• iOS/Safari issues when launching the site from mobile home screens should now be fixed! A2HS button compatibility on Android Firefox has also been fixed! Add some purple to your home screen today.

Epic Games Store changes its refund policy to match Steam's, adds local pricing (on some countries)

Jan 27, 2018
2,149
That's wrong though.
Saying that Valve didnt invest their profits into developpers is blatantly wrong. They just didnt do moneyhats. Because they dont believe in such an outdated and anticompetitive practice.

They invested inside tools. Tools that made the PC platform more open. Software to make developpement easier for devs. Features to aleviate developers work. Giving them ALL equal chances.

They did things so that developers making games, whenever AAA or indie, could support any VR hardware without them medling into that. They did things so that ALL developers could support any controler without them doing it. They're doing things so that ALL developers can release games playable on Linux and soon MacOS, without them working on it.

Valve doesnt believe in exclusives. In a sane industry, people would champion that. But here we have a bunch of hypocrites on this very forum. How do you I know that ?
Pretty simple: Valve bought Campo Santo, which is now part of Valve. Firewatch is still sold on PS4/One. Firewatch is still coming to Switch. Their next game, Valley of the Gods, is still coming to consoles. According to some people in this thread, Valve isnt doing anything.

So I'm asking these people, how honestly they would have react to the following news ?
"Valve bought Campo Santo. Firewatch cancelled on Switch. Valley of the Gods now Steam only, console versions cancelled."

I can tell you, no one here would say "Well done ! Valve investing in games ! Competition at full work ! Your move now Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft !".
In fact, I can tell you users here who are Switch fans (there's no accusation or bad thing here, it's nice to like things) would ve rightfully pissed at this news.

Valve has been investing to make the market grow as a whole. Not Steam only. The whole platform. They made the digital market on PC far better and competitive thanks to free steam key generation, cultivating a shiton of storefronts.
They made Windows better by making gaming easier and more convenient thanks to various tools and features.
They made Linux and MacOS better by pushing gaming on these platforms.

They made the PC VR market better with a wide vendor agnostic support of VR headsets.

Epic is working to make Epic bigger. That's all.
So like the console manufacturers, they invested in development tools, networks, infrastructures, hardware.

But at the end, because there are three companies competing for the market share in consoles, they were forced to offer additional incentives to developers.

The thing is that in the PC space, Valve obtained a situation of dominance.

For its own merits, because as you have said, they did a lot of good things in the PC space.

But when their benefice grew, and Steam started to be really BIG, they didn't invest the same amount of resources than console manufactures in reverting part of this benefice to developers, because of course, they were dominating the market.

In consoles, we have seen this: every time than a new company appeared in the market, the rest of companies were forced to push their investment in developers.

Before the success of Sony, with the first Playstation conquering the Japanese home market, Nintendo was only a developer of games. And in N64/Gamecube, for the first time, we saw Nintendo funding products of third party companies, imitating the same strategy used by Sony.

Until this year, Valve was in a confortable position, like Nintendo in the 80s and to a lesser extent, Nintendo in the early 90s.

Like in the NES era, Steam was the only option in the PC market, with the other ones being marginal and irrelevant, in the same way as the main competitor of NES, the PC Engine, was a niche product.

And now than Epic has appeared like Sony in the mid-90s, offering marketing deals and better conditions to the developers, Valve will be forced to react.

Indeed, they have already reacted, by reducing their cut in the price of a game until a 20%, for the most successful games.

This is a reaction to Epic, and it's thanks to a new agent in the market.

So as I said, this is positive for the industry.
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,990
Belgium
Then good luck playing new games
Lol, Epic isn't gonna moneyhat ALL new games

Indies? How many AAA devs left on Steam?
Games don't need to be on Steam. The major reason people are boycotting Epic is because they are moneyhatting 3rd party devs. The majority of pc gamers have accepted that big publishers are launching their games in their own launchers.
 
Oct 25, 2017
141
They had no obligation to allow key generation though. For retail copies, sure. But if they act like Epic is doing, they were in a position to be the only storefront.
Yet, they made that a thing. As far as I know, Epic is working against that. We should see when The Division 2 is releasing.

Free key generation is amazing yes. Because it means devs getting 100% of revenue if they wish. Why do you think Itch.io can exist ? Because of that.

Free key generation is basically Valve cultivating storefront competition while giving a great backend for everyone.
Did you miss the part where Steam hasn't always been this huge? Keep in mind that PC game sales weren't always largely digital, back when Steam started physical versions of PC games were still a big thing. And charging for Steam keys would have meant publishers would have to pay for that on top of the retailer's cut, distribution costs, the costs of making those discs etc.

If they wouldn't have made key generation free, developers probably just wouldn't have sold Steam versions of their games outside of Steam. It's less likely that Steam would be as big as it is today, or even still exist, if they charged publishers for keys back then.

Also, let's be real: when people want a Steam version of a game, unless they want to directly support the developer, they're not going to buy it from a place where the developer gets 100% of revenue. They're either going to buy it on Steam, or maybe from a store where they can get a discount from. You know, those stores you keep saying couldn't do without their 30% cut. I'd love it if itch.io was a bigger thing than it is, but it isn't. And even if Steam keys would sell well on there, the people who buy them would still be likely to use Steam for the developer's future games cause hey that's the thing they use to play their games now.

Anyway, free key generation was basically Valve making it so publishers weren't incentivized to sell non-Steam versions of their games. Valve didn't make keys free cause hey they're just a great bunch of people who care. The made keys free cause they benefit from doing so.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
So like the console manufacturers, they invested in development tools, networks, infrastructures, hardware.

But at the end, because there are three companies competing for the market share in consoles, they were forced to offer additional incentives to developers.

