Big reminder that when Epic says 'those guys' they're talking about THQ Nordic, not the developers. Unless it's the small indie games, it's always the publishers who are doing the deals, and getting the money, and the developers likely won't see any of it. EGS is great for publishers, that's the real truth here.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Epic on pulling Metro Exodus from Steam after preorders began: 'We don't want to do that ever again'
- Thread starter benzopil
- Start date
I somehow can't follow your logic. You are listing "normal things a store would add" (which aren't normal at all) and then you list stuff that you would NOT pay for.
Yet either you or the dev has to pay for exactly those things on consoles while these fees does not exist within Steam and you still argue that 30% on consoles is fair but within Steam it's not?
I know metro sold 2.5x more than the last game. What we don't know is how much better it would have done on steam. No one is arguing that it wouldn't have performed significantly better if it were on steam. So the question is did the dev do better with the exclusivity payout and the reduced sales vs much bigger sales on steam with valve taking a larger cut. The fact that metro sold better than the last game doesn't tell us anything about how this is working out for epic. It's all speculation.
Oh, I didnt knew Console manufacturers were giving consoles for free.
So... Hardware cost + royaltie fees + online paywall + 30% cut then.
READ THE ARTICLE, everyone. Sweeney pretty clearly says they don't want to ever cause a game from getting yanked off another storefront that close to a release date ever again, not do exclusives in general.
So 6 months is okay? Also 3 months? Maybe even one month?
Don't believe their lies. Tim Sweeney is a damn hypocrite and liar.
Please, do you honestly believe the cut lie? Even if Valve allowed the developers to get 100% of each transaction, these developers will continue putting their games on EGS when Epic showed them the big fat cheque.
Please, do you honestly believe the cut lie? Even if Valve allowed the developers to get 100% of each transaction, these developers will continue putting their games on EGS when Epic showed them the big fat cheque.
Just have them release on steam at the same time and see how many people flock to your "amazing incentives". They won't though. Absolute cowards.
That's the thing though, it sold MORE then the last game that was on steam, on top of the fact they only had to pay epic 12% from the sales as well as the fact epic payed them to make it an exclusive.
The conclusion that companies will draw from that is that it's worth it to sell on epic and you don't "lose" anything by doing it, the vocal people that say they "won't" buy it if it's not on steam are literally a super tiny minority and it's not at all reflected in the sales numbers that they are losing any "large" market by not selling the game on steam.
I mean does EA think they are losing sales because their games aren't available on steam? Nope, time and has shown us that if people want a game they'll buy it even if it isn't available on steam.
So unless valve changes something more and more devs will be taking Epic's offer to sell only on their store.
The fact that it sold more than the last game tells you nothing about THIS game. You don't think the game would have sold more than the last one if it was steam exclusive?
Wait, has he been a part of the bunch that's pro-Epic, or his he just anti-Valve?
How the fuck are we still getting responses like this?
2.5x more sales than a game that's literally not being sold anymore doesn't mean anything. The Redux versions are all that exist on Steam, and we don't know how the sales of Exodus on EGS compare to either of those, because that comparison wouldn't make Epic look good.
Normal things a store would add: Things that a store would do to improve it's functions without charging publishers, or users extra for these. Stuff the royalties would afford, like Amazon adding a new UI, Google giving out free email with tons of storage, or netflix adding slicker previews as you scroll over a movie.
I would not pay extra for online multiplayer, especially on PC where there are ways around paying for a storefront's online (Windows Live online with gold for example, while the same games outside of the storefront wouldn't require it).
The royalties should already more than cover steam's investments, operation costs, especially with their own games and it's Fortnite levels of cash generators. What else would they do with it, not invest in steam, and instead leave it as is? It's their money maker.
You have to buy them but they usually sell them at a loss, and it's not the way they make money. They need people to buy games to make it worth it (PSV, even though the console was very popular, it wasn't selling enough games apparently. It's a good emulator machine. Research groups buying up tons of PS3's to not play games on it was a big loss).
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/080515/economics-gaming-consoles.asp
Last edited:
An obvious problem here though is that we don't have any real useful sales numbers.
Phoenix Point developer
It is quite obvious they never cared about the cut; especially since it was confirmed through the AMA that they approached Epic, not Epic to them.
And if it was about the cut, why not release the game on Itch.io or Discord? The former can give you 100% of each transaction and the latter only takes like 8%.
That's my point though, with EA, Blizzard, etc it's shown time and again that a game being on one storefront but not another doesn't adversely affect the sales of said game to the point that it hurts their bottom line enough that the company has to sell it on Steam.
You can argue that being on steam can lead to more sales, but the vast majority of gamers, if they intend to buy the game in the first place, do not care if it's on steam or Origin, or uplay, or whatever storefront, they will buy it.
Only a tiny amount of people will actually forgo buying a game they were intending to buy and play if it's not on steam.
'We don't care about the game anymore, we're already got our money back lmao'Phoenix Point developer
It is quite obvious they never cared about the cut; especially since it was confirmed through the AMA that they approached Epic, not Epic to them.
And if it was about the cut, why not release the game on Itch.io or Discord? The former can give you 100% of each transaction and the latter only takes like 8%.
Just a point of clarification, since it wasn't obvious from Snapseed's AMA, but they approached Epic for getting on their store, not the exclusivity deal.
So why do you think people bought Shadow Complex on Steam when it was free on Epic launcher?
What a fucking obvious lie. Then again, they know that they just need to lie for someone to believe them, just like Trump does all the time.
Source on all this stuff you're spewing? Or is it a gut feeling. I'm guessing it's the latter which is worthless, no offense.
