• Sidebar and Width settings will now no longer reset after 4 hours of inactivity! We have implemented a new system that will remember these preferences on each browser, for both members and guests. This allows you to choose different settings on different devices if you so desire.

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

Oct 27, 2017
4,380
I never said anyone should care or should give their money to Epic if they don’t think the service is good enough at this point. But some people here seem to be mad that they’re even trying.
People are mad that their strategy is to halt/delay games from appearing on Steam. This isn’t benefitting customers. Come to Epic’s store to buy X because we’re now the only choice you have, if you want to play it.

Instead it should be choose to buy from our store over Steam, because we offer users the following benefits over Steam...
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,307
Correct. But since Epic takes less than half what Valve takes, I would expect this to have at least a minor influence on the price. But no, still the same prices as on consoles and/or other storefronts.
.
Really? Did the move from retail to digital have an effect on lowering prices? No, so why would you expect it because of a storefront taking a lesser cut?
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,021
That’s very different. The eShop is just another iteration of Nintendo’s attempts to build online services for over a decade. They’ve had plenty of time to get competitive and have failed. Epic is just getting started on this.
LMAO, this is such bullshit.

Offering a demonstrably inferior service and locking games to the detriment of the consumer, but it's fine because it's their first day. "Competition is good guys but please let's also pretend these services aren't actually competing with each other because mean Valvie got a 15 year headstart that it spent actually improving the space". Some of you crack me up.
 
Oct 25, 2017
976
Not yet for me. Only The Division 2 that's affected so far, $48 instead of $60. That's the usual Ubi game pricing on Steam, so I guess it's Ubi who set the regional pricing manually, not Epic.
The developers setting them manually is how it should be, I think? That's how Steam does it too, yar? How about other titles like Darksiders III? It's $30 in mine while I think it should be $60 in NA. The Annapurna titles are also around half NA prices.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,649
(snipped here. Good post, yho!) ...
at the end, PC gaming will always be locked behind Windows, giving to Microsot too much power to fuck up and mess everything.
I believe that we're finally out of the weeds on that one. If Windows ever gets that bad, we've got the tools to run Windows games without it now.
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,729
Indonesia
The developers setting them manually is how it should be, I think? That's how Steam does it too, yar? How about other titles like Darksiders III? It's $30 in mine while I think it should be $60 in NA. The Annapurna titles are also around half NA prices.
Yeah, but Steam does have a regulation. Everything is set by regional pricing, and publishers can choose to follow it or not. If publishers leave the regional pricing as it is on Steam, everything would be very cheap. But nowadays most devs tinker the price higher than the suggested prices. In Epic Store case, it's different. Publishers can give regional pricing, but the default price is still $60 without regional pricing.

Now that you mention it, I guess the regional pricing update is still on the way. Yesterday when I checked the store, The Division 2 was the only game affected. Darksiders III was still $60. However, Ashen is still $40 today. Maybe the publishers still haven't updated it, or just don't bother to do that. I'll gladly buy it if it's $20 or less.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,933
Omni
I don't understand the complaints about Epic Game Store exclusivity, Valve doesn't release their games on other storefronts.
Valve's games being on Steam only is the same reason why Fortnite is only on Epic Game Store which is okay because Epic games own/developed Fortnite. same reason why valve developed/published games are only on Steam.

Exclusivity of third party games is the issue specifically ones that were ORIGINALLY announced to be released on Steam , had people pre-order/wishlisted, etc.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,117
Regional pricing is set to USD? It's showing some odd prices, probably lower than usual, but in USD.
And I just found out Journey is coming to PC. Lol.
 

ElephantShell

10,000,000
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,825
I'm a bit confused about this regional pricing thing. I'm in Canada and all the prices are as they were in USD, no change. Is Canada not one of the included regions? Would seem a bit odd if so.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,253
LMAO, this is such bullshit.

Offering a demonstrably inferior service and locking games to the detriment of the consumer, but it's fine because it's their first day. "Competition is good guys but please let's also pretend these services aren't actually competing with each other because mean Valvie got a 15 year headstart that it spent actually improving the space". Some of you crack me up.
I never said that. What I said is, it is unreasonable to expect feature parity from a brand new service to one that has had constant development for over a decade and a half. I did not say you should support it anyway, or that "they aren't actually competing with each other", or you should use it in spite of the lack of feature parity. It simply is what it is. If you don't think Epic is providing a good enough service, don't use it. If you don't like Epic paying for exclusives, don't support them.