The thing is that in the PC space, Valve obtained a situation of dominance.

For its own merits, because as you have said, they did a lot of good things in the PC space.

But when their benefice grew, and Steam started to be really BIG, they didn't invest the same amount of resources than console manufactures in reverting part of this benefice to developers, because of course, they were dominating the market.

In consoles, we have seen this: every time than a new company appeared in the market, the rest of companies were forced to push their investment in developers.

Before the success of Sony, with the first Playstation conquering the Japanese home market, Nintendo was only a developer of games. And in N64/Gamecube, for the first time, we saw Nintendo funding products of third party companies, imitating the same strategy used by Sony.

Until this year, Valve was in a confortable position, like Nintendo in the 80s and to a lesser extent, Nintendo in the early 90s.

Like in the NES era, Steam was the only option in the PC market, with the other ones being marginal and irrelevant, in the same way as the main competitor of NES, the PC Engine, was a niche product.

And now than Epic has appeared like Sony in the mid-90s, offering marketing deals and better conditions to the developers, Valve will be forced to react.

Indeed, they have already reacted, by reducing their cut in the price of a game until a 20%, for the most successful games.

This is a reaction to Epic, and it's thanks to a new agent in the market.

So as I said, this is positive for the industry.


"So like the console manufacturers".
No. I stop you right there.
Because it means you didnt read my reply. Console manufacturers contribute to THEIR own ecosystem. Valve contributes to the entire market. Did Sony released tools to support Xbox or Switch controllers on PS4 ? Did Sony released tools to play on Xbox or Switch ? Did Sony or any console manufacturer released tools for wide VR support on multiple platforms ?

No.

Heck, you wont even reply about my comment on Campo Santo. Can you reply to that please ?
Because that's pretty major, as I said, Valve DOESNT believe in exclusivity.
Did they cancel Firewatch and Valley of the Gods on consoles despite it becoming a Valve studio ?

Because according to you, that's what they should do.

The positive for the industry is when you contribute for EVERYONE.

The cut isnt contribute to everyone, only to devs and it means the death of 3rd party store, so the death of price competition.

Epic doesnt contribute to all the devs. Just handpicked ones with moneyhat.

If you want to engage with me, please reply about the entire point.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
Did you miss the part where Steam hasn't always been this huge? Keep in mind that PC game sales weren't always largely digital, back when Steam started physical versions of PC games were still a big thing. And charging for Steam keys would have meant publishers would have to pay for that on top of the retailer's cut, distribution costs, the costs of making those discs etc.

If they wouldn't have made key generation free, developers probably just wouldn't have sold Steam versions of their games outside of Steam. It's less likely that Steam would be as big as it is today, or even still exist, if they charged publishers for keys back then.

Also, let's be real: when people want a Steam version of a game, unless they want to directly support the developer, they're not going to buy it from a place where the developer gets 100% of revenue. They're either going to buy it on Steam, or maybe from a store where they can get a discount from. You know, those stores you keep saying couldn't do without their 30% cut. I'd love it if itch.io was a bigger thing than it is, but it isn't. And even if Steam keys would sell well on there, the people who buy them would still be likely to use Steam for the developer's future games cause hey that's the thing they use to play their games now.

Anyway, free key generation was basically Valve making it so publishers weren't incentivized to sell non-Steam versions of their games. Valve didn't make keys free cause hey they're just a great bunch of people who care. The made keys free cause they benefit from doing so.

Did you miss the part where Steam was basically the only relevant storefront even back then ?

As I said, yes for retail copies it made sense to use Steam keys for big publisher adoption.

But online ? When Steam was the only relevant one ?
And well, they could've kept it for only big publishers ?

And did you miss the part where Epic isnt relevant today, yet is adopting that kind of monopolistic practices, which means no free key generation ?

That's the difference here: Valve didnt make a preferential treatment for steam key generation when they had the occasion and were the only relevant actor in digital space.

Epic is making a preferential treatment and doesnt allow games to be sold elsewhere while they're irrelevant as of today.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,442
Sweden
"So like the console manufacturers".
No. I stop you right there.
Because it means you didnt read my reply. Console manufacturers contribute to THEIR own ecosystem. Valve contributes to the entire market. Did Sony released tools to support Xbox or Switch controllers on PS4 ? Did Sony released tools to play on Xbox or Switch ? Did Sony or any console manufacturer released tools for wide VR support on multiple platforms ?

No.

Heck, you wont even reply about my comment on Campo Santo. Can you reply to that please ?
Because that's pretty major, as I said, Valve DOESNT believe in exclusivity.
Did they cancel Firewatch and Valley of the Gods on consoles despite it becoming a Valve studio ?

Because according to you, that's what they should do.

The positive for the industry is when you contribute for EVERYONE.

The cut isnt contribute to everyone, only to devs and it means the death of 3rd party store, so the death of price competition.

Epic doesnt contribute to all the devs. Just handpicked ones with moneyhat.

If you want to engage with me, please reply about the entire point.
Well they are doing stuff that is contributing to all:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/12...te-cross-platform-matchmaking-developer-tools

“Throughout 2019, we’ll be launching a large set of cross-platform game services originally built for Fortnite, and battle-tested with 200,000,000 players across seven platforms,” reads the announcement. “These services will be free for all developers, and will be open to all engines, all platforms, and all stores. As a developer, you’re free to choose mix-and-match solutions from Epic and others as you wish.”
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
Well they are doing stuff that is contributing to all:

https://www.theverge.com/2018/12/12...te-cross-platform-matchmaking-developer-tools

“Throughout 2019, we’ll be launching a large set of cross-platform game services originally built for Fortnite, and battle-tested with 200,000,000 players across seven platforms,” reads the announcement. “These services will be free for all developers, and will be open to all engines, all platforms, and all stores. As a developer, you’re free to choose mix-and-match solutions from Epic and others as you wish.”


