Simple reason for me , I want to keep all my games on Steam ( have over 3k titles now)
There is no incentive to go elsewhere , particularly to a vastly inferior platform ..
Even the games Epic gives away , i would rather pay on Steam to keep one Library
Nothing wrong with that. Bet you change your mind, though. I used to be super anti-Steam in the day, but now it's awesome. Personally, I'd really rather get all my games on Steam, too.
But, I can't fault a company for wanting to get away from that 30% hit and it was eventually going to change anyway, so might as well be now.
Steam was great, and IMO, instrumental in almost highhandedly saving the computer market a decade+ ago when things were looking kind of grim, at least in my area.
Nothing is "free" when it comes to subscription based services. I paid a fee to HBO through my cable company to watch GoT (I really didn't watch anything else) and I did actually play Anthem through Origin access at launch (dodged a bullet there having only paid about $20 for the month). Currently, I have a sub to the new XBox PC beta thing. It's a great deal, esp. the first month only being $1, and I'm really enjoying Gears of War 4 right now. I've bought games directly from Ubisoft and bought Witcher 3 from GoG (CD Project Red owns GoG) and I'll be purchasing Cyberpunk 2077 from GoG, too. I don't mind paying the actual content creators (HBO, EA, MS etc.) for their services even though it is exclusive to their platforms because THEY created the product. It's theirs and they can do what they like with it.
The problem with Epic is that they're buying up exclusivity from other content creators using some pretty questionable methods. Notice how quite a few of the indie games they bought up were crowdfunded beforehand with promises to release on multiple platforms only for the developers to pull the rug out from under their customers once they got that Epic money? A few of them (I know the Phoenix Point dev was one for sure) straight up said that even if everyone refunded their pledges, they would still make more money with what Epic gave them. They're basically telling people "Yeah, thanks for giving us enough money for a proof of concept to present to Epic but now we don't need you so if you don't like what we've done too bad, sucka!". Lets not forget that Metro 2033 Exodus was advertising their game as being available on Steam and taking pre-orders almost up until their release date even though they knew they would release exclusively on EGS. They used Steam as free advertising. Add all that to the rest of the shady shit Epic has been involved with (I won't even get into their association with their ChiCom overlords at Tencent) and it's really hard to see how anyone can say Epic is "good" for the gaming industry or consumers.
Also, please point out to me a game being sold on EGS that now costs customers 5-10% less than before. If the move to EGS actually results in a lower price than you might have a point. But it hasn't, so you don't.
Of course it was free, unless you bought your HBO subscription just for GoT, which I guess you could have done. You're paying for everything, and they throw the exclusives in there to sweeten the pot. That's the whole point to exclusives. They're trying to increase market share by making it so that something really popular can only be gotten from their service. Exactly the same thing Epic is doing, and who made it is irrelevant. In fact, if you really dive into the business of production, you'll find that the company that you're paying your subscription to and the company that filmed and produced GoT aren't the same company. There was a licensing and an an exclusivity deal in their contract.
As far as games getting a discount on Epic.... That's not how economics work. You won't see someone put a game on the store and then mark it down automatically. Some may, but you're demanding proof that is unlikely to exist because business doesn't work that way, not because you're right. What you'll see instead is a combination of the game being on sale more often or for a larger discount. You'll also see developers either spending more money on their product intending to go for an exclusivity deal or more likely, not increasing the price of the game when it does come out, which you have seen over the last several years of there just being Steam.
Economics is closer to biology than math in a lot of ways. Supply and demand function in the same way that ecological-pressures do to increase or decrease the size of herds and frequency of mutation. There's no this happened, so this other thing automatically happens immediately. It's a matter of things happening over time due to appropriate pressures.
I've seen a few macro-economic courses floating around for free on Youtube and from some universities' websites if you'd like to know more.
I notice how you completely ignored my comments on Epic's business practices to get their exclusives. Unsurprising. I also like how you go and back peddle on your earlier comment on being able to buy game "5-10%" less because of the exclusive deals. Again, more competition is always better for consumers, not worse. Unless you do it the way Epic is doing it by simply throwing their money at suppliers and encouraging them to fuck their customers and other digital publishers. And yes, I did have to buy HBO separately from my cable company. Steam is far from perfect and they need real competition (sorry GoG) but this isn't the way I want to see it done.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
MMORPG you can run 7 of these stories a week but you are not going to change anyone's mind on either side at this point so why not just live and let live. People don't want to use the shitty EGS store or support Sweenie The Weenie trying to muscle his way into the game store market.
I think everyone gets skeptical as well when a journalist who is suppose to present a non biased bipartisan viewpoint overwhelmingly supports one side which at that point becomes counter productive to what you are trying to do which I'm sure is educate your reader , I think... .
if that was true, publishers wouldn't be happy with sales they have got from the epic store, but please continue to weave your own narrative to make yourself happy.
Epic doesn't really care about sales right now. They're just trying to buy up as many games as they can to keep them away from Steam and get some forward momentum for their store with a larger catalogue of games. The WWE is doing that right now by signing as many indie wrestler free agents as they can to keep them away from the new All Elite Wrestling (AEW) company that will be staring up on TNT network this fall. WWE may not even use any of those guys for anything meaningful but it doesn't matter because they only signed them to keep them away from AEW.
No. You need to stop using that phase "epic is buying up exclusives"
Offering a publisher / Developer a more lucrative deal is not buying up anything, infact they aren't even buying anything
- Epic Offers a minimum sales Guarantee, these deals are worked out on a title by title basis and i'm sure none are ever exactly the same. If the sales on EGS fail to meet the minimum set out by the terms of the contract then Epic pays the difference to make up the negotiated minimum sales, thus the publisher / developer doesn't lose out any of their projected sales.
This is not BUYING up exclusives, it's giving someone options
Option A - you can go to steam and pay 30% or 25% or 22% whatever the numbers are depending on your sales, you will get a big target audience who may or may not buy the game and some limited time showcase in a store with many titles, Steam is a fairly safe bet because of the huge userbase so you're guaranteed to make some money hopefully
Option B - You can Sign a 6 or 12 month exclusivity deal with EGS, in which we guarantee you will sell x amount of copies, if you don't we will pay the difference and we will only take 12% of your sales to be hosted on our platform, while it may be smaller and not be as feature robust at the moment, we still have a big customer base and you will get ample exposure.
