See the fall of games for Windows live or whatever the shitty Microsoft excuse of a service was called.
First paid and mandatory for many games, then free, now dead.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Epic Store's way of "competing" is one that actively hurt the market
- Thread starter GhostTrick
- Start date
See the fall of games for Windows live or whatever the shitty Microsoft excuse of a service was called.
First paid and mandatory for many games, then free, now dead.
I did the maths earlier based on steam review metrics (it tells you how many reviewers bought through steam vs not). We can reasonably assume that somewhere between 10 and 50 percent of game owners got their keys through means other than the steam store. The most common approximate value for "big" games was ~2/3 on steam, 1/3 elsewhere, while indies tended to be more like 3/4 steam, 1/4 elsewhere.
"Elsewhere" keys include:
- External retailers (GMG, CDKeys etc)
- Developer or publisher's own websites
- Retail copies
- Game bundles (e.g. humble bundle)
- Review copies (negligible percentage not worth considering if sales are >=1000)
The average sale value of a non-steam purchase is almost certainly lower, because it includes bundles, discounted games on external sites, and "free" giveaways. However the developers may be compensated through other means for giveaways (e.g. up front cash payments from AMD or Nvidia) and for external sites, the developer is probably making similar amounts with the reseller accepting slimmer margins than 30% in order to compete with Valve's prices favorably.
Valve's "true cut" being 15% would be far too low of an estimate for the average case, but factoring in the recent changes in pricing structure for big games means that valve's up front cut becomes 25% above $10 million in sales and 20% above $50 million in sales, so that could push the "true cut" down to the 15% mark for big winners. The "true cut" for smaller players is probably around 23-26%, varying case by case.
Thanks for that, that's great analysis. The fact that Valve facilitates competition with itself I think is still widely overlooked.
Do we really need childish insults on this site? I want Valve to start making good games again too but to make personal attacks is really uncalled for and you should really look at yourself as to why you say these things.
Valve have been dominating because they provided the best option for consumers for over 15 years. Not because they forced people to use their featureless client.
No, it doesn't hurt the market.
Monopoly is when you have the one-of-a-kind good/service on the market and sell it while Metro/Super Meat Boy Forever/Ashen/Hades are sure as hell not something which can make a store a monopoly. They are good games, but the only thing to compete on an entertainment market is to produce or acquire unique content which will bring people in. That's like saying Netflix is a monopoly because it has exclusive shows.
On the games market, we already have exclusives on some stores. You can't buy A Way Out or Unravel Two on Steam, you have to go to Origin. Fallout 76 might be a bad game but if it were to be good, people would have still whined that it's not on Steam, right? Tons of small games are released on Steam or Itch only and we don't say how they are a "monopoly," although Steam is very close to it with over 80% PC market (excluding online-focused games) in its hands only.
Competition is what makes makers produce more quality content. We need two or three more companies like Epic to launch their stores too so that developers will compete for their support and stores will compete for gamers. Guess who wins at the end of the day? We, the gamers. I won't mind going to 5 different stores to buy the best product, especially when those stores are just one click away.
Monopoly is when you have the one-of-a-kind good/service on the market and sell it while Metro/Super Meat Boy Forever/Ashen/Hades are sure as hell not something which can make a store a monopoly. They are good games, but the only thing to compete on an entertainment market is to produce or acquire unique content which will bring people in. That's like saying Netflix is a monopoly because it has exclusive shows.
On the games market, we already have exclusives on some stores. You can't buy A Way Out or Unravel Two on Steam, you have to go to Origin. Fallout 76 might be a bad game but if it were to be good, people would have still whined that it's not on Steam, right? Tons of small games are released on Steam or Itch only and we don't say how they are a "monopoly," although Steam is very close to it with over 80% PC market (excluding online-focused games) in its hands only.
Competition is what makes makers produce more quality content. We need two or three more companies like Epic to launch their stores too so that developers will compete for their support and stores will compete for gamers. Guess who wins at the end of the day? We, the gamers. I won't mind going to 5 different stores to buy the best product, especially when those stores are just one click away.
Well, Valve pulled the same trick when the Steam client was required to install Half-Life 2. How was that different from what Epic is doing now?
Valve paid off a third party developer that made HL2 to make it Steam only?
What quality content has the Epic store provided.
Provide one example of a positive addition. You lose if you use the word competition.
that was their own game, nobody is mad about fortnight here
OP
OP
But it seems you mind reading the first post of threads you click in.
Because otherwise, you'd understand the situation.
But it all boils down to "we have unique content that you can't buy anywhere so you are forced to install the other app for it." Whether they produce the content themselves or acquire it from another company doesn't change that. Nor does it justify people getting mad at Metro's developer/publisher and Epic.
Valve made Half Life. How is this in any way the same? I don't understand how people are still parroting this.
You are no person in any position to tell anyone who and what people can or cant get mad at.
Who do you think you are?
And how dare you tell people that now cannot get the game legally or pay much more for a game that this is a positive for everyone.
PC Gaming is going to end up like the streaming industry: Games by certain developers being exclusive to a specific storefront with little-to-no overlap between stores. People are naive thinking the future is comparison shopping for the latest AAA titles across multiple PC storefronts.