That's Unreal Engine though.
Not the Epic Store. Sure, one would say it's the same company, but it's two service providers. It's like comparing PlayStation and Sony Music.
 
Oct 25, 2017
141
Did you miss the part where Steam was basically the only relevant storefront even back then ?

As I said, yes for retail copies it made sense to use Steam keys for big publisher adoption.

But online ? When Steam was the only relevant one ?
And well, they could've kept it for only big publishers ?

And did you miss the part where Epic isnt relevant today, yet is adopting that kind of monopolistic practices, which means no free key generation ?

That's the difference here: Valve didnt make a preferential treatment for steam key generation when they had the occasion and were the only relevant actor in digital space.

Epic is making a preferential treatment and doesnt allow games to be sold elsewhere while they're irrelevant as of today.
Are you just making shit up now? People hated Steam back when it first launched. I'm also not saying what Epic is doing is great, but you have to be kidding yourself if the company behind what's literally the biggest game right now is irrelevant. And I imagine that if they'd do key generation that they'd make it free as well, cause it just makes sense for them to do that. Steam never had any occasion where "preferential treatment" for key generation would have made sense for them.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
Are you just making shit up now? People hated Steam back when it first launched. I'm also not saying what Epic is doing is great, but you have to be kidding yourself if the company behind what's literally the biggest game right now is irrelevant. And I imagine that if they'd do key generation that they'd make it free as well, cause it just makes sense for them to do that. Steam never had any occasion where "preferential treatment" for key generation would have made sense for them.

I never said they were liked. I said they were the only relevant one was digital was a thing, for exemple in 2007-2009. And yet, we got free steam key generation.

I didnt said Epic Games is irrelevant. I said their store is.

Steam never had any occasion ? Lol people keep saying they have a hold on PC gaming or that they're a monopoly. They could've enforced anytime. Epic is enforcing it NOW.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,442
Sweden
SteamVR is part of Steam though. Vive is HTC.
Yes, but they tie the users to Steam, which is good for them business wise since more users = more revenue.

I never said they were liked. I said they were the only relevant one was digital was a thing, for exemple in 2007-2009. And yet, we got free steam key generation.

I didnt said Epic Games is irrelevant. I said their store is.

Steam never had any occasion ? Lol people keep saying they have a hold on PC gaming or that they're a monopoly. They could've enforced anytime. Epic is enforcing it NOW.
Valve never needed to enforce anything since they where so dominant and still is. To take a dent at that dominace Epic need to "do stuff". People argue that they should have more features then Steam to attract said users, while I agree this would be the best way I also think it is unfeasable to deliver a store front with the same amount of features as Steam, which has been around 15 years, at launch. So the next logical step is to get users via attracting them with games, exclusive to the store.
 
Oct 25, 2017
141
I never said they were liked. I said they were the only relevant one was digital was a thing, for exemple in 2007-2009. And yet, we got free steam key generation.

I didnt said Epic Games is irrelevant. I said their store is.

Steam never had any occasion ? Lol people keep saying they have a hold on PC gaming or that they're a monopoly. They could've enforced anytime. Epic is enforcing it NOW.
The thing is that Steam up until now at least actually was in a position where it was hard if not impossible to compete against them. You keep posting that image of all the stores selling Steam games, but are ignoring the fact that those games require Steam to be downloaded and often played, and that in itself makes sure that Steam is always going to be on top there. Because now it's basically the "default" digital store for PC games.

I agree that games only being sold on Epic's store sucks. But the Steam store is in a position where the only feasible way for PC game stores to seriously compete against it (and I mean compete, not just exist alongside) is if games don't use Steam.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
Yes, but they tie the users to Steam, which is good for them business wise since more users = more revenue.



Valve never needed to enforce anything since they where so dominant and still is. To take a dent at that dominace Epic need to "do stuff". People argue that they should have more features then Steam to attract said users, while I agree this would be the best way I also think it is unfeasable to deliver a store front with the same amount of features as Steam, which has been around 15 years, at launch. So the next logical step is to get users via attracting them with games, exclusive to the store.

No, they don't tie users to Steam with SteamVR. In fact, because of SteamVR, games you bought on Steam appears automatically.. in your Oculus Launcher library.
Yeah. You readed right.
They didnt need to be assholes about it and let me use AUTOMATICALLY a different launcher with my VR games.

And even if they did that to bring more users: How's that bad ? That means, instead of LOCKING people with dumb tactics, they bring people with OPEN stuff.

That literally contradicts and nullify the rest of your post about Epic needing to do that. Valve didn't. Even when they're the biggest, they dont lock people. They dont buy people.

They bought Campo Santos and their game is still coming to the announced platforms. Was Firewatch removed from PS Store and Xbox Live ? And yet it's a 1ST PARTY title, not a 3rd party moneyhatted one.

It's not unfeasable and stop with the 15 years excuse.
Features from 15 years ago werent there because they didnt exist yet. Multitasking didnt exist in phones 15 years ago. How would you react if Epic made an Android competitor without multitasking or web browser ???
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
The thing is that Steam up until now at least actually was in a position where it was hard if not impossible to compete against them. You keep posting that image of all the stores selling Steam games, but are ignoring the fact that those games require Steam to be downloaded and often played, and that in itself makes sure that Steam is always going to be on top there. Because now it's basically the "default" digital store for PC games.

I agree that games only being sold on Epic's store sucks. But the Steam store is in a position where the only feasible way for PC game stores to seriously compete against it (and I mean compete, not just exist alongside) is if games don't use Steam.


