They came when other developers came into Steam.ok, so there was something in 2k4. These were moderated by valve and (mostly? entirely?) for valve games, right? The automatic one per game "community forums" moderated by the devs came later iirc?
They came when other developers came into Steam.ok, so there was something in 2k4. These were moderated by valve and (mostly? entirely?) for valve games, right? The automatic one per game "community forums" moderated by the devs came later iirc?
I love how you bring up "race to the bottom" pricing when Epic had a mega sale that devalued games to such an absurd degree in regions such as Turkey and Russia that their publishers had to outright yank the games from the store because they were blindsided by Epic and were limited by their utterly shit developer tools.
ok, so there was something in 2k4. These were moderated by valve and (mostly? entirely?) for valve games, right? The automatic one per game "community forums" moderated by the devs came later iirc?
Community was made in 2007.Also developers on Steam actually have to compete
Well, Steam didn't have third party games until later. They were in same forums until new community was made in late 2000s or early 2010s or so. (and before that there were very few third party games)
AFAIK, the order was that new games got their own sub forum on the centralized Steam forums for ages, but I think Valve still moderated them. It wasn't until per-game hubs were introduced (about 2015 ish) that the devs were expected to moderate their own forums.
I am just fucking annoying at half the community being outed because of toxicity (I understand), the OT being calm and still getting the "OT is toxic" BS. And out with the metacomentary.
the "you are a console gamer, you dont have the right to give your opinion" is really something else here.
As for the numbers, yes these are low numbers, and nothing worth to party, but always when a new player enters the game, has brutal losses. Nobody remembers how much money microsoft lost with the original xbox and Playstation 2 being the supreme overlord of console gaming? Hell, even with Xbox360 Microsoft has big losses. The big question is, how many years epic will sustain those loses.
They must have extraordinary salespeople. They got Ubisoft, 2K, etc. on board with a store-wide forecast of <100 Million dollars in revenue.
This is the silliest talking point on resetera. You know what the word means! Epic avoids competing on (certain) consumer products, as part of their strategy to compete with steam as a storefront. It's like saying walmart and target don't compete because they both stock some exclusive products. Or starbucks doesn't compete with other coffee shops because they coordinate with suppliers to sell exclusive blends.
AFAIK, the order was that new games got their own sub forum on the centralized Steam forums for ages, but I think Valve still moderated them. It wasn't until per-game hubs were introduced (about 2015 ish) that the devs were expected to moderate their own forums.
Armchair analysts saying these results aren't good when they surpassed forecasts by 60% lol.
It is not about posting opinions. Those posters don't HAVE any opinions on PC gaming apart from "Fuck yeah FREE GAMES! EGS IS THE BEST! cOMpeTiTIOn! Valve Tax!" They don't even post in any of the PC OT's from those free games they are apparently very excited for.
You have to look at this in perspective. Let's compare to Riot Games, another company with a "one hit wonder" product that's underwent massive growth and expansion, but is now on the decline (relative to its peak).
For companies in this situation, the number one concern is how to sustain growth, or at least stave off loss. Riot has been trying to figure this out for years, and their solution has been to develop new hit games. We don't know how that's going to pan out, and it's been an extremely expensive process for them.
If a person downloads a PC game, plays a PC Game, but does not post on a PC OT...is that person a valid PC gamer?
they only post in EGS threads about free games and the rest in console threads.
its super disappointing seeing the comments in the first page celebrating the success of EGS. EGS has done 0 to prove they intend to advance PC gaming! EPIC left PC gaming due to piracy, games are more expensive in EGS, less features then steam, they can't meet a roadmap proposed by themselves, absurd curation,exclusivity deals that remove games from other stores, avoids using keys to not create competition,etc.
It's really disappointing see "I get free games thus EGS is great competition" instead of a more reserved approach. I get that for those that can't afford it the free games are great; but can't you see that EGS at this time is worse then steam?
I wish Either EGS left the market or started competing.
I think they just assume that the toxicity they see in EGS threads is par for the course.
It'd be like Walmart paying Kelloggs not to sell Frosted Flakes at Target for one year, so they could have it exclusively.
They're both private companies (although i think I understand the distinction you're making and agree.)