And they will go back to whining about how piracy is ruining everything when piracy in less-rich areas of the world skyrockets again.
Because it's a forum where people share their opinions, I guess. Even when their opinion does't quite match the opinion of the OP.
Although I respect the opinion that the majority of people on this thread who seem to dislike this situation. I don't see that it's productive to, say, go and leave bad reviews for other games by the guys on Steam. And I'm not saying that people mustn't get mad, what I am saying is that there's no point and it doesn't change anything. If you want the game, you buy it wherever it is. If you want to play GoW, you buy PS4. Mario or Zelda? Buy Switch. Metro? Install the Epic client.
On case by case basis, it's worse, sure. In the long run it's beneficial.
It's practically the same as saying that having multiple competing consoles with exclusive games is not positive. Yes, I loved Ori and I'm upset that the sequel may never came out on Steam (at least this is what they say now) and I don't like Microsoft store and don't own an Xbox. But I am waiting for the game, so I'll buy it wherever will be possible for me.
Some people literally cant, because Epic regionlocks certain regions unlike Valve who has a partnership with Perfect World in China e.g. so they can operate there.
All first-party games
Not a first-party game
Also if you're in an unsupported region, oops, screw you I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
By providing a good client that people want to use? This is not rocket science. Its not like they are lacking the money for it.
This is a crazy idea but
wait for it....
how about they match the steam store features and improve them?
All of those are first party.
Better comparison is Shadow of the Tomb Raider, which people utterly flipped their shit about and we didn't get all this crap from people stanning over publisher's business choices.
Almost as if people don't see the fuss over stuff that doesn't affect them. Funny how the regular PC thread posters are unhappy and others who aren't don't see the fuss...
so does the client suck donkey balls? last i heard it was serviceable and will be getting features in the near future.
here's a thought...wait for it...you do know it took valve 10+ years to get the client to where it is now?
Don't be shy - if you have something to say come out and say it
If you aren't bothered by what Epic is doing or, god forbid, are actually happy someone is competing with steam, you aren't a real pc gamer and these opinions are fake opinions probably paid for by Epic
Only people who play on pc are obviously only people who post in pc threads
I don't get it. What's the point of locking the game on one specific digital store? I know Epic got greedy and paid the exclusivity and all, but this puts a bad practice in forth. Imagine Valve goes full ahead with paying for exclusivity to put games only on Steam. Third party clients like GOG will be seriously hampered by that.
and? epic had the steamspy dude help them build the store and look how it launched. If one wants to truly compete, they would bring their A game. I'll let you continue to shill though.
Surely there's better ways of doing that than making a deal to remove a game from Steam just two weeks before launch?
It wouldn't have been so bad if the game was confirmed EGS exclusive a long time in advance, but suddenly announcing the deal so close to release while taking preorders on Steam all along is a terrible move.
Last edited:
And how does it change the situation? The logic here is binary: whether the content is unique/not unique. Other details don't matter.
Then, the first-party content basically means that the platform (i.e. store) makes a financial investment into the developer/publisher. It can be an investment in the form of funding the game development process (consoles) or, as it turns out, it can be in the form of giving you a bigger cut than you get on other platforms.
And that's about it. It's a business decision which only the publisher can make and what we can do about it is just buying or not buying the game.
This one is a valid point though and that's really bad, agreed.
Thank you Epic-sama for adding "competition" that directly harms me as a consumer, I shall praise thy name and be happy you exist instead of being annoyed you're trying to force the market to use your piece of shit service by poaching games weeks before they release.
Of course they matter. One means Epic is creating a videogame from scratch, effectively adding to the industry with well, a brand new videogame. The other is taking something that would be on the competition anyways and paying to not release there because you don't want to actually compete. One creates choice - a brand new game that wouldn't exist otherwise - the other removes it - a game that would release on more stores now is tied to a single service.
Ashen would have been better known on Steam. It's lesser known on PC because it's in the Epic Store.
So Valve have provided them a template to work from saving them years of trial and error market research it a great time to be Epic
Sorry, too many faeces references, I kinda didn't get your point. (no sarcasm)
OP
OP
I didnt knew that paying for a game 2 weeks before release to not appear anywhere else was the same as Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft/Valve developping or funding a game and releasing it after working on it.
Btw you said having more stores benefits the customer: I agree.
You know what Epic just did ? Metro was on 5 different legit stores: Steam, Humble, GreenManGaming, Fanatical, Razer Game Store. The price ranged from 40 to 60€.
Now it's on only one store: Epic Game Store. For 60€.
Man it's so nice for Epic that they get to compete with 2009's Steam and not 2019's Steam
This whole thing as been fascinating to watch unfold.
I always figured it was a matter of time before someone took on Valve's dominance of the PC gaming market.
I always figured it was a matter of time before someone took on Valve's dominance of the PC gaming market.
Not sure if trolling but still.
As a developer myself, I can say that launching one simple feature requires at least a couple of months of work. Saving years of work is not the right thing to put it. If they wanted a 100% copy of Steam, they could probably waste three more years and ship it but who needs a second Steam? I am happy with the one I have.