The decision is wholeheartedly upto the publisher / developer to decide which option is best for them and go with it, obviously the epic deals are pretty good and fair and reasonable or people wouldn't be taking them.
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Let me ask you, why when it comes to good for the consumer do focus on pricing here. Do you think that is the only thing where it can be good for the consumer.
Simple reason for me , I want to keep all my games on Steam ( have over 3k titles now)
There is no incentive to go elsewhere , particularly to a vastly inferior platform ..
Even the games Epic gives away , i would rather pay on Steam to keep one Library
Nothing wrong with that. Bet you change your mind, though. I used to be super anti-Steam in the day, but now it's awesome. Personally, I'd really rather get all my games on Steam, too.
But, I can't fault a company for wanting to get away from that 30% hit and it was eventually going to change anyway, so might as well be now.
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Let me ask you, why when it comes to good for the consumer do focus on pricing here. Do you think that is the only thing where it can be good for the consumer.
Even though it is difficult to understand what you are saying, I'll reply.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Let me ask you, why when it comes to good for the consumer do focus on pricing here. Do you think that is the only thing where it can be good for the consumer.
Even though it is difficult to understand what you are saying, I'll reply.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
Good point. Both launchers are free though so its function only. Epic is behind on that one. According to their roadmap however they should be up to speed in a year and roughly comparible to Steam.
What Epic offers right now is a healthier financial environment for developers which is beneficial to gamers longterm. It offers weekly free games yours to keep forever, this is benificial to gamers right now and better value then the ‘free for a weekend’ games Steam offers. Epic also has some form of quality control over their store whereas Steam has become an open sewer for asset flips, demo’s, half translated crap etc. which clutters everything.
Many people also seem to be very naive when it comes to battling monopolies or running a business. Cheaper games will immediately be undercut by a monopoly, more functions immediately countered. The big boys have more staff and more money and can run you in the ground with these tactics. Market penetration is only possible by binding customers to you and exclusives are the way to do it.
Most other reasons given seem to be a direct result of Stockholm Syndrom or a Pavlovian response.
/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
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Let me ask you, why when it comes to good for the consumer do focus on pricing here. Do you think that is the only thing where it can be good for the consumer.
Even though it is difficult to understand what you are saying, I'll reply.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
Good point. Both launchers are free though so its function only. Epic is behind on that one. According to their roadmap however they should be up to speed in a year and roughly comparible to Steam.
What Epic offers right now is a healthier financial environment for developers which is beneficial to gamers longterm. It offers weekly free games yours to keep forever, this is benificial to gamers right now and better value then the ‘free for a weekend’ games Steam offers. Epic also has some form of quality control over their store whereas Steam has become an open sewer for asset flips, demo’s, half translated crap etc. which clutters everything.
Many people also seem to be very naive when it comes to battling monopolies or running a business. Cheaper games will immediately be undercut by a monopoly, more functions immediately countered. The big boys have more staff and more money and can run you in the ground with these tactics. Market penetration is only possible by binding customers to you and exclusives are the way to do it.
Most other reasons given seem to be a direct result of Stockholm Syndrom or a Pavlovian response.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
So, you seem like an honest broker. So I'll address your point of view because... I mean why not.
As far as the Roadmap... you might as well be buying into Star Citizen at that point. I'm not saying that Epic is not committed to their goals, but this type of trust you are showing them, based on nothing, is interesting to me at the very least. Are you biased or not? It is a question that I think you should at least consider.
There is not doubt that the "big boys" (Valve) have more resources. My main complaint doesn't have to do with whether or not Valve is a near monopoly. My complaint has do with the methods with which competitors dethrone them. Introducing exclusivity for literally millions is extremely obnoxious to me. Introducing a platform that offers games at a better price sound amazing to me.
You must understand where I'm coming from from a philosophical view.
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Let me ask you, why when it comes to good for the consumer do focus on pricing here. Do you think that is the only thing where it can be good for the consumer.
Even though it is difficult to understand what you are saying, I'll reply.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
Good point. Both launchers are free though so its function only. Epic is behind on that one. According to their roadmap however they should be up to speed in a year and roughly comparible to Steam.
What Epic offers right now is a healthier financial environment for developers which is beneficial to gamers longterm. It offers weekly free games yours to keep forever, this is benificial to gamers right now and better value then the ‘free for a weekend’ games Steam offers. Epic also has some form of quality control over their store whereas Steam has become an open sewer for asset flips, demo’s, half translated crap etc. which clutters everything.
Many people also seem to be very naive when it comes to battling monopolies or running a business. Cheaper games will immediately be undercut by a monopoly, more functions immediately countered. The big boys have more staff and more money and can run you in the ground with these tactics. Market penetration is only possible by binding customers to you and exclusives are the way to do it.
Most other reasons given seem to be a direct result of Stockholm Syndrom or a Pavlovian response.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
So, you seem like an honest broker. So I'll address your point of view because... I mean why not.
As far as the Roadmap... you might as well be buying into Star Citizen at that point. I'm not saying that Epic is not committed to their goals, but this type of trust you are showing them, based on nothing, is interesting to me at the very least. Are you biased or not? It is a question that I think you should at least consider.
There is not doubt that the "big boys" (Valve) have more resources. My main complaint doesn't have to do with whether or not Valve is a near monopoly. My complaint has do with the methods with which competitors dethrone them. Introducing exclusivity for literally millions is extremely obnoxious to me. Introducing a platform that offers games at a better price sound amazing to me.
You must understand where I'm coming from from a philosophical view.
I get it, for me personally its not worth it though, I go where the games I like are.
As for perhaps being biased, I trust none of the companies. But the crazy idea that Gabe is better then Sweeny or Valve a nicer company then Epic just rubs me the wrong way as its incredibly naive and nothing more then an emotional investment and not a fact. That is why I jokingly used Stockholm Syndrom.