No, I dont ignore that. I SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHT that fact.
YES. They do. When I buy a game outside of Steam, I get a Steam Key. Why ??
Because this was Valve's way to cultivate COMPETITION among stores.

This is basically Valve saying: "Here, use my backend so that your customers still gets the features they should expect. Dont worry, I'm not taking a dollar here".
Is it motivated to push more Steam users ? Yes.
And guess what: This is pushing things better for EVERYONE.

A quick question for you: Why Games for Windows Live died when Steam took off ?
The features. Yes, Valve competed with FEATURES.
Epic can do the same. They dont. They wont.

So no, it's not the only way. Valve proved it over and over.
Epic is acting with monopolistic tactics when they're not in a good position yet. And we should trust them to be more flexible when they're in a better position ?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,442
Sweden
No, they don't tie users to Steam with SteamVR. In fact, because of SteamVR, games you bought on Steam appears automatically.. in your Oculus Launcher library.
Yeah. You readed right.
They didnt need to be assholes about it and let me use AUTOMATICALLY a different launcher with my VR games.

And even if they did that to bring more users: How's that bad ? That means, instead of LOCKING people with dumb tactics, they bring people with OPEN stuff.

That literally contradicts and nullify the rest of your post about Epic needing to do that. Valve didn't. Even when they're the biggest, they dont lock people. They dont buy people.

They bought Campo Santos and their game is still coming to the announced platforms. Was Firewatch removed from PS Store and Xbox Live ? And yet it's a 1ST PARTY title, not a 3rd party moneyhatted one.

It's not unfeasable and stop with the 15 years excuse.
Features from 15 years ago werent there because they didnt exist yet. Multitasking didnt exist in phones 15 years ago. How would you react if Epic made an Android competitor without multitasking or web browser ???
It is unfeasable since, not from a technical point of view, but from a business point of view since they have very few users (except Fortnite users), would they launch streamin service, community (which I believe they talked against even which I found bad) services and whatnot, it would feel empty the whole store.

Services for developers I am sure is coming, but as they are doing now, they need to secure games and developers first, and when they break some magical internal number I bet they won't moneyhat more games since they have then taken a big enough marketshare to stay relevant in the future.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,367
From Epic's perspective I fully understand them, Steam is pretty much a monopoly on PC market and cracking that is imossible without some questionable shit. In ths case it is using ridiculous money bank to secure exclusive games and locking Steam out of them. QoL shop features are not enough here, even if they went above Steam's. There is nothing saying they will succeed but they want to try.

Exclusives, Fortnite cross promotions woth varius games and ridiculous sales, that would be my tactic.
 
Oct 25, 2017
141
No, I dont ignore that. I SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHT that fact.
YES. They do. When I buy a game outside of Steam, I get a Steam Key. Why ??
Because this was Valve's way to cultivate COMPETITION among stores.

This is basically Valve saying: "Here, use my backend so that your customers still gets the features they should expect. Dont worry, I'm not taking a dollar here".
Is it motivated to push more Steam users ? Yes.
And guess what: This is pushing things better for EVERYONE.

A quick question for you: Why Games for Windows Live died when Steam took off ?
The features. Yes, Valve competed with FEATURES.
Epic can do the same. They dont. They wont.

So no, it's not the only way. Valve proved it over and over.
Epic is acting with monopolistic tactics when they're not in a good position yet. And we should trust them to be more flexible when they're in a better position ?
First off: hey maybe you should calm down a bit? No need to get so heated here.

Anyway, if Valve really wanted to cultivate competition between stores they wouldn't make their own store the only one that is tied to Steam. Steam getting bigger isn't better for everyone also, developers have been complaining about issues with their moderation and algorithms for a long time now, with Valve's answer usually being more messy algorithms that don't work well. And with developers not having other competing stores to sell their games at instead, Valve can keep getting away with not doing enough about those problems.

Steam was already a thing for a few years when Games for Windows Live launched, with people having already become comfortable with using it. GFWL was the one facing an uphill battle there, not Steam. GFWL failed for not matching up to it, not cause Valve was adding new features and keeping up with them. They also were still selling their games on Steam, but with GFWL as DRM, which is also a factor. (EDIT: oh oops turns out GFWL wasn't a marketplace, it was just the shitty DRM. The marketplace was a separate thing from that)
 
Jan 27, 2018
2,149
"So like the console manufacturers".
No. I stop you right there.
Because it means you didnt read my reply. Console manufacturers contribute to THEIR own ecosystem. Valve contributes to the entire market. Did Sony released tools to support Xbox or Switch controllers on PS4 ? Did Sony released tools to play on Xbox or Switch ? Did Sony or any console manufacturer released tools for wide VR support on multiple platforms ?

No.

Heck, you wont even reply about my comment on Campo Santo. Can you reply to that please ?
Because that's pretty major, as I said, Valve DOESNT believe in exclusivity.
Did they cancel Firewatch and Valley of the Gods on consoles despite it becoming a Valve studio ?

Because according to you, that's what they should do.

The positive for the industry is when you contribute for EVERYONE.

The cut isnt contribute to everyone, only to devs and it means the death of 3rd party store, so the death of price competition.

Epic doesnt contribute to all the devs. Just handpicked ones with moneyhat.

If you want to engage with me, please reply about the entire point.
Did Microsoft cancelled 'Wasteland 3' for Playstation 4 or PC when they purchased inExile?

Sony has created the PhyreEngine, which is compatible with Windows or Switch.

Epic is the people behind the Unreal Engine.

What this has to do with the concrete subject that I was talking about, how much money do you invest in the marketing of third party products?

And with how to reduce the cut taken by the store, with a major share for developers, it benefits the developers.

