small development teams. 
    Torval
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,780
    I noticed that Ashen is an Epic exclusive now even though they've listed the game as TBA on Steam. I wonder how Valve will take to "indie" game studios and publishers using their platform for free exposure and advertising while selling exclusively on another platform. That will be interesting. Maybe Valve won't care at all.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Unfortunately, the lack of a customer friendly refund policy and other 'account' issues, i seriously doubt i would ever use the Epic store, so any game put on there that isn't also on other platforms might just as well not exist.
    If Epic is serious about being a contender, then they need to give customers a reason to use their service, not just developers and they haven't, if anything Epic are giving potential customers plenty of reasons to not use the service. :/
  • RenoakuRenoaku Member EpicPosts: 3,082
    edited December 2018
    I hope EPIC Games bans Denuvo DRM products from their store they really should, only DRM Free games exception of Serial Keys, and Accounts that require a valid license.

    Only companies / games like "Origin" "Uplay", Serial Key verification, or Activation Online should be allowed, and only products which do not use 3rd party DRM's.

    Battlefield 1, also gets FPS issues when running other games / tasks due to Denuvo the FPS tends to drop due to the Anti-Tamper checks ); wasting computer resources that could be allocated elsewhere with processing.
  • evolgrinzevolgrinz Member UncommonPosts: 123
    Making more money per sale is useless if you sell less than half of what you otherwise would.
    alkarionlog
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,780
    Phry said:
    Unfortunately, the lack of a customer friendly refund policy and other 'account' issues, i seriously doubt i would ever use the Epic store, so any game put on there that isn't also on other platforms might just as well not exist.
    If Epic is serious about being a contender, then they need to give customers a reason to use their service, not just developers and they haven't, if anything Epic are giving potential customers plenty of reasons to not use the service. :/
    Don't you find it ironic after all of Sweeney's rants about Microsoft and fear about their Store lock-in that he goes and tries to pull the same thing?

    I think he's a giant two-faced windbag. He's talked about Linux support through Unreal and how he doesn't want Microsoft lockin. Then he goes and makes his store incompatible with Linux - it checks if it's run through WINE and errs out purposely. It's to prevent people on Linux from purchasing and installing games through their service. Why, especially after all the bullshit lipservice he's paid to his Linux users/developers (via Unreal).

    Ashen originally was supposed to launch through Steam. It gained a lot of exposure and publicity through Steam. It's how I learned about the game. They pull their launch from Steam, while leaving the page up with "TBD", publish exclusively on Epic, giving players the finger. I'm sure Epic paid them handsomely to do so, but I wonder how much actual purchase revenue was lost as a result. This tells me neither Epic or Annapurna publishing are considering their gamers at all.
    Heretique
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros Member EpicPosts: 2,924
    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.
    I have to admit, I was one of the early hold outs.  Back in 2005 when I first installed Half-Life 2, my reaction to Steam was "What the hell is this shit?".  Having to login to Steam to play an offline game was annoying as hell to me ... but things change, and eventually I started to accept Steam and enjoy the finer points of digital distribution.
    ConstantineMerus
  • alkarionlogalkarionlog Member RarePosts: 2,868
    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.
    I have to admit, I was one of the early hold outs.  Back in 2005 when I first installed Half-Life 2, my reaction to Steam was "What the hell is this shit?".  Having to login to Steam to play an offline game was annoying as hell to me ... but things change, and eventually I started to accept Steam and enjoy the finer points of digital distribution.
    you now after you install it and play once, you can be offline right?
    SedrynTyros
    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
  • MadFrenchieMadFrenchie Member LegendaryPosts: 8,483
    Torval said:
    Phry said:
    Unfortunately, the lack of a customer friendly refund policy and other 'account' issues, i seriously doubt i would ever use the Epic store, so any game put on there that isn't also on other platforms might just as well not exist.
    If Epic is serious about being a contender, then they need to give customers a reason to use their service, not just developers and they haven't, if anything Epic are giving potential customers plenty of reasons to not use the service. :/
    Don't you find it ironic after all of Sweeney's rants about Microsoft and fear about their Store lock-in that he goes and tries to pull the same thing?

    I think he's a giant two-faced windbag. He's talked about Linux support through Unreal and how he doesn't want Microsoft lockin. Then he goes and makes his store incompatible with Linux - it checks if it's run through WINE and errs out purposely. It's to prevent people on Linux from purchasing and installing games through their service. Why, especially after all the bullshit lipservice he's paid to his Linux users/developers (via Unreal).

    Ashen originally was supposed to launch through Steam. It gained a lot of exposure and publicity through Steam. It's how I learned about the game. They pull their launch from Steam, while leaving the page up with "TBD", publish exclusively on Epic, giving players the finger. I'm sure Epic paid them handsomely to do so, but I wonder how much actual purchase revenue was lost as a result. This tells me neither Epic or Annapurna publishing are considering their gamers at all.
    Did they take money from players for the steam release?

    Otherwise, the only real inconvenience to gamers here is downloading the Epic portal and noting the refund policy before purchasing.  That seems....  Less than a big deal, to me, specifically if it means the dev gets to keep a larger cut of the revenue.  Steam is essentially just assessing a tax on purchase to the devs.

    Not only that, but have you considered Ashen may not have wanted to battle the reportedly awful dev support from Valve?  There may be more to this than merely a percentage point.
    Quizzical

    image
  • SedrynTyrosSedrynTyros Member EpicPosts: 2,924
    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.
    I have to admit, I was one of the early hold outs.  Back in 2005 when I first installed Half-Life 2, my reaction to Steam was "What the hell is this shit?".  Having to login to Steam to play an offline game was annoying as hell to me ... but things change, and eventually I started to accept Steam and enjoy the finer points of digital distribution.
    you now after you install it and play once, you can be offline right?
    Yeah, I think I figured that out at some point.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,780
    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.
    I have to admit, I was one of the early hold outs.  Back in 2005 when I first installed Half-Life 2, my reaction to Steam was "What the hell is this shit?".  Having to login to Steam to play an offline game was annoying as hell to me ... but things change, and eventually I started to accept Steam and enjoy the finer points of digital distribution.
    I went and bought a physical copy of Skyrim specifically because I didn't want to use Steam. Imagine my suprise when I got it home, popped in the disc, had to create a Steam account, and still download 2+ GB of patches. There was some serious "get the hell off my lawn" going on that day. And I'm pretty sure I ranted at the Gabe for a few weeks for being so damn sneaky. :lol:

    I have some criticism with Steam and Valve, but overall I appreciate the effort that company has put into platform independence through Steam Play.
    SedrynTyros
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,151
    Game developers are trying to make more money.  We all know that.  In some cases, it's make more money or shut down the company and lay everyone off.  Suppose that their choices are:

    1)  Move to a different launcher that takes a much smaller cut of revenue.
    2)  Add loot boxes to their game.
    3)  Fairly directly sell power by making the game flagrantly pay to win.
    4)  Cut back severely on expenses by ending new content.

    Is it really so crazy to think that (1) is less objectionable than the others?
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 21,151
    What I learned from this thread:  apparently there are people who, in choosing which games to play, care more about which launcher the game goes through than the game itself.  Who knew?
    gervaise1
Sign In or Register to comment.