/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
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Let me ask you, why when it comes to good for the consumer do focus on pricing here. Do you think that is the only thing where it can be good for the consumer.
Even though it is difficult to understand what you are saying, I'll reply.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
Good point. Both launchers are free though so its function only. Epic is behind on that one. According to their roadmap however they should be up to speed in a year and roughly comparible to Steam.
What Epic offers right now is a healthier financial environment for developers which is beneficial to gamers longterm. It offers weekly free games yours to keep forever, this is benificial to gamers right now and better value then the ‘free for a weekend’ games Steam offers. Epic also has some form of quality control over their store whereas Steam has become an open sewer for asset flips, demo’s, half translated crap etc. which clutters everything.
Many people also seem to be very naive when it comes to battling monopolies or running a business. Cheaper games will immediately be undercut by a monopoly, more functions immediately countered. The big boys have more staff and more money and can run you in the ground with these tactics. Market penetration is only possible by binding customers to you and exclusives are the way to do it.
Most other reasons given seem to be a direct result of Stockholm Syndrom or a Pavlovian response.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
So, you seem like an honest broker. So I'll address your point of view because... I mean why not.
As far as the Roadmap... you might as well be buying into Star Citizen at that point. I'm not saying that Epic is not committed to their goals, but this type of trust you are showing them, based on nothing, is interesting to me at the very least. Are you biased or not? It is a question that I think you should at least consider.
There is not doubt that the "big boys" (Valve) have more resources. My main complaint doesn't have to do with whether or not Valve is a near monopoly. My complaint has do with the methods with which competitors dethrone them. Introducing exclusivity for literally millions is extremely obnoxious to me. Introducing a platform that offers games at a better price sound amazing to me.
You must understand where I'm coming from from a philosophical view.
I get it, for me personally its not worth it though, I go where the games I like are.
As for perhaps being biased, I trust none of the companies. But the crazy idea that Gabe is better then Sweeny or Valve a nicer company then Epic just rubs me the wrong way as its incredibly naive and nothing more then an emotional investment and not a fact. That is why I jokingly used Stockholm Syndrom.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I mean, of course that's naive. That goes both (all) ways. We are way too disconnected from Gabe or Sweeny to even consider making a judgement on either of them when it comes to morality (at least from my perspective}.
I despise these posts where people trash one platform or the other. Usually, they are stupid. While I can understand your Stockholm syndrome reference, I think you should at least to consider your own point of view. Reading your sentences, it seems like there is an extreme bias against the status quo.
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Let me ask you, why when it comes to good for the consumer do focus on pricing here. Do you think that is the only thing where it can be good for the consumer.
Even though it is difficult to understand what you are saying, I'll reply.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
Good point. Both launchers are free though so its function only. Epic is behind on that one. According to their roadmap however they should be up to speed in a year and roughly comparible to Steam.
What Epic offers right now is a healthier financial environment for developers which is beneficial to gamers longterm. It offers weekly free games yours to keep forever, this is benificial to gamers right now and better value then the ‘free for a weekend’ games Steam offers. Epic also has some form of quality control over their store whereas Steam has become an open sewer for asset flips, demo’s, half translated crap etc. which clutters everything.
Many people also seem to be very naive when it comes to battling monopolies or running a business. Cheaper games will immediately be undercut by a monopoly, more functions immediately countered. The big boys have more staff and more money and can run you in the ground with these tactics. Market penetration is only possible by binding customers to you and exclusives are the way to do it.
Most other reasons given seem to be a direct result of Stockholm Syndrom or a Pavlovian response.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
So, you seem like an honest broker. So I'll address your point of view because... I mean why not.
As far as the Roadmap... you might as well be buying into Star Citizen at that point. I'm not saying that Epic is not committed to their goals, but this type of trust you are showing them, based on nothing, is interesting to me at the very least. Are you biased or not? It is a question that I think you should at least consider.
There is not doubt that the "big boys" (Valve) have more resources. My main complaint doesn't have to do with whether or not Valve is a near monopoly. My complaint has do with the methods with which competitors dethrone them. Introducing exclusivity for literally millions is extremely obnoxious to me. Introducing a platform that offers games at a better price sound amazing to me.
You must understand where I'm coming from from a philosophical view.
I get it, for me personally its not worth it though, I go where the games I like are.
As for perhaps being biased, I trust none of the companies. But the crazy idea that Gabe is better then Sweeny or Valve a nicer company then Epic just rubs me the wrong way as its incredibly naive and nothing more then an emotional investment and not a fact. That is why I jokingly used Stockholm Syndrom.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
I mean, of course that's naive. That goes both (all) ways. We are way too disconnected from Gabe or Sweeny to even consider making a judgement on either of them when it comes to morality (at least from my perspective}.
I despise these posts where people trash one platform or the other. Usually, they are stupid. While I can understand your Stockholm syndrome reference, I think you should at least to consider your own point of view. Reading your sentences, it seems like there is an extreme bias against the status quo.
But the status quo IS people trashing platforms, just read 80% of the comments in all these threads, stupid indeed. And yes, I have a bias against the hate spewing and hypocricy that comes with that, I think its ridiculous. All these companies want your money and will do what is possible to get it, they’re all “evil.”
/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
I notice how you completely ignored my comments on Epic's business practices to get their exclusives. Unsurprising. I also like how you go and back peddle on your earlier comment on being able to buy game "5-10%" less because of the exclusive deals. Again, more competition is always better for consumers, not worse. Unless you do it the way Epic is doing it by simply throwing their money at suppliers and encouraging them to fuck their customers and other digital publishers. And yes, I did have to buy HBO separately from my cable company. Steam is far from perfect and they need real competition (sorry GoG) but this isn't the way I want to see it done.
Well, I have no first-hand information about these devious business practices, so it'd be hard for me to comment. I suspect that they're not devious, but just being represented that way by people who don't understand how business works, or possibly by Steam themselves attempting to impact public perception. If you have a specific incident you'd like to cite, I'll look at it and tell you what I think.