I agree about the investor pressure on epic's growth, and I agree that's harmful.
That said --
Valve has taken tons of steps to abuse their market control -- race to the bottom pricing on massive sales, steam consumer retention/satisfaction features forced onto the production budget every dev who sells there (forums, trading cards, reviews, etc,) rapidly shifting around their algorithms at the expense of developers in order to maximize revenue for steam, opening their storefront to shovelware and de-valuing the "shelf space" afforded to past partners, and so on. These steps all absolutely demonstrate valve's monopoly control -- they're the only place to sell your game on pc and get any real traffic, so developers don't really have a choice but to eat all of the costs.
The difference between them and epic is none of these moves hurt the consumers, which is more reflective of strategy and market position than it is some kind of moral "doing right".
If a person downloads a PC game, plays a PC Game, but does not post on a PC OT...is that person a valid PC gamer?
I think the fact that Riot is explicitly funding these new games from the ground up is the difference. Meanwhile, Epic poached Metro Exodus at the eleventh hour, and that very much set the tone for all EGS discussion thereafter.An interesting point - the response to Riot & Epic has been night and day, too.
Valve doesn't set prices during sales. Developers/publishers do.
Tons of games don't have trading cards or achievements. Trading cards actually earn devs money, too... Valve has never forced devs to use those features. Forums and reviews are "forced" as in, they are part of the platform. Devs can choose to not use the forums, I don't think it's a great idea for Early Access games, but it's their choice.
Your shovelware might be my diamond in the rough. I've seen tons of games that were derided as shovelware and I ended up loving them. You have no right to decide whether those games get a chance to sell or not.
Meanwhile Epic has done the "race to the bottom" thing more than once. They had a sale that literally forced discounts on devs (their first Mega Sale). They set the prices on their store manually (which often leads to regional pricing mistakes). Their free game giveaways might be nice "for the consumer" but as some people have pointed out in this thread, they can "train" people to wait for that indie game they wanted to be free on EGS rather than buying it.
What I don't understand about your post (and other similar ones) is the amount of lies you are willing to post without a care in the world just to "drive your point home".
2- Devs can't choose to close the forums, only to either let them fester or invest in moderating them.
This is totally me -- I don't talk about pc games as much in general, but after a bunch of embarrassing epic exclusive threads (especially ooblets!) i wrote you guys off as weird/toxic for good. Plus I'm honestly more interested in talking about business and politics than I am games usually, and egs threads are a good intersection of that.
This kind of thing happens constantly! Games (and movies) are a little different because the product is this big name marketed thing, but stores definitely make exclusive deals with suppliers (using x company's coffee beans for Starbucks Whatever Flavor, and precluding that company from selling to competitors,) and stores feature exclusive and timed exclusives with new products, fashion designers, etc, all the time. The analogy is a rough, I admit, and it wouldn't happen with kellogs, but this kind of selling to suppliers is absolutely a real thing in every industry.
1) Yes1- There's an obvious pressure to participate in sales, come on. Do you think valve issues those "sale is coming up, set your prices!" emails to devs but doesn't actually care if they participate?
2- Devs can't choose to close the forums, only to either let them fester or invest in moderating them.
3- Yeah, sure, but that's not really a business consideration. There are some diamonds in the rough, but heaping your shelves with junk obviously means forcing the other products to work harder to stand out.
4- I'm kinda of the mind that valve opened the box on constant sales in games and now everybody is stuck with them. I agree epics sales looked like they were handled very badly.
5- we can assume Epic is paying devs for exclusivity and for free game releases (as is standard practice everywhere else) -- flat money is almost always a good deal for devs, and outweighs "training" fears by a lot imo.
I don't mind this, because of how many broken games are out there I'd rather not have devs close forums and direct you to a barebones wasteland on their own site with no info. Steam forums have a huge amount of info and for every shitpost there's a hundred guides on how to get something working when the devs have long stopped caring.
What you're describing sounds like the game industry equivalent of paying a developer to develop a game that Epic then sells under the Epic brand.
Which is the exact opposite of what Epic does. Hence the strong dislike for Epic among PC gaming fans.
