Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
One free game every two weeks, just for downloading the store, is one thing that's "in it" for you. And not a "play it free for a weekend," you download it and it's yours permanently. Games such as What Remains of Edith Finch and Subnautica.
Waitaminiute here... You mean you can launch Epic Store without first booting up the Epic Launcher? I certainly can't do that with Steam or uPlay or Origin or Amazon. No launcher, no play the game. Is Epic different here?
- 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
I've hated stores from the moment steam showed up. The most bullshit thing in the world is to have to install software to install software.
This is my thought exactly. The ultimate in stupidity is paying (Steam does make money) for a launcher just to play games. Middlemen have always been leeches.
- 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
Steam is simply playing the waiting game until their competition runs out of steam (hah!). The Epic store on the other hand is trying to build as much momentum as they can to secure their survival. This through exclusive deals but also offering a free game every two weeks and giving developers a bigger cut.
Especially the last part had many gamers confused with their “there is nothing in it for me, the consumer.” What is in it for them is a bigger chance of survival for game companies and therefor more games being made. And with many companies shutting down and the industry being in a rough state that is quite a big thing.
And “true” gamers? They go where the games are, THAT is what it is all about.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Post edited by lahnmir on
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I've hated stores from the moment steam showed up. The most bullshit thing in the world is to have to install software to install software.
This is my thought exactly. The ultimate in stupidity is paying (Steam does make money) for a launcher just to play games. Middlemen have always been leeches.
nah....
Games today are more of online services and pretty much any of them needs "a launcher" so it can download and perfrom updates. The store attached to patching platform is just added functionality.
It may seem super simple and unecessary but in fact it really isn't.
Beware of the EPIC system. My account got hacked and everything was changed on it but my email. In addition all the games I picked up (For Free.. bought none) were removed from my library. Got Tech support involved and their only resolve was to either:
A ) Delete my EPIC account to reset my email so I can make a new account.... OR
B ) Lock my email so no one (including me) can use that email address.
Beware of the EPIC system. My account got hacked and everything was changed on it but my email. In addition all the games I picked up (For Free.. bought none) were removed from my library. Got Tech support involved and their only resolve was to either:
A ) Delete my EPIC account to reset my email so I can make a new account.... OR
B ) Lock my email so no one (including me) can use that email address.
Just giving you guys warning about EPIC.
If you use Steam and have a problem in the future you might want to bookmark this page:
Steam is simply playing the waiting game until their competition runs out of steam (hah!). The Epic store on the other hand is trying to build as much momentum as they can to secure their survival. This through exclusive deals but also offering a free game every two weeks and giving developers a bigger cut.
Especially the last part had many gamers confused with their “there is nothing in it for me, the consumer.” What is in it for them is a bigger chance of survival for game companies and therefor more games being made. And with many companies shutting down and the industry being in a rough state that is quite a big thing.
And “true” gamers? They go where the games are, THAT is what it is all about.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes yes. I'm sure the state of the game developing industry has nothing to do with the nonstop plethora of shitty games being released. Is that extra 12% going to fix that problem? Definitely not.
Shitty is subjective, especially around here where “absolute trash games” are actually selling like hotcakes in the real world. Most gamers are perfectly fine with the quality of games being delivered, number of units sold has increased 5 times in the last ten years or so. The real problem is the massive increase in development and marketing costs and the huge risks that brings with it. For many its one strike and you are out, 12% makes all the difference.
And I am not pro Epic store btw, or anti for that matter.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Guessing things are not going as well as the Epic Store hoped?
No, just letting the public know there is something steam can do about it.
Dunno sounds like it not bringing in as much cash as they hoped so they are offering to drop exclusivity in order to decrease steams revenue to something more inline with theirs.
Well of course it sounds that way to you, you are looking for that type of news and desperately want it to happen. Just the number of sales they've received from the currently released exclusives is enough to keep going and that doesn't include the amount of money continually earn from their engine and Fortnite
Grasping at straws I say.
You do realize that Epic Games has been battling the 30% issue for a number of years now? It wasn't big news until Microsoft tried pushing new rules onto windows game development to use their store. Tim Sweeny wrote a big article about it and how Microsoft was trying to strongarm developers into using their store so they could earn a profit from their work. When they released Fortnite on mobile they deliberately avoided the Play Store, would have done the same with iOS except, well we all know Apple is king at ripping people off. They also didn't put Fortnite on Steam because of it.
I know you guys think Epic Games is anti-consumer, but you are really really missing the big picture.
Agreed. They are attempting to level the playing field a bit for developers and publishers.