I don't know what 'Firewatch' has to do with the two concrete subjects that I was talking about: investing money in third party products through marketing, and the share revenue in a final product.

If Valve cancels 'Firewatch' in Switch or not, it will not change the fact that thanks to the Epic Store, Valve has been forced to reduce its benefice cut until a 20%.

In the same way, that all the companies created tools, networks and services aimed to push their systems.

The thing is that you are bringing a completely different subject of conversation, that is if companies should create propietary tools, or open source tools.

And about this we can have a whole different conversation, about the Valve culture, open source, etc.

In which I can spotlight a lot of positive things that I love about the contributions of Valve to the industry, but also negative ones, of how with the excuse of an "open source" mentality, at the end, they became an "automated system", and the implications than can have in the big scheme of things and the global economy this type of corporate culture.

In which at the end, they are also saving costs and cutting paid works under the philosophy that the own community can do for free things like translations, moderation of the forums or curation of products.

So the "open source" culture and "community driven" culture of Valve, it's a double-edged sword.

But once again, how to create tools for your store that is something that all the companies do, it doesn't matter if you are creating propietary products or open sourced products, and how 'Firewatch' releasing in Switch or being cancelled, has to do with the investment in marketing, and with the share cut of a product?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,871
If Valve cancels 'Firewatch' in Switch or not, it will not change the fact that thanks to the Epic Store, Valve has been forced to reduce its benefice cut until a 20%.
It's up in the water whether Valve was fully aware of Epic's plans, so calling it a reaction is misconstruing the course of events somewhat. Valve announced it's revenue share change days ahead of Epic's announcement.

In which at the end, they are also saving costs and cutting paid works under the philosophy that the own community can do for free things like translations, moderation of the forums or curation of products.
How would you propose Valve moderate over 27,000 forums (a number that grows every day)? Moderation is certainly lacking, but I can't think of a solution other than closing down Steam forums.

If Valve begins creating its own curator lists, undoubtedly there will be devs who go "see, Valve only cares about X, Valve doesn't see smaller devs, why isn't my game on the list, this is creating unfair conditions for competing games, etc." There is no one solution that will please everyone and each has its own pluses and minuses. The one way they can improve visibility without being an arbiter of quality is by improving discovery, which they have been doing every year.

Is your final point that Valve should fund development of games that aren't their own? I'm not quite sure I'm following.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
First off: hey maybe you should calm down a bit? No need to get so heated here.

Anyway, if Valve really wanted to cultivate competition between stores they wouldn't make their own store the only one that is tied to Steam. Steam getting bigger isn't better for everyone also, developers have been complaining about issues with their moderation and algorithms for a long time now, with Valve's answer usually being more messy algorithms that don't work well. And with developers not having other competing stores to sell their games at instead, Valve can keep getting away with not doing enough about those problems.

Steam was already a thing for a few years when Games for Windows Live launched, with people having already become comfortable with using it. GFWL was the one facing an uphill battle there, not Steam. GFWL failed for not matching up to it, not cause Valve was adding new features and keeping up with them. They also were still selling their games on Steam, but with GFWL as DRM, which is also a factor. (EDIT: oh oops turns out GFWL wasn't a marketplace, it was just the shitty DRM. The marketplace was a separate thing from that)


Wow, I'm not heating here my friend ! I wanted to highlight it, to convey the fact that not only I dont hide this, I push this as a plus. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And yes, that's because Steam as been pushing their backend that they cultivated competition.
The problem is that you're mixing Steam as a Storefront and Steam as a launcher/client. That's fine but you're mistaking here.
Them pushing Steam as a backend is them cultivating competition. Because it means MORE storefronts without LESS features. It's basically Valve giving feature parity to competition. Sure, they dont do it for the sake of it. Yet, that's what's happening.

As for developers troubles, I believe the issue isnt here. The only way to fix the developers issues today is basically less developers. Harsh but true. Too many games. Not enough time and money.

As for GFWL, you have a bad memory of it. I remember it all. And I have a bitter memory of it: Nearly ALL major publishers supported GFWL. Rockstar, Capcom, Warner Bros, Square Enix and such. Yet Steam became better. Not because they paid devs to release only on Steam. There were actually games with GFWL and some with Steam. Or even GFWL games on Steam. No, because they attracted users with features.

That's the truth here.
 
Oct 25, 2017
141
Wow, I'm not heating here my friend ! I wanted to highlight it, to convey the fact that not only I dont hide this, I push this as a plus. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

And yes, that's because Steam as been pushing their backend that they cultivated competition.
The problem is that you're mixing Steam as a Storefront and Steam as a launcher/client. That's fine but you're mistaking here.
Them pushing Steam as a backend is them cultivating competition. Because it means MORE storefronts without LESS features. It's basically Valve giving feature parity to competition. Sure, they dont do it for the sake of it. Yet, that's what's happening.

As for developers troubles, I believe the issue isnt here. The only way to fix the developers issues today is basically less developers. Harsh but true. Too many games. Not enough time and money.

As for GFWL, you have a bad memory of it. I remember it all. And I have a bitter memory of it: Nearly ALL major publishers supported GFWL. Rockstar, Capcom, Warner Bros, Square Enix and such. Yet Steam became better. Not because they paid devs to release only on Steam. There were actually games with GFWL and some with Steam. Or even GFWL games on Steam. No, because they attracted users with features.

That's the truth here.
I'm not mixing up anything, nor do i have a bad memory, and also not even considering that developer's problems are real or fixable is lame, but okay i guess. Pretty clear we're not actually gonna go anywhere here so whatever.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
Did Microsoft cancelled 'Wasteland 3' for Playstation 4 or PC when they purchased inExile?