I also did not back peddle. You misread. When I said games could decrease in price, I was talking in the aggregate for one thing. For another, even the statement you thought was a back-peddle holds true. If a game goes on sale for 5% off on Steam and then in an alternate universe goes on sale for 20% on Epic.... You might be surprised to find that the game on Epic was actually 15% cheaper than the game on Steam. You might also find a game on sale for 5% a month out of the year on Steam. In this same alternate universe, you might find that game in the Epic store on sale for 5% six months out of the year. I realize you don't think you saved any money, but all those people who bought the game for 5% off who would have otherwise paid full price think they did.
Yes you bought HBO separately, but you paid the same price whether it had GoT or not. Maybe you bought it to watch movies or maybe you're a West World fan. Either way, you get loads of exclusives that you don't directly pay for. HBO uses their profits from the subscriptions to pay for those exclusive deals in order to retain and attract more subscriptions. You're paying for the 24/7/365 access that is HBO. The exclusives are just freebies to make the service more attractive.
Look man, Economics 101. If it's not good for everybody, it's not good business. If these deals REALLY aren't good for the consumer, then all parties involved will go out of business and you'll be vindicated. That's not going to happen, though. It won't happen because you're wrong and even though you're really upset at someone else trying to make a buck on their own labor the best way they can, they're still providing a product that people will buy and the average consumer really doesn't care much about all those extra features that make Steam a "fully featured" distribution platform. And despite your best attempts to hate it, it's going to benefit you in the long run. Best part is... even if it's a total failure, you'll still benefit by having the industry shook up a little bit.
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
No, business and economics are complex and there are a lot of moving factors. This specific "movement" is good because it gives publishers a viable alternative to Steam. Exclusives are the tool Epic is using to capture market share, which increases their capability to compete. Competition is always good for everyone involved, even the competitors.
The article wasn't about breaking Steam, not that I would even want to. The point was just that this specific trend is a good thing and that most people who don't support it aren't really attacking it on sound reasons.
Even though it is difficult to understand what you are saying, I'll reply.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
Which product? If you're talking about you the consumer, that's obfuscated behind a number of layers. Steam/Epic are just the distributors. It'd be like Walmart and Target competing to sell some clothing line exclusively. You'll get the same product, but you might have to shop at one place or the other.
From the publisher/developer side, that's a different story. Steam/Epic are competing for the distribution deal and there it's pure costs/benefits analysis. You might save money with one to target a smaller audience and sans some of the great metrics, marketing support, and mature APIs that Steam offers, but maybe 15% or so is enough to be worth that difference to you.
What this tells me is that Steam has overpriced their support to publishers and someone else is taking advantage of it. That's all this is. Epic will improve what they can do/provide to the industry over time, so there could also be an element of investment here.
Most of that will be transparent to the end consumer. I suspect we'll either see another slowdown in the inflation of game prices because of this. We could also see more successful indie projects, as well. Either is good for the consumer, but it's not the sort of thing you'll be able to just look and see. We'll need to go back in a few years and demonstrate it with data.
I notice how you completely ignored my comments on Epic's business practices to get their exclusives. Unsurprising. I also like how you go and back peddle on your earlier comment on being able to buy game "5-10%" less because of the exclusive deals. Again, more competition is always better for consumers, not worse. Unless you do it the way Epic is doing it by simply throwing their money at suppliers and encouraging them to fuck their customers and other digital publishers. And yes, I did have to buy HBO separately from my cable company. Steam is far from perfect and they need real competition (sorry GoG) but this isn't the way I want to see it done.
Well, I have no first-hand information about these devious business practices, so it'd be hard for me to comment. I suspect that they're not devious, but just being represented that way by people who don't understand how business works, or possibly by Steam themselves attempting to impact public perception. If you have a specific incident you'd like to cite, I'll look at it and tell you what I think.
I also did not back peddle. You misread. When I said games could decrease in price, I was talking in the aggregate for one thing. For another, even the statement you thought was a back-peddle holds true. If a game goes on sale for 5% off on Steam and then in an alternate universe goes on sale for 20% on Epic.... You might be surprised to find that the game on Epic was actually 15% cheaper than the game on Steam. You might also find a game on sale for 5% a month out of the year on Steam. In this same alternate universe, you might find that game in the Epic store on sale for 5% six months out of the year. I realize you don't think you saved any money, but all those people who bought the game for 5% off who would have otherwise paid full price think they did.
Yes you bought HBO separately, but you paid the same price whether it had GoT or not. Maybe you bought it to watch movies or maybe you're a West World fan. Either way, you get loads of exclusives that you don't directly pay for. HBO uses their profits from the subscriptions to pay for those exclusive deals in order to retain and attract more subscriptions. You're paying for the 24/7/365 access that is HBO. The exclusives are just freebies to make the service more attractive.
Look man, Economics 101. If it's not good for everybody, it's not good business. If these deals REALLY aren't good for the consumer, then all parties involved will go out of business and you'll be vindicated. That's not going to happen, though. It won't happen because you're wrong and even though you're really upset at someone else trying to make a buck on their own labor the best way they can, they're still providing a product that people will buy and the average consumer really doesn't care much about all those extra features that make Steam a "fully featured" distribution platform. And despite your best attempts to hate it, it's going to benefit you in the long run. Best part is... even if it's a total failure, you'll still benefit by having the industry shook up a little bit.
I already cited some of the shady shit Epic has done to get their exclusives. Not surprising that you completely ignored it and I would say anyone who writes articles about the gaming industry and feigns ignorance about it probably shouldn't be writing said articles, either for being disingenuous in their statements or a lack of due diligence in researching their article. Here, I'll even point you in the right direction and do your job for you. Shenmue 3. Look that up.
You make a lot of claims about what will happen as if they are facts. Like I said, they're not facts, they're opinions. You're trying to speak from authority here but you have no idea how this will play out. Epic has made a lot of promises to improve their store and it's functionality yet I still don't see any meaningful improvement. They have truck loads of Fortnite money and years of seeing what Steam has done to make their improvements yet Epic has done nothing. That's either laziness, incompetence or indifference. I'll bet we have a full release of Star Citizen before EGS even comes close to offering what Steam does.