How about we wait a year and see how these exclusive games do once they drop on steam? If they garner the kind of sales I'm expecting then yes, people do care where the game is available. You think it's a vocal minority that cares. We'll see starting in a year...
Well look at EA games.
Dragon Age 2 was on steam, but DA: Inquisition launched on Origin instead. DA: Inquisition set the record for Bioware's biggest launch to date.
Also, why people saying they won't buy a game if it's not steam holds no water to me, because even though a lot of people say this they usually do the opposite, case in point:
There simply has been no proof that launching a game outside of steam somehow causes your sales to plummet or be at any significant loss, in fact time and again games that have launched on other launchers (overwatch, DA:I, etc) have shown their sales are in line with previous games or even better in terms of the sales numbers.
But you're talking about previous games. Like I said let's wait a year and see how these games do on steamWell look at EA games.
Dragon Age 2 was on steam, but DA: Inquisition launched on Origin instead. DA: Inquisition set the record for Bioware's biggest launch to date.
Also, why people saying they won't buy a game if it's not steam holds no water to me, because even though a lot of people say this they usually do the opposite, case in point:
There simply has been no proof that launching a game outside of steam somehow causes your sales to plummet or be at any significant loss, in fact time and again games that have launched on other launchers (overwatch, DA:I, etc) have shown their sales are in line with previous games or even better in terms of the sales numbers.
Well look at EA games.
Dragon Age 2 was on steam, but DA: Inquisition launched on Origin instead. DA: Inquisition set the record for Bioware's biggest launch to date.
Also, why people saying they won't buy a game if it's not steam holds no water to me, because even though a lot of people say this they usually do the opposite, case in point:
There simply has been no proof that launching a game outside of steam somehow causes your sales to plummet or be at any significant loss, in fact time and again games that have launched on other launchers (overwatch, DA:I, etc) have shown their sales are in line with previous games or even better in terms of the sales numbers.
omfg are you serious with that image, time really is a flat circle
I just think if it's a good game, people will find their way to it. Some won't, some will wait, it's up to them. A lot of people will get it because they want it. Fortnite BR, it didn't matter that it wasn't on Steam. When I found out Minecraft wasn't on steam I was shocked. Being on Steam for the exposure seem to be more fitting for small games, with small advertising budgets. Even then it seem like it's probably best to put a lot of those on Switch.
What I'm trying to say is that a lack of steam at launch is not going to cause them to lose any meaningful launch sales from not being on steam, I'm not saying that when it launches on steam a year later that it won't sell anything.
If devs and publishers saw a lack of initial sales from not releasing on steam they wouldn't be doing it time and again, that proves that not launching on steam isn't costing them any major loss of their projected sales to the point that they'd say "hey, maybe we should just sell on steam and the other storefronts?
I have a question. I'm seeing a lot of hate for Epic and their game store, and I don't entirely understand why.
Why would you care where you buy the game from? Not trolling, I'm legit curious what has people up in arms like this.
Why would you care where you buy the game from? Not trolling, I'm legit curious what has people up in arms like this.
We have plenty of threads where you can educate yourself, just type 'Epic Game Store' on the search bar.
I'm sorry if I come across as rude but we've already had dozens of 'I'm out of the loop why so mad?' comments that are properly answered but go largely ignored.
It's almost like that meme pic isn't a complete sham.
Showing Page 1 of 17 where all the owners of the game are auto-pushed to the front.
I think casual PC gamers don't mind as much as enthusiast Steam gamers. They may be attached to their achievements, they may think Steam Input doesn't work if the game isn't a steam game, friend's list, they may want their library neat without any outside steam games in it (OCD stuff?), and so on. I heard a lot of reasons, and with the way games on PC are going, I'm sure they will get adjust to whatever happens (waiting for the steam version, or like EA games, just don't buy them on PC).
For some it's a combination of things. Some don't like adding a new password to their password organizer, or they don't have a password organizer and don't want to add billing info and their new/usual password to another launcher. For some it's not just that they don't want a new launcher, but they want everything on steam. For some they would probably use another launcher if it was on par or at least better than Steam feature wise.
Unless I'm wrong, Epic will pay them despite not selling games, or something like that. In other words, developers are in a win-win situation short term. Long term, let's see if this harm their reputation. Phoenix Point developers are already screwed since they won't be able to use crowdfunding to fund their games.
Unless they deliver the most mindblowing game ever, yeah, they're stuck with private funding.
Because Steam (and GOG) is a pretty great store with loads of features. Epic Store is a barebones store that does virtually nothing but launch your games. It even lacks basic shit like setting a login username independent of your email, so if your email gets breached from another site this happens:
Beyond practical issues, people just don't like the PC gaming platform turning into a closed garden and each digital game store having exclusives for certain games.
Okay, thanks. I avoid Steam when I can help it, so as someone not very invested in its ecosystem, I was confused.
We've seen this shit before.
I'll never fully trust Microsoft in the PC gaming space again after the travesty that was GFWL.
I had to deal with all the shit that resulted from attempts to lock down the platform, from OS limited stores/dx, to DRM, to "services". This reminds me exactly of that.
This is my personal thing and just my gut.
The actual reasons have been stated often. So often that I felt it was more useful to explain why I've had such a negative reaction to the EGS.
Last edited:
I think PC gaming will always be like that, no central store for everything.
I feel like if you browse this forum and have to ask "why are people so mad at epic" thats really impressive.
Boiling it down to just steam fanboyism or not wanting to use other clients is the dumbest shit ive heard from a community so entrenched in this hobby.
Boiling it down to just steam fanboyism or not wanting to use other clients is the dumbest shit ive heard from a community so entrenched in this hobby.