It's clear many people in this thread aren't really interested in having a discussion or doing much else than shitposting and insulting people, though.

People are mad that their strategy is to halt/delay games from appearing on Steam. This isn’t benefitting customers. Come to Epic’s store to buy X because we’re now the only choice you have, if you want to play it.

Instead it should be choose to buy from our store over Steam, because we offer users the following benefits over Steam...
People were mad even before it came out that they were funding exclusives. In fact, people get mad anytime any game comes out on anything other than Steam. Some people simply don't want other launchers to exist at all.
 
Oct 27, 2017
2,247
Well, that's something.
I still don't like the 2 hour time limit. If I'm actually having technical issues with a game it feels extremely restrictive - especially if the game wastes 30-60 seconds every time you launch it with videos, loading screens, slow UIs etc.
If anything, it would push me to refund a game that I otherwise might not have if I was able to find a solution, or if it receives a patch to fix things.
 
Oct 28, 2017
464
No, they just don't care to learn what words mean before they start using them.
You gonna prove Gabe Newell's been boasting about Steam being a firehose of money for 10 years like you claimed, or just continue ignoring everyone calling you out on your obvious bullshit?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,126
You really believe it was that announce and adjustment was a coincidence? That’s very naive.
Yes I don't understand why people think Valve had zero idea about anything. These guys are industry leaders, they have analysts and a team of people working to do nothing but analyse the market and potential competitors based on what they see and hear. It's unlikely that absolutely no one in Epic or their clientale said a single word about the store to anyone outside.

At the very least Valve knew that publishers leaving was an issue and also knew that it'd leave room for another store to pop up seeing how not everyone would be able to provide their own platform and manage it. At the same time Epic started to become enormous and with their connection to Tencent they were more likely to be in a position to do this than anyone else. A game making and 3rd party engine providing company with its own distribution platform leading on to become a distribution platform for games by other developers is like exactly how Valve started with steam !
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
774
Good on Epic for getting a small bit of parity going with Steam. Sure it should've been in there from the start, as should numerous other consumer focused features, but hey... they're a small Indie studio, so it's excused.

But seriously, good job. I will continue to not give them any of my money though because I sure as hell do not want to support their moneyhatting BS when it comes to third-party exclusives, timed or not. I hate that garbage on multi-platform releases, and I sure as hell hate that garbage when they somehow made it happen on literally one platform.
 
Oct 27, 2017
4,008
Giving a better split to the developers isn't moneyhatting. Steam could do it if they wanted to. Bitch to steam for not offering better incentives to devs, not to epic for offering more.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,302
Giving a better split to the developers isn't moneyhatting. Steam could do it if they wanted to. Bitch to steam for not offering better incentives to devs, not to epic for offering more.
Here are the words of Sweeney himself
These exclusives don’t come to stores for free; they’re a result of some combination of marketing commitments, development funding, or revenue guarantees. This all helps developers.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/c...eeds_to_stop_with_this_always_online/ecltfdj/

Edit: This response to sweeney is pretty comprehensive: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/c...eeds_to_stop_with_this_always_online/eco8no9/
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
2,117
I'm not trying to be rude but businesses don't operate on the principle of "what's the minimum I can charge for my services and not be in the red?" If Valve only charged as little as it needed to it never could have expanded and kept adding products and services and get to the point it's at today. It's easy for someone to sit in a chair and say "oh, Valve should match the 88/12 split" without really thinking through the implications of a business being asked to voluntarily forfeit 60% of it's day to day operating income overnight. Valve does not just take all of it's profits and sit them in the bank doing nothing, they have a staff of hundreds and hundreds of people, a majority of whom are not directly working on the basic day-to-day operations of Steam. Yeah all of these people could be fired I suppose, but from Valve's perspective it's not clear why an upstart storefront throwing money around to buy off games is a good reason why they should be forced to shrink down to their most profitable core business only then run on the slimmest margins possible. Would Ubisoft abandon uPlay if they dropped to a 12% cut? Would EA abandon Origin if they did? Since those companies keep a 100% cut on their own store it's unlikely they ever would for any reason.
Oh I think they can afford it ok. Maybe somone has a more up to date article, but this article (a bit old back in 2011) - https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverchiang/2011/02/15/valve-and-steam-worth-billions/#2ac7dc4433f4 shows how much they were making back then, more revenue per employee than Apple and Google. Over $350k per employee and that was back in 2011, when there's way way more users today, over 60m new users on Steam in 2017 alone (https://www.statista.com/statistics/823944/steam-new-users/) vs 10m back in 2011.