Your comment about HBO really makes me think you don't understand what "free" and "paid" really mean. I got NOTHING for free for the money I paid for HBO. I paid money for a specific product (GoT) that they were offering. It was the ONLY reason I got HBO and I watched nothing else. Last I checked, paying money to someone for a service doesn't mean it's free. I could have gotten HBO for "free" by pirating it by I prefer to pay people for their work. Either way, even if I did watch more than GoT, it by no means makes the rest of the content "freebies". What world do you live in where you would think that way?
I'm not upset about Steam having more competition. Steam can be a bloated pile of hot garbage much of the time. They really need to crack down and curate their store a lot better. Also, maybe it is time for them to reconsider what they charge developers to have their games on Steam and change the revenue model. What I don't like is HOW Epic is going about trying to create competition. They're a God awful company with a terrible store funded by a shady ChiCom company. They're trying to spend their way to compete with Steam rather than offering a truly better experience. Their deals with developers has led to many developers stabbing their customers in the back to get more money from Epic. That is not a good long term business practice for those developers because if likely hood of them receiving the same level of support for their next crowdfunded project is much lower now. This seems like a cash grab for these indie devs as maybe they just want a big payday and then slink back into the shadows and form another company for a new game and hope people forget about them or don't find out about the one Epic paid for.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I already cited some of the shady shit Epic has done to get their exclusives. Not surprising that you completely ignored it and I would say anyone who writes articles about the gaming industry and feigns ignorance about it probably shouldn't be writing said articles, either for being disingenuous in their statements or a lack of due diligence in researching their article. Here, I'll even point you in the right direction and do your job for you. Shenmue 3. Look that up.
You make a lot of claims about what will happen as if they are facts. Like I said, they're not facts, they're opinions. You're trying to speak from authority here but you have no idea how this will play out. Epic has made a lot of promises to improve their store and it's functionality yet I still don't see any meaningful improvement. They have truck loads of Fortnite money and years of seeing what Steam has done to make their improvements yet Epic has done nothing. That's either laziness, incompetence or indifference. I'll bet we have a full release of Star Citizen before EGS even comes close to offering what Steam does.
Your comment about HBO really makes me think you don't understand what "free" and "paid" really mean. I got NOTHING for free for the money I paid for HBO. I paid money for a specific product (GoT) that they were offering. It was the ONLY reason I got HBO and I watched nothing else. Last I checked, paying money to someone for a service doesn't mean it's free. I could have gotten HBO for "free" by pirating it by I prefer to pay people for their work. Either way, even if I did watch more than GoT, it by no means makes the rest of the content "freebies". What world do you live in where you would think that way?
I'm not upset about Steam having more competition. Steam can be a bloated pile of hot garbage much of the time. They really need to crack down and curate their store a lot better. Also, maybe it is time for them to reconsider what they charge developers to have their games on Steam and change the revenue model. What I don't like is HOW Epic is going about trying to create competition. They're a God awful company with a terrible store funded by a shady ChiCom company. They're trying to spend their way to compete with Steam rather than offering a truly better experience. Their deals with developers has led to many developers stabbing their customers in the back to get more money from Epic. That is not a good long term business practice for those developers because if likely hood of them receiving the same level of support for their next crowdfunded project is much lower now. This seems like a cash grab for these indie devs as maybe they just want a big payday and then slink back into the shadows and form another company for a new game and hope people forget about them or don't find out about the one Epic paid for.
Well, baseless ad hominem attacks aside, I looked up the game in question. If I understand the situation correctly, the Kickstarted and specifically promised Steam keys to backers during the kickstarter. Then, they went exclusive with Epic and told backers they wouldn't get the keys there were promised. Last thing I saw, Epic was reimbursing backers who wanted their money back.
So, this probably isn't a great example for you to have picked because you're trying to show how Epic is this terribly dishonest company. Let me break down responsibilities here for you. You can stop reading here if you like. You won't be very happy about the explanation.
The developer launched a crowdfunding campaign and made promises. They then signed an exclusive deal with Epic for their game. That deal probably included a clause about them not being able to put the game on Steam. Up to this point, it's all the developer's responsibility. They made the commitments and if Epic's deal did not allow them to keep those commitments, they could have walked away from it.
Additionally, there are other cases of games being offered on Steam and then later pulled to become exclusive to Epic after the fact. Metro Exodus, for example. The customers who bought Steam copies prior to the exclusivity deal retained their copies, so there is a precedent for handling these sorts of situations. A precedent which the Shenmue 3 developers did not choose to avail themselves of.
So all the fault and onus at this point is on the Shenmue 3 developer. Despite that, Epic's reimbursing backers out of their own pocket. There's no responsibility on their part to do that. It SHOULD be the developers who are reimbursing backers. But, you remember what I said about most small projects wrapping up in debt? Probably that situation here and I bet they don't have the cash to do reimbursements, so Epic is taking the hit on their behalf. I'm sure they worked out a deal to cover it through sales, but it's a risk on their part and one they didn't need to take.
Thus, you example really kind of suggests that Epic is a more honest and genuinely customer-focused company than Steam is.
<snip> Epic has made a lot of promises to improve their store and it's functionality yet I still don't see any meaningful improvement. They have truck loads of Fortnite money and years of seeing what Steam has done to make their improvements yet Epic has done nothing. <snip>
Not exactly. Epic laid out a roadmap - on day 1 - of features to be added along with a timeline. Not the same as oh woe we will have to improve our store.
Now you can argue that they could roll the features out faster.
You can argue that stuff being added mean nothing to you but e.g. regional pricing and cloud saves were frequently given as "things that EGS does not have" but they have been added. You cannot argue that features are not being added. (Which ones do you feel are key by the way - for posterity you understand).
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Let me ask you, why when it comes to good for the consumer do focus on pricing here. Do you think that is the only thing where it can be good for the consumer.