Sony has created the PhyreEngine, which is compatible with Windows or Switch.

Epic is the people behind the Unreal Engine.

What this has to do with the concrete subject that I was talking about, how much money do you invest in the marketing of third party products?

And with how to reduce the cut taken by the store, with a major share for developers, it benefits the developers.

I don't know what 'Firewatch' has to do with the two concrete subjects that I was talking about: investing money in third party products through marketing, and the share revenue in a final product.

If Valve cancels 'Firewatch' in Switch or not, it will not change the fact that thanks to the Epic Store, Valve has been forced to reduce its benefice cut until a 20%.

In the same way, that all the companies created tools, networks and services aimed to push their systems.

The thing is that you are bringing a completely different subject of conversation, that is if companies should create propietary tools, or open source tools.

And about this we can have a whole different conversation, about the Valve culture, open source, etc.

In which I can spotlight a lot of positive things that I love about the contributions of Valve to the industry, but also negative ones, of how with the excuse of an "open source" mentality, at the end, they became an "automated system", and the implications than can have in the big scheme of things and the global economy this type of corporate culture.

In which at the end, they are also saving costs and cutting paid works under the philosophy that the own community can do for free things like translations, moderation of the forums or curation of products.

So the "open source" culture and "community driven" culture of Valve, it's a double-edged sword.

But once again, how to create tools for your store that is something that all the companies do, it doesn't matter if you are creating propietary products or open sourced products, and how 'Firewatch' releasing in Switch or being cancelled, has to do with the investment in marketing, and with the share cut of a product?


The automated structure you're criticizing is the sole reason a lot of indie devs can release their games. You know what's better than a 88% cut ? Your game being sold.

And I can tell you a huge chunk of the indies salivating on a bigger cut wont make it on the Epic Store.

As for the rest, you're right for Microsoft. They're moving toward a better prospect about exclusives.

As for Sony though ? PhyreEngine happened decades ago and was an incentive to support them because PS3 was a struggle to work with.

Unreal Engine is Epic. And what they're doing with Unreal Engine is fantastic. What they're doing with Epic Store is the opposite of the Unreal Engine.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
I'm not mixing up anything, nor do i have a bad memory, and also not even considering that developer's problems are real or fixable is lame, but okay i guess. Pretty clear we're not actually gonna go anywhere here so whatever.


It's not lame. It's the state of the market for anyone who open their eyes and stop the tired rhetoric of the algorithms or lack of curation being responsible for their lack of sales: A lot of indies needs to look at their product and think "Is it excellent ?"
Because today, being good isnt enough anymore.
 
Oct 25, 2017
141
It's not lame. It's the state of the market for anyone who open their eyes and stop the tired rhetoric of the algorithms or lack of curation being responsible for their lack of sales: A lot of indies needs to look at their product and think "Is it excellent ?"
Because today, being good isnt enough anymore.
Alternatively Valve could actually try something other than algorithms and maybe actually hire some fucking people to work on this stuff instead of assuming there's nothing to fix. But nah no need to try I guess those developers are just fucked lol.

Anyway, point is, Steam has in a bunch of ways led to the way the PC game industry is now including this whole Epic Games Store stuff, also corporations aren't your friend and that includes Valve (and yes Epic also)
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
Alternatively Valve could actually try something other than algorithms and maybe actually hire some fucking people to work on this stuff. But nah no need to try I guess those developers are just fucked lol.
To work on what ? Make these games visible ?
How do you make a thousand games visible at the same.time ?
I'm not even talking about trash here. Genuinely good games.

Too much games. Too much competition. Everyone wants to release a game because tools are easy as ever.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,138
Alternatively Valve could actually try something other than algorithms and maybe actually hire some fucking people to work on this stuff instead of assuming there's nothing to fix. But nah no need to try I guess those developers are just fucked lol.
So you want that Valve actively prevents good games from being sold on Steam at all? Or how do you want to solve the problem of there being just too many high quality games for every single one to get noticed.

The effects of the indie explosion are an industry wide thing. Not a Steam problem. It's easier than ever to make games so a lot of people make them right now.
 
Mar 22, 2018
41
Epic store threads are frustrating to read. So much talk about competing with features, "moneyhatting" and what not. Price would be the most obvious thing to compete with when you are late to a market, but this is not allowed.

Here is the deal, Valve is saying ”we will only sell your game at Steam for the same price as [Epic store] but we take a larger cut”. However a ”more fair” way would be the publisher selling the right to Valve and Epic to sell their game for the same price ($52). Epic would add their 12% and sell the game for $60 and if Valve still wants their 20-30% cut they would need to try to sell the game for $70 or so. And then the consumers choose if steam features are worth the extra cost.

By the way: Valve will NEVER agree to this.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,768
Taiwan
their own store the only one that is tied to Steam.
What does this mean? You mean the light DRM made for playing games? Or actual buying the game? Those are two separate things. Which is a result of the old days where EPIC abandoned PC gaming saying we are filthy pirates instead of manning up and stepping in like Valve did.

Buying the game is not the same as having DRM to play the game. EPIC has DRM FYI, though may be optional - don't update yoru subnautica btw from Epic it adds DRM. Steam's DRM is optional, up to the developer UNLESS the dev wants to use the free to use steamworks that valve provides.

I don't understand how people lumps everything in one. Epic's setup is more "monopolistic" and pretty anti-competitive then valve. Valve even creates a bunch of....opensource..stuff.

Yea so buy in one spot = competitive! Nopeeeeeeeeeeeee. That be like being able to buy chicken from only one store and nowhere else. Unless its like the 1600s maybe but today lol yeah no. With steam I can buy my chicken from different sources and use my one oven =p

There is nothing driving price here for consumers.
 