The '30% cut' isn't driven by operating costs (very unlikely anyway), its the cut retail normally get for operating a retail store. Obviously this varies with different publishers but Steam decided upon 30% for its retail store. If you ask me, for a largely 'hands off' store/launcher, there's no reason why it wouldn't be 10% or less espcially when you're talking in the billions that Steam. In 2017, Steam had $4.3billion revenue, thats around $1.4b revenue on maybe 400-500 employees at the most? That's like 2.8m an employee? No wonder they just shuffle their desks around and do what they want. They can afford to. (No offence to any Steam employees! :P)
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,208
Oh I think they can afford it ok. Maybe somone has a more up to date article, but this article (a bit old back in 2011) - https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliverchiang/2011/02/15/valve-and-steam-worth-billions/#2ac7dc4433f4 shows how much they were making back then, more revenue per employee than Apple and Google. Over $350k per employee and that was back in 2011, when there's way way more users today, over 60m new users on Steam in 2017 alone (https://www.statista.com/statistics/823944/steam-new-users/) vs 10m back in 2011.

The '30% cut' isn't driven by operating costs (very unlikely anyway), its the cut retail normally get for operating a retail store. Obviously this varies with different publishers but Steam decided upon 30% for its retail store. If you ask me, for a largely 'hands off' store/launcher, there's no reason why it wouldn't be 10% or less espcially when you're talking in the billions that Steam. In 2017, Steam had $4.3billion revenue, thats around $1.4b revenue on maybe 400-500 employees at the most? That's like 2.8m an employee? No wonder they just shuffle their desks around and do what they want. They can afford to. (No offence to any Steam employees! :P)


They can afford it if they stop making features, stop offering all the Steamworks features, free key generation and keeping a barebone store.

Basically, it's easily doable if you move the cost on the customer.
 
Jun 7, 2018
567
Is there actual proof of this?
Yeah, several of the indie devs that are on Epic said it.

Then good luck playing new games
Won't need the luck, as if there's any shortage of new games on Steam, it's the opposite.

It’s great that they’re improving. I had no doubt they would.
There was doubt for many, considering Galyonkin outright said that the store was more developer oriented than Steam and that refunds are only 2 per account per lifetime. Them backpeddling and going to match Steam is hilarious since they're going out of their way to prove to devs than they're a better choice for developers than Steam.
 
Oct 26, 2017
4,232
For me the interesting thing happens when Epic catches up to Steam feature wise. This is when the competition aspect really begins; since Epic can suddenly add even more good features and thus push Steam to follow suit. I think too many of these threads are too focused on the short term moneyhatting which is just a way to get people onto the platform while they work on improving it.
 
Jun 7, 2018
567
Indies? How many AAA devs left on Steam?
Oh boy here we go..... I mean I finished playing Hitman and will be buying Hitman 2, and have Yakuza on my to do list with Resident Evil 2 preordered, on my wishlist on Steam there's DMC5, Sekiro and Metro Exodus as well Total War Three Kingdoms, so you tell me?
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,117
The exclusive moneyhatting policy is a model used by every console manufacturer in the past, to tie users to their ecosystems.

I consider interesting to see a PC business model trying to imitate a console approach.

If it's successful, will they continue pushing a "console" approach, by funding exclusive developments?

Imagine a crazy situation in which they end doing its own E3 press conferences, or if you see a situation like 'Bayonetta 2' or 'Scalebound' in the past, producing a exclusivity of PlatinumGames only to be released in the Epic Store.

Imagine if they try to create a studio of the scale of Naughty Dog, only to produce PC exclusive content that can rival with the type of cinematic blockbusters published by Sony.

I can see why a lot of people don't like this model, or why a lot of people prefer an open model.

But regardless of that, a lot of times people speculated with a new big company entering the "console business" space to compete with Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft.

So I find fascinating to watch at this whole Epic Store situation, form an historical perspective.