Even though it is difficult to understand what you are saying, I'll reply.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
Good point. Both launchers are free though so its function only. Epic is behind on that one. According to their roadmap however they should be up to speed in a year and roughly comparible to Steam.
What Epic offers right now is a healthier financial environment for developers which is beneficial to gamers longterm. It offers weekly free games yours to keep forever, this is benificial to gamers right now and better value then the ‘free for a weekend’ games Steam offers. Epic also has some form of quality control over their store whereas Steam has become an open sewer for asset flips, demo’s, half translated crap etc. which clutters everything.
Many people also seem to be very naive when it comes to battling monopolies or running a business. Cheaper games will immediately be undercut by a monopoly, more functions immediately countered. The big boys have more staff and more money and can run you in the ground with these tactics. Market penetration is only possible by binding customers to you and exclusives are the way to do it.
Most other reasons given seem to be a direct result of Stockholm Syndrom or a Pavlovian response.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
So, you seem like an honest broker. So I'll address your point of view because... I mean why not.
As far as the Roadmap... you might as well be buying into Star Citizen at that point. I'm not saying that Epic is not committed to their goals, but this type of trust you are showing them, based on nothing, is interesting to me at the very least. Are you biased or not? It is a question that I think you should at least consider.
There is not doubt that the "big boys" (Valve) have more resources. My main complaint doesn't have to do with whether or not Valve is a near monopoly. My complaint has do with the methods with which competitors dethrone them. Introducing exclusivity for literally millions is extremely obnoxious to me. Introducing a platform that offers games at a better price sound amazing to me.
You must understand where I'm coming from from a philosophical view.
it's not based off nothing, they have hit continuous milestones over the past few months and are delivering on the features on their roadmap in a timely fashion, so much has been added or changed in the past couple of months, i give them a genuine kudos for the hard work they are putting in.
So it's not based off nothing, it's based off the fact they said "here we have a trello board and we are commited to making these changes happen" and so far they have been delivering on what they said!
bringing the cancer of console wars to PC , any discussion is normalization of the behavior of literally the worst possible outcome EVER for consumers on the pc platform. it is awful and will hurt our future generations of gamers for decades to come, just like when you sit there normalizing loot crates for the 5th year in a row
I see exclusivity as fear in not being able to compete in an open market. I also will never buy an game as long as it is exclusive. Throughout my life there have been many games made that might have been great, but I didn't buy them because they were console exclusive to this or that console. I will not do exclusive on PC the same way I never have on console. It is a personal choice. If your game or platform can't stand on it's on an it has to hide behind things like offering discounts through things like exclusivity then I don't need either. I don't care about the reasons why a dev goes that route either, as a customer I just will not support it.
I also think it is absolutely despicable what some of these crowdfunded games have done (Ooblets and that one game sorta like Xcom which I forgot the name of) promising Steam versions and then selling out for an exclusivity deal.
Epics Exclusive deals are timed, other PC platforms will get all the games eventually
Yeah and that is fair enough I suppose, but I just think it is pretty disingenuous when it is a crowd funded game because people are quite literally giving you money with the expectation that when it is released they will be able to play it on the platform that you originally said it would be on. I don't really think anyone who wants to play a crowd funded game on Steam on day 1 will be very happy if they can't play it on Steam while people who don't mind Epic play it there.
Maybe I should have been a bit more specific though; Using crowd funding as a platform to signal boost your game to the point where Epic buys your game as an exclusive and you no longer need the crowd funding is downright dirty. These companies are essentially using people's good will (donations towards their crowdfunding campaign) towards something that didn't need their support in the first place. If your game is crowd funded and you want to gain additional funding that is something you need to show to your backers while keeping the original integrity of the game intact.(Not changing the original plan for example) It is not something you should be sharing with a 3rd party to get a quick buck while simultaneously telling all the people who helped you get to that point that they will have an extra "We are still making the game, BUT..." in the mix.
I agree with your point but there is a big BUT.
Life isn't that black and white, expense happens, things you can't account for arise in the gaming development world, extended development time, needing to hire more people for whatever reason, creditors calling, just life happening it can't be helped and sometimes there is things that happen which are just unavoidable.
I have no reason to believe that at any point they were crowdfunding with the intention of getting picked up with an exclusivity deal with Epic. I also believe that the choice would not have been easy for them and that it was probably a lengthy process for them to say yes to it, they have an idea of how many they need to sell and how many they want to sell and maybe the market forecasting for releasing on Steam wasn't going to get them where they needed to be.
Especially for a studio of 2 people who would have been primarily self funded outside of outsourcing.. it's ok for us to look in and cast judgement but can any of us honestly say if we were in that situation and epic came along saying "hey we will guarantee you X amount of sales on our store and if we don't reach that target don't stress we gonna pay the difference" after looking at our own financials and weighing up what could and couldn't happen we wouldn't take the deal, i can honestly say if i had been pouring my blood sweat and tears into something for x amount of years, i'd want to take the best deal on the table.
I don't think anyone sets out to be disingenuous but we are all human and we're all gonna do whats best for ourselves, at the end of the day anyone who backed it on kickstarter is still gonna get the game, might not be on their preferred platform but you're still getting the game.
It is not a matter of whether or not they were purposely being disingenuous, it is just how it ended up. Even if it is just perception. Perception is everything.
I see exclusivity as fear in not being able to compete in an open market. I also will never buy an game as long as it is exclusive. Throughout my life there have been many games made that might have been great, but I didn't buy them because they were console exclusive to this or that console. I will not do exclusive on PC the same way I never have on console. It is a personal choice. If your game or platform can't stand on it's on an it has to hide behind things like offering discounts through things like exclusivity then I don't need either. I don't care about the reasons why a dev goes that route either, as a customer I just will not support it.
I also think it is absolutely despicable what some of these crowdfunded games have done (Ooblets and that one game sorta like Xcom which I forgot the name of) promising Steam versions and then selling out for an exclusivity deal.