Steam is simply playing the waiting game until their competition runs out of steam (hah!). The Epic store on the other hand is trying to build as much momentum as they can to secure their survival. This through exclusive deals but also offering a free game every two weeks and giving developers a bigger cut.
Especially the last part had many gamers confused with their “there is nothing in it for me, the consumer.” What is in it for them is a bigger chance of survival for game companies and therefor more games being made. And with many companies shutting down and the industry being in a rough state that is quite a big thing.
And “true” gamers? They go where the games are, THAT is what it is all about.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes yes. I'm sure the state of the game developing industry has nothing to do with the nonstop plethora of shitty games being released. Is that extra 12% going to fix that problem? Definitely not.
Shitty is subjective, especially around here where “absolute trash games” are actually selling like hotcakes in the real world. Most gamers are perfectly fine with the quality of games being delivered, number of units sold has increased 5 times in the last ten years or so. The real problem is the massive increase in development and marketing costs and the huge risks that brings with it. For many its one strike and you are out, 12% makes all the difference.
And I am not pro Epic store btw, or anti for that matter.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I mostly agree with Rhoklaw, but I don't think it's just shitty games. They add to the noise, but the problem being there are too many games being made for the expected revenue return than the industry can bear. There is more supply than demand and consumer prices aren't going down. That means the competition is even tighter and the struggle for revenue even fiercer. All this does is put more revenue in the hands of the most successful studios and publishers while suffocating the rest.
The big players see the answer to this. It will be streaming services akin to Google Stadia, Prime Video, Hulu, Spotify, etc. Games will be on streaming services for a monthly fee instead of purchases. Purchases will be an option on some platforms like Prime Video and YouTube does with content. Most of it will be included in the base package or publisher channel for an additional fee like the HBO Addon only it will be Ubisoft or EA. In the very long game I think we'll eventually see a merging of media and game branding through acquisitions and mergers.
Second paragraph? Yes, I agree. The first? Not so much. What has happened, and is happening, is that the middle segment has disappeared. The AAA companies have little to no effect on the indies, of which there are more now then ever with a lot of high quality ones. And shitty? That is still relative, I think the good game versus bad game ratio hasn't changed at all through the years.
There are more games though, many, many more and gamers expect to get their games cheap, F2P has helped create the mindset that even free games can be too expensive. The market isn’t flooded with 60 bucks titles, it is being flooded with cheap ones. MY ideal situation? A lot less releases, 1/10 even. And all these games 80 bucks. Less games but more expensive ones. Because money isn’t the problem, time is.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
If Epic REALLY are only trying to give developers a "better deal", why don't they just stick with that ? Isn't that enough to persuade developers to use Epic's store ?
Why the need for strong-arm tactics in the form of locked-in exclusivity deals ? That's pure business tactics, they're just attempting to grow their customer base as fast as possible, by giving players no option to buy from anyone but Epic. The PR bullshit about "forcing Steam to give developers a better deal" is just convenient...
Epic didn't launch their online store for any other reason than to make money. They have a mountain of Fortnite cash that needs to be used for something, and breaking into the online game sales market was their target of choice.
Maybe there'll be an "Epic Sale" in the store soon, to rival the famous Steam sales ? I won't hold my breath on that one, lol
Steam is simply playing the waiting game until their competition runs out of steam (hah!). The Epic store on the other hand is trying to build as much momentum as they can to secure their survival. This through exclusive deals but also offering a free game every two weeks and giving developers a bigger cut.
Especially the last part had many gamers confused with their “there is nothing in it for me, the consumer.” What is in it for them is a bigger chance of survival for game companies and therefor more games being made. And with many companies shutting down and the industry being in a rough state that is quite a big thing.
And “true” gamers? They go where the games are, THAT is what it is all about.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
Yes yes. I'm sure the state of the game developing industry has nothing to do with the nonstop plethora of shitty games being released. Is that extra 12% going to fix that problem? Definitely not.
Shitty is subjective, especially around here where “absolute trash games” are actually selling like hotcakes in the real world. Most gamers are perfectly fine with the quality of games being delivered, number of units sold has increased 5 times in the last ten years or so. The real problem is the massive increase in development and marketing costs and the huge risks that brings with it. For many its one strike and you are out, 12% makes all the difference.
And I am not pro Epic store btw, or anti for that matter.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I mostly agree with Rhoklaw, but I don't think it's just shitty games. They add to the noise, but the problem being there are too many games being made for the expected revenue return than the industry can bear. There is more supply than demand and consumer prices aren't going down. That means the competition is even tighter and the struggle for revenue even fiercer. All this does is put more revenue in the hands of the most successful studios and publishers while suffocating the rest.