Specially, because with the rise of Steam this generation becoming an ecosystem rivaling with these created by console manufacturers, I always asked myself what could happen if Valve decided to do more things like trying to sign and produce exclusive content from third parties, doing E3 press conferences and embracing the hype culture of a console business model.

All of that said, this will never happen, and things will never go so far.

Because at the end, it doesn't matter if we have a predominant store with an open philosophy or one moneyhatting exclusives: at the end, PC gaming will always be locked behind Windows, giving to Microsot too much power to fuck up and mess everything.
The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One has shown that the hardware doesn't matter, and that's what's ultimately going to happen here, there's going to be store exclusives on PC because its like that with any industry, business owners are out to get exclusives and capture the market to drive the profit up. Of course its bad for consumers, the only way to stop it is to do it with your wallet, but will PC gamers refuse to use the Epic Game Store? Maybe only the most devoted Steam fans, but for most people, they'll just go where the games are, just like people who have multiple consoles.
 
Jun 7, 2018
567
The PlayStation 4 and Xbox One has shown that the hardware doesn't matter, and that's what's ultimately going to happen here, there's going to be store exclusives on PC because its like that with any industry, business owners are out to get exclusives and capture the market to drive the profit up. Of course its bad for consumers, the only way to stop it is to do it with your wallet, but will PC gamers refuse to use the Epic Game Store? Maybe only the most devoted Steam fans, but for most people, they'll just go where the games are, just like people who have multiple consoles.
Valve has so far shown little interest in engaging in the same tactic, we'll see if that will hold.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,117
They can afford it if they stop making features, stop offering all the Steamworks features, free key generation and keeping a barebone store.

Basically, it's easily doable if you move the cost on the customer.
They make millions per employee (probably), so they could do it with a lower cut. I'm not saying those features aren't worth my money, I'm just saying another company is offering 12% vs 30% so it wouldn't surprise me if devs jumped ship.

The big games that Epic have had that have been free so far is also telling, Subnautica, What Remains of Edith Finch, indies haven't been afraid to go with Epic. And I wonder if any of the smaller indies feel slighted that Steam's latest change in terms of payment, the one that offered more profits to the bigger games with more revenue, but stayed the same for smaller revenue games, I feel like Steam could have offered the same terms for all devs.
 
Jan 27, 2018
2,149
People are mad that their strategy is to halt/delay games from appearing on Steam. This isn’t benefitting customers. Come to Epic’s store to buy X because we’re now the only choice you have, if you want to play it.

Instead it should be choose to buy from our store over Steam, because we offer users the following benefits over Steam...
Once again, welcome to how the game industry works to attract clients to an ecosystem, so these clients in the future will spend money in your store.

This year, 'Hollow Knight' saw a release in Switch before than in PS4 and Xbox One, because Nintendo offered good incentives as investing money in the marketing of the game.

'Full Metal Furies' saw its debut in Xbox One before than in the rest on consoles, because they signed a deal with Microsoft.

And 'Guacamelee 2' was released in PS4 three months before than any other console version, because they had a marketing deal with Sony.

This is exactly the same situation. Games planned to be released in all the main modern systems. Games that haven't been produced by the owner of the store, and the store is only offering some compensation in the form of marketing.

And do you know why? This is positive for developers, specially for small studios.

To see some of these big corporations using part of their benefits, investing and offering good deals to developers.

At the end, it's a win-win situation.

In which a small developer without a budget for marketing will see a push in visibility, or in which a small studio with a tight budget can obtain an injection of money to publish or polish its game.

And in which the owner of the ecosystem will create new loyal costumers.

Before the Epic Store, all the major video game ecosystems (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) were investing a part of their benefits in their partners: the developers.

When Sony or Microsoft invest million of dollars in an E3 stand, showcasing the products of other companies, they are reverting part of their benefit to the developers who have helped them to increase its market share in the industry.

And I'm sure that for example, the Team Meat is more than happy of the check that they obtained for offering 'Super Meat Boy' for free, and it will help a lot to finish the development of their last game.

The anomaly all of these years was Valve, not investing money from their benefice, reverting this to the developers that helped them to consolidate Steam.

And that is said by someone who have invested thousands of dollars in his Steam account, who doesn't have plans to even create an Epic Store account. I have never played the damn 'Fornite' and for me, Valve and Epic are big and soulless corporations, and I don't care for them.