Epics Exclusive deals are timed, other PC platforms will get all the games eventually
Yeah and that is fair enough I suppose, but I just think it is pretty disingenuous when it is a crowd funded game because people are quite literally giving you money with the expectation that when it is released they will be able to play it on the platform that you originally said it would be on. I don't really think anyone who wants to play a crowd funded game on Steam on day 1 will be very happy if they can't play it on Steam while people who don't mind Epic play it there.
Maybe I should have been a bit more specific though; Using crowd funding as a platform to signal boost your game to the point where Epic buys your game as an exclusive and you no longer need the crowd funding is downright dirty. These companies are essentially using people's good will (donations towards their crowdfunding campaign) towards something that didn't need their support in the first place. If your game is crowd funded and you want to gain additional funding that is something you need to show to your backers while keeping the original integrity of the game intact.(Not changing the original plan for example) It is not something you should be sharing with a 3rd party to get a quick buck while simultaneously telling all the people who helped you get to that point that they will have an extra "We are still making the game, BUT..." in the mix.
I agree with your point but there is a big BUT.
Life isn't that black and white, expense happens, things you can't account for arise in the gaming development world, extended development time, needing to hire more people for whatever reason, creditors calling, just life happening it can't be helped and sometimes there is things that happen which are just unavoidable.
I have no reason to believe that at any point they were crowdfunding with the intention of getting picked up with an exclusivity deal with Epic. I also believe that the choice would not have been easy for them and that it was probably a lengthy process for them to say yes to it, they have an idea of how many they need to sell and how many they want to sell and maybe the market forecasting for releasing on Steam wasn't going to get them where they needed to be.
Especially for a studio of 2 people who would have been primarily self funded outside of outsourcing.. it's ok for us to look in and cast judgement but can any of us honestly say if we were in that situation and epic came along saying "hey we will guarantee you X amount of sales on our store and if we don't reach that target don't stress we gonna pay the difference" after looking at our own financials and weighing up what could and couldn't happen we wouldn't take the deal, i can honestly say if i had been pouring my blood sweat and tears into something for x amount of years, i'd want to take the best deal on the table.
I don't think anyone sets out to be disingenuous but we are all human and we're all gonna do whats best for ourselves, at the end of the day anyone who backed it on kickstarter is still gonna get the game, might not be on their preferred platform but you're still getting the game.
It is not a matter of whether or not they were purposely being disingenuous, it is just how it ended up. Even if it is just perception. Perception is everything.
yeah the perception of the few fans who were so morally outraged that they made death threats and harassed the devs is not the perception that anyone should concern themselves with.
Secondly, i pray some day you don't own businesses and have to make decisions that affect people in a negative way but do so for the best of your business, it's not easy making the hard calls but sometimes you have too.
I completely agree with their decision as my wife and i own 3 small businesses i've been in the position where i had to make hard decisions and it wasn't always favorable but we're here and stronger now because of it.
I'm sure regardless of how it's perceived the game will do fine
"Epic Games acknowledged and fixed the issue, but the suit
alleges that the company has failed to notify affected users. “Epic
Games has not yet directly informed or notified individual Fortnite users that their [personally identifiable information] may be compromised as a result of the breach,” the lawsuit says.
According to the filing, the plaintiff and anyone else
affected by the breaches “have an ongoing interest in ensuring that
their [personally identifiable information] is protected from past and
future cybersecurity threats."
Very honest, very cool.
Didn't Steam get nailed to the wall for exactly the same thing not too long ago and wasn't their response pretty much the same thing?
Not that one really makes the other okay, but you're talking about a corporate response to a specific situation. The attorneys are unlikely to have allowed them to do anything else, and I doubt their board of directors would have tolerated anything that went against the legal advice they were provided with.
As someone who works in cyber, I can say their response is relatively typical of what clients are advised to do by their legal counsel and not really indicative of superior or inferior ethics.
Comments
But, I can't fault a company for wanting to get away from that 30% hit and it was eventually going to change anyway, so might as well be now.
But I don't mind spreading the love I guess.
Different strokes...
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
It is framed like this is going to be GOOD for the consumer... in the long run. But there are no guarantees about its effectiveness. And in fact, while exclusives are a thing, the market is LESS competitive, not more. There is no competition among platforms over pricing with games that are exclusives. One price, take it or leave it. In an ideal world, we wouldn't be restricting releases to one platform, we would be releasing them to 10 platforms.
That is something that bothers me about the opinion in general. It admits that this just may have to be done, no matter how distasteful it is, in order for anyone to get market penetration and compete with steam.
Does the author think that exclusives are the only thing that will help break steam away from being a near monopoly? It seems myopic to me that someone might believe this is the only way.
Offering a publisher / Developer a more lucrative deal is not buying up anything, infact they aren't even buying anything
Option A - you can go to steam and pay 30% or 25% or 22% whatever the numbers are depending on your sales, you will get a big target audience who may or may not buy the game and some limited time showcase in a store with many titles, Steam is a fairly safe bet because of the huge userbase so you're guaranteed to make some money hopefully
Option B - You can Sign a 6 or 12 month exclusivity deal with EGS, in which we guarantee you will sell x amount of copies, if you don't we will pay the difference and we will only take 12% of your sales to be hosted on our platform, while it may be smaller and not be as feature robust at the moment, we still have a big customer base and you will get ample exposure.
The decision is wholeheartedly upto the publisher / developer to decide which option is best for them and go with it, obviously the epic deals are pretty good and fair and reasonable or people wouldn't be taking them.
Pricing is not the only thing that is good for the consumer. In fact, quality of product is what I am most interested in personally. How one gets to the best quality product for the best price is fundamentally what the argument is about.
What Epic offers right now is a healthier financial environment for developers which is beneficial to gamers longterm. It offers weekly free games yours to keep forever, this is benificial to gamers right now and better value then the ‘free for a weekend’ games Steam offers. Epic also has some form of quality control over their store whereas Steam has become an open sewer for asset flips, demo’s, half translated crap etc. which clutters everything.
Many people also seem to be very naive when it comes to battling monopolies or running a business. Cheaper games will immediately be undercut by a monopoly, more functions immediately countered. The big boys have more staff and more money and can run you in the ground with these tactics. Market penetration is only possible by binding customers to you and exclusives are the way to do it.