The big players see the answer to this. It will be streaming services akin to Google Stadia, Prime Video, Hulu, Spotify, etc. Games will be on streaming services for a monthly fee instead of purchases. Purchases will be an option on some platforms like Prime Video and YouTube does with content. Most of it will be included in the base package or publisher channel for an additional fee like the HBO Addon only it will be Ubisoft or EA. In the very long game I think we'll eventually see a merging of media and game branding through acquisitions and mergers.
I'm seeing that future, too
Thank goodness for GoG, for when GaaS becomes the "only" way to play games, I'll be leaving gaming to play my old games that I actually own.
The weird thing is... I had no problems with GaaS when it was the old subscription MMORPGs, but when it happens to single player games, it just seems all kinds of wrong to me.
- 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
If Epic REALLY are only trying to give developers a "better deal", why don't they just stick with that ? Isn't that enough to persuade developers to use Epic's store ?
Why the need for strong-arm tactics in the form of locked-in exclusivity deals ? That's pure business tactics, they're just attempting to grow their customer base as fast as possible, by giving players no option to buy from anyone but Epic. The PR bullshit about "forcing Steam to give developers a better deal" is just convenient...
Epic didn't launch their online store for any other reason than to make money. They have a mountain of Fortnite cash that needs to be used for something, and breaking into the online game sales market was their target of choice.
Maybe there'll be an "Epic Sale" in the store soon, to rival the famous Steam sales ? I won't hold my breath on that one, lol
Chicken and egg.
Currently its go with Steam possibly sell lots but maybe have to discount their price by 50% to have any chance of standing out from the thousands of other games on Steam. Then give Steam 30% - so maybe they only get $7 from a nominal $20 game. Or go with Epic. Fewer sales but no need to offer 50% off and only pay Epic 12% so get nearly $19 from a $20 game.
Put whatever numbers you want in but those Steam sales - they don't make the choice any easier for developers.
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?
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
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.
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!
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
- 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
- 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
Especially the last part had many gamers confused with their “there is nothing in it for me, the consumer.” What is in it for them is a bigger chance of survival for game companies and therefor more games being made. And with many companies shutting down and the industry being in a rough state that is quite a big thing.
And “true” gamers? They go where the games are, THAT is what it is all about.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Games today are more of online services and pretty much any of them needs "a launcher" so it can download and perfrom updates. The store attached to patching platform is just added functionality.
It may seem super simple and unecessary but in fact it really isn't.
https://help.steampowered.com/en/wizard/HelpWithAccountStolen
Just giving you a heads up about Steam. In addition here are some other pages for you to bookmark ............
And I am not pro Epic store btw, or anti for that matter.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
There are more games though, many, many more and gamers expect to get their games cheap, F2P has helped create the mindset that even free games can be too expensive. The market isn’t flooded with 60 bucks titles, it is being flooded with cheap ones. MY ideal situation? A lot less releases, 1/10 even. And all these games 80 bucks. Less games but more expensive ones. Because money isn’t the problem, time is.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
Why the need for strong-arm tactics in the form of locked-in exclusivity deals ? That's pure business tactics, they're just attempting to grow their customer base as fast as possible, by giving players no option to buy from anyone but Epic. The PR bullshit about "forcing Steam to give developers a better deal" is just convenient...
Epic didn't launch their online store for any other reason than to make money. They have a mountain of Fortnite cash that needs to be used for something, and breaking into the online game sales market was their target of choice.
Maybe there'll be an "Epic Sale" in the store soon, to rival the famous Steam sales ? I won't hold my breath on that one, lol
Thank goodness for GoG, for when GaaS becomes the "only" way to play games, I'll be leaving gaming to play my old games that I actually own.
The weird thing is... I had no problems with GaaS when it was the old subscription MMORPGs, but when it happens to single player games, it just seems all kinds of wrong to me.
- 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
Currently its go with Steam possibly sell lots but maybe have to discount their price by 50% to have any chance of standing out from the thousands of other games on Steam. Then give Steam 30% - so maybe they only get $7 from a nominal $20 game. Or go with Epic. Fewer sales but no need to offer 50% off and only pay Epic 12% so get nearly $19 from a $20 game.
Put whatever numbers you want in but those Steam sales - they don't make the choice any easier for developers.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But at the same time steam is pretty shady that they don't allow games to sell cheaper on other plateform.
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.
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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.