But as I said: a new agent in the industry, reverting part of its benefice to the developers, it's a damn positive sign.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,208
They make millions per employee (probably), so they could do it with a lower cut. I'm not saying those features aren't worth my money, I'm just saying another company is offering 12% vs 30% so it wouldn't surprise me if devs jumped ship.

The big games that Epic have had that have been free so far is also telling, Subnautica, What Remains of Edith Finch, indies haven't been afraid to go with Epic. And I wonder if any of the smaller indies feel slighted that Steam's latest change in terms of payment, the one that offered more profits to the bigger games with more revenue, but stayed the same for smaller revenue games, I feel like Steam could have offered the same terms for all devs.


Dont only look at the developper. Look at the publisher. Nearly all the indie titles there are published by Annapurna Interactive.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,208
Once again, welcome to how the game industry works to attract clients to an ecosystem, so these clients in the future will spend money in your store.

This year, 'Hollow Knight' saw a release in Switch before than in PS4 and Xbox One, because Nintendo offered good incentives as investing money in the marketing of the game.

'Full Metal Furies' saw its debut in Xbox One before than in the rest on consoles, because they signed a deal with Microsoft.

And 'Guacamelee 2' was released in PS4 three months before than any other console version, because they had a marketing deal with Sony.

This is exactly the same situation. Games planned to be released in all the main modern systems. Games that haven't been produced by the owner of the store, and the store is only offering some compensation in the form of marketing.

And do you know why? This is positive for developers, specially for small studios.

To see some of these big corporations using part of their benefits, investing and offering good deals to developers.

At the end, it's a win-win situation.

In which a small developer without a budget for marketing will see a push in visibility, or in which a small studio with a tight budget can obtain an injection of money to publish or polish its game.

And in which the owner of the ecosystem will create new loyal costumers.

Before the Epic Store, all the major video game ecosystems (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) were investing a part of their benefits in their partners: the developers.

When Sony or Microsoft invest million of dollars in an E3 stand, showcasing the products of other companies, they are reverting part of their benefit to the developers who have helped them to increase its market share in the industry.

And I'm sure that for example, the Team Meat is more than happy of the check that they obtained for offering 'Super Meat Boy' for free, and it will help a lot to finish the development of their last game.

The anomaly all of these years was Valve, not investing money from their benefice, reverting this to the developers that helped them to consolidate Steam.

And that is said by someone who have invested thousands of dollars in his Steam account, who doesn't have plans to even create an Epic Store account. I have never played the damn 'Fornite' and for me, Valve and Epic are big and soulless corporations, and I don't care for them.

But as I said: a new agent in the industry, reverting part of its benefice to the developers, it's a damn positive sign.


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.
 
Oct 25, 2017
143
They can afford it if they stop making features, stop offering all the Steamworks features, free key generation and keeping a barebone store.

Basically, it's easily doable if you move the cost on the customer.
Pretty sure it wouldn't, Valve makes way more than enough and then some to operate their store the way they've been doing it. Also, not sure why the inclusion of "free key generation" is always there with the list of things of why Steam is great. Valve isn't doing that out of the kindness of their heart. They're doing that cause it'd make them less money if they charged for key generation. What that'd result in is less publishers selling the Steam versions of their games outside of Steam. Which, of course, means less people using Steam, and less people buying stuff from the Steam store.

I mean, developers have never been required to use Steam, it's just that it became the thing everyone used and it became more convenient for developers to use it. It'd become less convenient for them if Steam would make it so it costs publishers money to sell their games outside of Steam. Especially back when Steam wasn't as huge as it is today.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,208
Pretty sure it wouldn't, Valve makes way more than enough and then some to operate their store the way they've been doing it. Also, not sure why the inclusion of "free key generation" is always there with the list of things of why Steam is great. Valve isn't doing that out of the kindness of their heart. They're doing that cause it'd make them less money if they charged for key generation. What that'd result in is less publishers selling the Steam versions of their games outside of Steam. Which, of course, means less people using Steam, and less people buying stuff from the Steam store.

I mean, developers have never been required to use Steam, it's just that it became the thing everyone used and it became more convenient for developers to use it. It'd become less convenient for them if Steam would make it so it costs publishers money to sell their games outside of Steam. Especially back when Steam wasn't as huge as it is today.


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.