What they did is the right way to launch any software product. They built the core functionality (i.e selling games), they brought in some unique content to attract first clients and then they will start adding new features—those, their audience will ask for, not the ones that exist on Steam.
They do for most people and with fair reasons.
Nobody reasonably expects Nintendo to offer their games on non-Nintendo platforms, no. And if MS, Sony or Nintendo actually funds the development of the game, then similarly, nobody (reasonable, anyway) would bitch about exclusivity. Nobody is mad at Epic for Fortnite, and if Epic ever said (hypothetical example) they're funding the development of a new From Software sci-fi Souls-like RPG that would otherwise not even exist, then yeah, it's gonna be on EGS.
But people have always opposed and criticized moneyhatting for a reason. This is a different scenario, because the game would still otherwise exist and would be available for all platforms if not for a big company going "nuh uh, mine". Moreover, the PC ecosystem is not like consoles. Console exclusivity exists because of the separation of hardware. This is a storefront exclusivity, not hardware. Sure it's "business", aye, but it's pretty blatantly anti-consumer. If it doesn't bother/affect you, aight, cool. But coming in a thread saying "it's business, deal with it", well... it's easy to see how that would rile people up. Much like going in a thread about excessive MTX and saying "whatever it's just business #dealwithit" would probably earn you a side-eye or two.
Hmm, an interesting point, that's one way to look at it.
But then again, I do agree that in the short run that hurts the market, but having multiple stores investing in games (even when they don't develop them themsevles) might be a good thing in the long run since we'll get more unique quality content on the market.
Having more stores benefits not in the way that you get games cheaper. It benefits in the way that there are more good games.
But we are not getting more unique content out of this, Metro Exodus was gonna release regardless of Epic. Sure, you can have content deals like how Final Fantasy XV had extra costumes depending of where you bought it, but moneyhatting games benefits nobody but publishers.
OP
OP
No ? There's no logic here. Or you'll have to explain how it means there are more good games.
If you think that publishers waits for more store to make games, you're delusional.
All devs have to do is put their games on each digital market and see where people rather purchase their games. I'm never buying a digital game outside of steam. i built a library there and im staying there.
The OP hasn't really explained how it hurts the market. I can see the case to be made that it hurts consumers that were specifically interested in the exclusives, but the market as a whole is so large that the few games Epic is buying exclusives on are a drop in the bucket. Even if Epic went insane and bought the exclusivity to say 50 games this year that still wouldn't make a dent in the market as a whole. This is merely an effort to try and get their store front on as many computers as possible. Either they will gain traction and consumers will take to the EGS or it will go down in flames and they will stop flushing money down the toilet buying exclusives. I'd imagine optimally they'd like to be funding games from day one like console publishers or paying to port console exclusives so that they are their own unique ecosystem.
The funny thing is it was the PS3 and 360 generation that was really about 3rd party moneyhats. This generation a lot of that has stopped with MS and Sony mostly duking it out with 1st party, or proper IP paid for third-party exclusives (Like Bloodborne or Sunset Overdrive).
If you actually pay for the development of a game through a third party then that is understandable why you may get exclusivity/end up owning the IP.
There's still some shitty marketing deals that lead to exclusive DLC for a month, like with COD, but as I just said a lot of moneyhatting has died on consoles. MS just made a huge move to actually buy studios, and then properly own the output.
It's going to be a sight to see if the bloody PC market ends up being the moneyhatting land, over consoles.
If you actually pay for the development of a game through a third party then that is understandable why you may get exclusivity/end up owning the IP.
There's still some shitty marketing deals that lead to exclusive DLC for a month, like with COD, but as I just said a lot of moneyhatting has died on consoles. MS just made a huge move to actually buy studios, and then properly own the output.
It's going to be a sight to see if the bloody PC market ends up being the moneyhatting land, over consoles.
I am not saying it easy but with Steam you have a guide to know what works and what does not, so you are a firm starting point to plan your features. Valve never had that luxury as they had to create features and hope people would like them.
Steam is a place I log into every day to catch up with friends, to look at mods, to get advice on games I am playing it is part of my daily routine. Until Epic have reach that level they have no chance of competing with Steam.
No, it doesn't, honestly. If you are outside the company, you can't be sure whether the chat system, the trading cars, the reviews, or anything like that work at all. Here's an example.
- Valve makes a shiny new feature investing $200,000 into it (the team, the hardware, etc.).
- They see people don't use the feature much. So they basically wasted $200,000 for nothing.
- Epic sees the shiny new feature outside the company and is pretty excited because it is shiny.
- Mindlessly reproduce the feature.
- Launch the product without the feature and see how it goes.
Explained it a few times above, sorry, not gonna re-write it. TL;DR:
- More stores means they will compete for content creators providing the best resources and service for them.
- More developers will try to produce high-quality content to attract those stores.
At the end of the day, the overall content quality grows.
I don't know how many publishers and developers you know personally, but I know a lot. Most of them are happy with the EGS launch and would like to have more stores to choose from.