If Epic were actually putting that money towards creating brand new games to sell exclusively in their store, the response would be a positive one. But instead of bringing new creations to light, they're merely taking existing games and removing the option of whom to buy it from.
It costs Steam more to have to host it than to the devs to manage it (because they mostly dont manage it).Well, yeah, this is kinda exactly my point. This is a feature that makes you like steam more, which costs valve nothing, and costs devs some amount of $ (or like, pr, if they don't deal with them.)
This post policing and gate-keeping is pretty obnoxious. Where's the "PC ERA Beginners" thread that people need to post in before they can offer an opinion? How many posts have to be approved by the secret council of ResetERA PC elders before they're allowed to post sans commentary?
including doing so against the wishes of the audience who funded the game via crowdfunding.What you're describing sounds like the game industry equivalent of paying a developer to develop a game that Epic then sells under the Epic brand.
Which is the exact opposite of what Epic does. Hence the strong dislike for Epic among PC gaming fans.
If Epic were actually putting that money towards creating brand new games to sell exclusively in their store, the response would be a positive one. But instead of bringing new creations to light, they're merely taking existing games and removing the option of whom to buy it from.
1- There's an obvious pressure to participate in sales, come on. Do you think valve issues those "sale is coming up, set your prices!" emails to devs but doesn't actually care if they participate?
2- Devs can't choose to close the forums, only to either let them fester or invest in moderating them.
3- Yeah, sure, but that's not really a business consideration. There are some diamonds in the rough, but heaping your shelves with junk obviously means forcing the other products to work harder to stand out.
4- I'm kinda of the mind that valve opened the box on constant sales in games and now everybody is stuck with them. I agree epics sales looked like they were handled very badly.
5- we can assume Epic is paying devs for exclusivity and for free game releases (as is standard practice everywhere else) -- flat money is almost always a good deal for devs, and outweighs "training" fears by a lot imo.
i mean either way, sales exceeded expectations.You mean a "forecast" for over 200 games in 1 year that is lower than the revenue from only 1 game of the big companies that they sold the EGS as the next big thing to?
1- There's an obvious pressure to participate in sales, come on. Do you think valve issues those "sale is coming up, set your prices!" emails to devs but doesn't actually care if they participate?
2) Maybe that bothers some devs, but most seem to be happy to just have something handled for them for free outside of moderation, as most have use of forums. An option of disabling the forum for your game could be a good addition
Valve actually does provide free moderation too if devs want it.
To be fair, Valve moderation is stretched quite thin and is more reactive (through flagging) than active.Many devs skip sales just fine, there's games that haven't been discounted in years.
Unlike with EGS where you can't even ignore sales, because Epic discounts your game whatever you want or not.
Valve actually does provide free moderation too if devs want it.
"Very recent new feature" that has been there since day 0 and was expanded on 2016.This is a very recent new feature, which I forgot about, but which is an extremely good step imo.
1- There's an obvious pressure to participate in sales, come on. Do you think valve issues those "sale is coming up, set your prices!" emails to devs but doesn't actually care if they participate? They use their power as a store to encourage devs to compete with eachother on the storefront -- this is a basic property of like, every store, and valve optimizes it where they can.
2- Devs can't choose to close the forums, only to either let them fester or invest in moderating them.
"Very recent new feature" that has been there since day 0 and was expanded on 2016.
Let's not play dumb, you know what they meant. Yeah, it's legitimate to question someone's honesty when they only ever appear on one kind of thread to stir shit up.
1- There's an obvious pressure to participate in sales, come on. Do you think valve issues those "sale is coming up, set your prices!" emails to devs but doesn't actually care if they participate?
2- Devs can't choose to close the forums, only to either let them fester or invest in moderating them.
3- Yeah, sure, but that's not really a business consideration. There are some diamonds in the rough, but heaping your shelves with junk obviously means forcing the other products to work harder to stand out.
4- I'm kinda of the mind that valve opened the box on constant sales in games and now everybody is stuck with them. I agree epics sales looked like they were handled very badly.
5- we can assume Epic is paying devs for exclusivity and for free game releases (as is standard practice everywhere else) -- flat money is almost always a good deal for devs, and outweighs "training" fears by a lot imo.
Huh, I was quite sure they had worked on general mods since at least 2015.