Dec 18, 2017
2,250
Epic store threads are frustrating to read. So much talk about competing with features, "moneyhatting" and what not. Price would be the most obvious thing to compete with when you are late to a market, but this is not allowed.

Here is the deal, Valve is saying ”we will only sell your game at Steam for the same price as [Epic store] but we take a larger cut”. However a ”more fair” way would be the publisher selling the right to Valve and Epic to sell their game for the same price ($52). Epic would add their 12% and sell the game for $60 and if Valve still wants their 20-30% cut they would need to try to sell the game for $70 or so. And then the consumers choose if steam features are worth the extra cost.

By the way: Valve will NEVER agree to this.
When will epic generate free keys for 3rd party websites to sell, without taking a cut? You know, the way Steam does. Which is one reason for Valve's cut on their store, beyond all the features they provide that epic doesn't.

I suppose Valve could kill off every 3rd party website, like Greenmangaming, by dropping their cut to 12% and just not generating free keys anymore. Hurray parity.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
Epic store threads are frustrating to read. So much talk about competing with features, "moneyhatting" and what not. Price would be the most obvious thing to compete with when you are late to a market, but this is not allowed.

Here is the deal, Valve is saying ”we will only sell your game at Steam for the same price as [Epic store] but we take a larger cut”. However a ”more fair” way would be the publisher selling the right to Valve and Epic to sell their game for the same price ($52). Epic would add their 12% and sell the game for $60 and if Valve still wants their 20-30% cut they would need to try to sell the game for $70 or so. And then the consumers choose if steam features are worth the extra cost.

By the way: Valve will NEVER agree to this.

You're right, they dont agree with setting different MSRP. Not sure if they forbid it. BUT. Nothing would prevent a percentage sale. :)
Which is what everyone is doing. :)

Btw, despite the lower cut, the game are still the same price as ever on Epic's store.
 
Oct 25, 2017
771
Epic store threads are frustrating to read. So much talk about competing with features, "moneyhatting" and what not. Price would be the most obvious thing to compete with when you are late to a market, but this is not allowed.

Here is the deal, Valve is saying ”we will only sell your game at Steam for the same price as [Epic store] but we take a larger cut”. However a ”more fair” way would be the publisher selling the right to Valve and Epic to sell their game for the same price ($52). Epic would add their 12% and sell the game for $60 and if Valve still wants their 20-30% cut they would need to try to sell the game for $70 or so. And then the consumers choose if steam features are worth the extra cost.

By the way: Valve will NEVER agree to this.
If I'm not mistaken, publishers have final say on the price on Steam, so they should be able to do this.
 
Oct 28, 2017
403
Epic store threads are frustrating to read. So much talk about competing with features, "moneyhatting" and what not. Price would be the most obvious thing to compete with when you are late to a market, but this is not allowed.

Here is the deal, Valve is saying ”we will only sell your game at Steam for the same price as [Epic store] but we take a larger cut”. However a ”more fair” way would be the publisher selling the right to Valve and Epic to sell their game for the same price ($52). Epic would add their 12% and sell the game for $60 and if Valve still wants their 20-30% cut they would need to try to sell the game for $70 or so. And then the consumers choose if steam features are worth the extra cost.

By the way: Valve will NEVER agree to this.
Indeed they won't, since you know they don't have to, publishers can do what ever they want.

They can offer their game for free on the epic store https://www.epicgames.com/store/en-US/product/what-remains-of-edith-finch/home while they charge for it on the steam store https://store.steampowered.com/search/?snr=1_4_4__12&term=edit+finch

They can sell several of their games for less than 1€ https://www.humblebundle.com/games/...medium=product_tile&hmb_campaign=tile_index_3 while charging https://store.steampowered.com/app/204880/Sins_of_a_Solar_Empire_Rebellion/ 40€ for just 1 of those games on steam, they can even do something really really dumb, like say charge just 11,24€ for that game in a bundle with their soundtrack in the same exact page they are charging 40€ for just the game.

They can sell their games on their own store using steam keys for which they get 100% of the money (despite using steam servers) https://rimworldgame.com/ while at the same time selling their game on steam https://rimworldgame.com/
 
Mar 22, 2018
41
Btw, despite the lower cut, the game are still the same price as ever on Epic's store.
I'm not talking about lowering the MSRP. I say allow Valve to sell the games for MSRP + "Valve tax" and see what happens.
If I'm not mistaken, publishers have final say on the price on Steam, so they should be able to do this.
Do you have any example of a game thats not sold for MSRP at release on Steam.
Indeed they won't, since you know they don't have to, publishers can do what ever they want.
They can? /doubt. Show me one game sold for more than MSRP on Steam.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,137
Epic store threads are frustrating to read. So much talk about competing with features, "moneyhatting" and what not. Price would be the most obvious thing to compete with when you are late to a market, but this is not allowed.

Here is the deal, Valve is saying ”we will only sell your game at Steam for the same price as [Epic store] but we take a larger cut”. However a ”more fair” way would be the publisher selling the right to Valve and Epic to sell their game for the same price ($52). Epic would add their 12% and sell the game for $60 and if Valve still wants their 20-30% cut they would need to try to sell the game for $70 or so. And then the consumers choose if steam features are worth the extra cost.

By the way: Valve will NEVER agree to this.

You're right, they dont agree with setting different MSRP. Not sure if they forbid it. BUT. Nothing would prevent a percentage sale. :)
Which is what everyone is doing. :)

Btw, despite the lower cut, the game are still the same price as ever on Epic's store.
I'm not talking about lowering the MSRP. I say allow Valve to sell the games for MSRP + "Valve tax" and see what happens.
Do you have any example of a game thats not sold for MSRP at release on Steam.