Most other reasons given seem to be a direct result of Stockholm Syndrom or a Pavlovian response.
/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
As far as the Roadmap... you might as well be buying into Star Citizen at that point. I'm not saying that Epic is not committed to their goals, but this type of trust you are showing them, based on nothing, is interesting to me at the very least. Are you biased or not? It is a question that I think you should at least consider.
There is not doubt that the "big boys" (Valve) have more resources. My main complaint doesn't have to do with whether or not Valve is a near monopoly. My complaint has do with the methods with which competitors dethrone them. Introducing exclusivity for literally millions is extremely obnoxious to me. Introducing a platform that offers games at a better price sound amazing to me.
You must understand where I'm coming from from a philosophical view.
As for perhaps being biased, I trust none of the companies. But the crazy idea that Gabe is better then Sweeny or Valve a nicer company then Epic just rubs me the wrong way as its incredibly naive and nothing more then an emotional investment and not a fact. That is why I jokingly used Stockholm Syndrom.
/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
I despise these posts where people trash one platform or the other. Usually, they are stupid. While I can understand your Stockholm syndrome reference, I think you should at least to consider your own point of view. Reading your sentences, it seems like there is an extreme bias against the status quo.
/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
I also did not back peddle. You misread. When I said games could decrease in price, I was talking in the aggregate for one thing. For another, even the statement you thought was a back-peddle holds true. If a game goes on sale for 5% off on Steam and then in an alternate universe goes on sale for 20% on Epic.... You might be surprised to find that the game on Epic was actually 15% cheaper than the game on Steam. You might also find a game on sale for 5% a month out of the year on Steam. In this same alternate universe, you might find that game in the Epic store on sale for 5% six months out of the year. I realize you don't think you saved any money, but all those people who bought the game for 5% off who would have otherwise paid full price think they did.
Yes you bought HBO separately, but you paid the same price whether it had GoT or not. Maybe you bought it to watch movies or maybe you're a West World fan. Either way, you get loads of exclusives that you don't directly pay for. HBO uses their profits from the subscriptions to pay for those exclusive deals in order to retain and attract more subscriptions. You're paying for the 24/7/365 access that is HBO. The exclusives are just freebies to make the service more attractive.
Look man, Economics 101. If it's not good for everybody, it's not good business. If these deals REALLY aren't good for the consumer, then all parties involved will go out of business and you'll be vindicated. That's not going to happen, though. It won't happen because you're wrong and even though you're really upset at someone else trying to make a buck on their own labor the best way they can, they're still providing a product that people will buy and the average consumer really doesn't care much about all those extra features that make Steam a "fully featured" distribution platform. And despite your best attempts to hate it, it's going to benefit you in the long run. Best part is... even if it's a total failure, you'll still benefit by having the industry shook up a little bit.
The article wasn't about breaking Steam, not that I would even want to. The point was just that this specific trend is a good thing and that most people who don't support it aren't really attacking it on sound reasons.
From the publisher/developer side, that's a different story. Steam/Epic are competing for the distribution deal and there it's pure costs/benefits analysis. You might save money with one to target a smaller audience and sans some of the great metrics, marketing support, and mature APIs that Steam offers, but maybe 15% or so is enough to be worth that difference to you.
What this tells me is that Steam has overpriced their support to publishers and someone else is taking advantage of it. That's all this is. Epic will improve what they can do/provide to the industry over time, so there could also be an element of investment here.
Most of that will be transparent to the end consumer. I suspect we'll either see another slowdown in the inflation of game prices because of this. We could also see more successful indie projects, as well. Either is good for the consumer, but it's not the sort of thing you'll be able to just look and see. We'll need to go back in a few years and demonstrate it with data.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
So, this probably isn't a great example for you to have picked because you're trying to show how Epic is this terribly dishonest company. Let me break down responsibilities here for you. You can stop reading here if you like. You won't be very happy about the explanation.
The developer launched a crowdfunding campaign and made promises. They then signed an exclusive deal with Epic for their game. That deal probably included a clause about them not being able to put the game on Steam. Up to this point, it's all the developer's responsibility. They made the commitments and if Epic's deal did not allow them to keep those commitments, they could have walked away from it.
Additionally, there are other cases of games being offered on Steam and then later pulled to become exclusive to Epic after the fact. Metro Exodus, for example. The customers who bought Steam copies prior to the exclusivity deal retained their copies, so there is a precedent for handling these sorts of situations. A precedent which the Shenmue 3 developers did not choose to avail themselves of.
So all the fault and onus at this point is on the Shenmue 3 developer. Despite that, Epic's reimbursing backers out of their own pocket. There's no responsibility on their part to do that. It SHOULD be the developers who are reimbursing backers. But, you remember what I said about most small projects wrapping up in debt? Probably that situation here and I bet they don't have the cash to do reimbursements, so Epic is taking the hit on their behalf. I'm sure they worked out a deal to cover it through sales, but it's a risk on their part and one they didn't need to take.
Thus, you example really kind of suggests that Epic is a more honest and genuinely customer-focused company than Steam is.
https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap
Now you can argue that they could roll the features out faster.
You can argue that stuff being added mean nothing to you but e.g. regional pricing and cloud saves were frequently given as "things that EGS does not have" but they have been added. You cannot argue that features are not being added. (Which ones do you feel are key by the way - for posterity you understand).
Roadmap btw: https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap
I completely agree with their decision as my wife and i own 3 small businesses i've been in the position where i had to make hard decisions and it wasn't always favorable but we're here and stronger now because of it.
I'm sure regardless of how it's perceived the game will do fine
Not that one really makes the other okay, but you're talking about a corporate response to a specific situation. The attorneys are unlikely to have allowed them to do anything else, and I doubt their board of directors would have tolerated anything that went against the legal advice they were provided with.
As someone who works in cyber, I can say their response is relatively typical of what clients are advised to do by their legal counsel and not really indicative of superior or inferior ethics.