They can? /doubt. Show me one game sold for more than MSRP on Steam.

Why not indeed. But we cant know if Valve would want... Considering Epic is doing everything to prevent a Steam release.
And even then: Look how much Ashen is priced. Same as Xbox One. Look how much The Division 2 is priced. Same as Uplay.

The reduced cut will never be used to drop the price, that's bs. It didnt happen when digital brought a far bigger dev cut. It wont happen in a world where Epic actively forbid store and price competition.
 
Oct 28, 2017
403
I'm not talking about lowering the MSRP. I say allow Valve to sell the games for MSRP + "Valve tax" and see what happens.
Do you have any example of a game thats not sold for MSRP at release on Steam.

They can? /doubt. Show me one game sold for more than MSRP on Steam.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/243040/Startopia/ 5,99€ where I am vs https://www.gog.com/game/startopia 5,29€ where I am, same publisher different stores, normal price no sales, square enix still hasn't been banned from steam.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,386

Reading this thread really highlights the little thought that has been made by Epic towards customers. Some payment methods are costly to use, but are the primary means of choice in some countries. Epic's position is laughable - asking of such payment methods "why would you want to support it". How about, because sometimes that what customers want to use and is beneficial to them

They absolutely do not have to "pass those charges to consumers".
 
Dec 23, 2018
50
All they need now is further work on the launcher, add achievements, forums, proper customer service, and a large amount of worthwhile games.

It'll be a while but even then I don't think they'll reach the success of steam. So cloudy at the moment but good steps regardless.

More launchers does not equal a good thing for me at all. I have over 100 steam games and it's my main platform when playing games and even though I have some games on Origin and GOG they all get overshadowed by steam with the amount of history, and games available.
 
Mar 22, 2018
41
Why not indeed. But we cant know if Valve would want... Considering Epic is doing everything to prevent a Steam release.
And even then: Look how much Ashen is priced. Same as Xbox One. Look how much The Division 2 is priced. Same as Uplay.

The reduced cut will never be used to drop the price, that's bs. It didnt happen when digital brought a far bigger dev cut. It wont happen in a world where Epic actively forbid store and price competition.
I'm sure someone can tell us how MSRP works, I have a feeling neither you nor me understand it completely. Maybe my "not allowed" was to blunt, but selling at a price lower than MSRP at release is complicated. We have have Ubisoft with ubi-points that you can use to get a reduced price, we have humble with x% of if you are subscribe to monthly and x% back as credit on humble store and so on. Is there anyone selling for $50 or w/e as listed price on release?

My point was that Valve will also sell the games at MSRP and take a bigger cut and that they will NEVER agree to selling games for MSRP + "Valve tax".

https://store.steampowered.com/app/243040/Startopia/ 5,99€ where I am vs https://www.gog.com/game/startopia 5,29€ where I am, same publisher different stores, normal price no sales, square enix still hasn't been banned from steam.
A game from 2001 is the best you can find? Are you saying that the MSRP of the game is 5,29 euros and not 5,99 euros? Still /doubt.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,768
Taiwan
You asked for examples so why whine about that one? I am sure nobody is going to dig around for hours at no benefit. Competition implies there is a driving force, but for Epic's there is none hence why the prices aren't going to be cheaper for a consumer.

With steam, you can buy from a 3rd party site which can sell it lower because there is no cut being taken by steam. Yea steam takes a cut and sure its more then epics but yea they actually do stuff for that cut especially being a lazy bum about things.

Also pubs do set the prices. Should probably question anybody with regional pricing. Most Japanese pubs ignore TW. Couple of the big American ones think people make US wages here and have the same buying power..
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,343
Epic store threads are frustrating to read. So much talk about competing with features, "moneyhatting" and what not. Price would be the most obvious thing to compete with when you are late to a market, but this is not allowed.

Here is the deal, Valve is saying ”we will only sell your game at Steam for the same price as [Epic store] but we take a larger cut”. However a ”more fair” way would be the publisher selling the right to Valve and Epic to sell their game for the same price ($52). Epic would add their 12% and sell the game for $60 and if Valve still wants their 20-30% cut they would need to try to sell the game for $70 or so. And then the consumers choose if steam features are worth the extra cost.

By the way: Valve will NEVER agree to this.
How’s Valve supposed to do this when Epic’s running to the developers with money, telling them not to release their game on Steam for another year?

I the customer don’t get to choose because console darling Epic’s taking away that choice.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,088
Good on then. So what are people’s complaints going to be with Epic store next?
Allowing developers to generate keys and sell them where they like with no cut for Epic when this happens just like Steam. Have some competition on pricing rather than one store having a monopoly on a game.

Why I don't really care Ubi is moving their games there since UPlay still has keys I can get games for cheaper with GMG.
 
Oct 27, 2017
116

Reading this thread really highlights the little thought that has been made by Epic towards customers. Some payment methods are costly to use, but are the primary means of choice in some countries. Epic's position is laughable - asking of such payment methods "why would you want to support it". How about, because sometimes that what customers want to use and is beneficial to them

They absolutely do not have to "pass those charges to consumers".
"pass those charges to consumers" and "little thought" can be used to describe almost everything about the Epic Store so far. Almost every solution to perceived problems are made to detriment of consumers. My completely baseless guess is that maybe regional pricing is one of the things Ubisoft insisted for the deal - because the do it everywhere including UPlay - and what we have now is what could be implemented in short notice. The hard part like actually implementing local currency and payment methods will have to wait.

I doubt Valve is eating "up to 25%" cost of the transactions, but they also only launch regional pricing when everything is ready. Also, it's a probably a good bet that Epic has yet to deal with a lot of other logistics problems like users traveling (which region do you show them?) and so on.