-
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.
Jason Kingsley: Epic is "paying through the nose" to build its store
- Thread starter abracadaver
- Start date
User Warned: Trolling
Steam Defense Force can slow their roll. If you think Valve asks for the percentage they do because of those features, you're a bit mad. Valve needed some serious competition to improve, and I'm glad they have it. If they choose not to be more developer friendly, than I'm happy hoping success on EGS.
if this is going to be the new normal, epic had better get basic functionality working
if the store had all the features that could be reasonably expected, i bet not as many people would see red when they pay for exclusivity
if the store had all the features that could be reasonably expected, i bet not as many people would see red when they pay for exclusivity
You think not letting games on your storefront because they look "bad" is developer friendly?
So "developer friendly" is purely cut of sales and not at all related to features like controller support, community hubs, achievements, badges, Steam Workshop, or anything like that.
Righteo.
Improve what? Name three things Epic offers that Steam doesn't.
I'll wait. Or are you one of those who don't use the platform, but feel the need to chime in with the tired old Epic defense?
Edit: Oh look, a new account. Shocker.
I'd pretend this made me decide to skip their game, but in all honesty I never heard of it and after watching some E3 footage I'll have to admit I wouldn't ever consider buying this in the first place.
...So congrats for the free money, I guess?
...So congrats for the free money, I guess?
Paying to get games removed from Steam is not competition.
It is eliminating competition.
Competition requires consumers to have a choice. Epic are removing choices.
complaining about something is not the same as acting like something doesn't exist just because you don't care about it.
I can't wait for valve to money hat devs so Epic will lower their rev share to 0% like itch.io has.
lmao at this post
"developer friendly" sure buddy, keep believing in that.
I'm just messing around. Read (and reposted in the PC Gaming thread this morning) a quote from the EIC of EDGE Magazine that attributes the Steam Labs content to Epic's presence, so at this point people are obviously just repeating the Competition mantra even though they know it's not at all the case. It's just propaganda.
Well, he's honest about it. I can respect that. I don't really mind devs taking the cash so long as they don't try to sell it as sth other than a financially motivated decision (and so long as they don't make their crowdfunded games exclusive after promising their backers Steam copies or spring the exclusivity on people a week or so before release). Most people saying devs shouldn't take these deals merely because exclusives are bad are frankly full of shit. If you were in their shoes, you'd be accepting those deals, too. That doesn't, of course, excuse Epic being so behind on basic store features and whether Epic offering the money in the first place is a good thing is certainly debatable but yeah, people shouldn't blame devs for taking the cheque.
don't worry all the features are coming in
except some are still under >12 months
I definitely worry about that aspect on Epic. Steam definitely has the better approach there. I think allow all okay games, and just highlight gems is best method.
In the short term, this makes perfect sense for developers. They get guaranteed money that recoups their spend on development. However, I am curious about long term. Let's say they want to make Zombie Army 5. Fewer people will have bought 4 than if it were available on all stores, so that will stunt the series' audience acquisition. So they will have to spend more on marketing 5, and they will be more dependent on an Epic moneyhat for their new title to succeed. And what if epic decides not to find ZA5? Then the developers will have ended up doing long term damage to their brand and will need to spend more money to stay afloat.
A one time cash infusion is nice, but in the end you want to sell your game to as many people as possible for the long term. You can't keep relying on papa Sweeney forever.
A one time cash infusion is nice, but in the end you want to sell your game to as many people as possible for the long term. You can't keep relying on papa Sweeney forever.
Remember that time Epic rejected a fantastic game with 86 metacritic because even though it's an amazing game, Epic sees no value in games that cannot be used as a tool to attempt to get one over on Steam, and the game was already available on Steam?
Epic doesn't care about third party games beyond the extent to which they can be used as ammunition against Valve.
Oh right. Yeah, your post was in line with extremely flawed arguments some posters like to make.
that's what I've been saying since the beginning! it's such a short term move in the grand scheme of things
If thats your take then I guess there should be no reason for you to be upset when games go to the epic store since you think they are bad games anyway.
New account? What nonsense are you on about? I really don't care about whether it's EGS, or some other store. Just happy devs are getting better deals.
what games do you think they're taking from steam? ones that wouldn't have done well there? why would they have taken them then?
I'm not necessarily buying into Epic's bid into the marketplace, but I appreciate honesty at least.
Epic wants to be a dominant force in this ecosystem, they're putting that Fortnite/Tencent money to use.
They were NEVER in it to make developers or user lives easier, these are just sticking points they use to try and claim the top, once they do - their tune will change, as they won't need to fight as hard for it.
Epic wants to be a dominant force in this ecosystem, they're putting that Fortnite/Tencent money to use.
They were NEVER in it to make developers or user lives easier, these are just sticking points they use to try and claim the top, once they do - their tune will change, as they won't need to fight as hard for it.
As a user I don't really care if Valve needs 30% to build out their features or if they really only need 5% and they're pocketing the rest. That's between them and the publishers. If it was easy to build Steam, then by all means let EA, Ubi, Activision, GOG and Epic match them. Some of these "competitors" are nearly 10 years old and haven't added anything significant to their services in that time other than UI polish.
When they start taking games that bombed on Steam you might have a point.
What this dev/publishers and others who are accepting the money don't know, and they will learn something eventually: they need costumers and goodwill toward them. I worked at retail, so the mantra "costumers are the key" is bullshit and I don't accept it, but you can't deny you need to build your audience organically. That's why From Software is so succeful, because they listened their audience, improved through the years and now their customers follow them even if the game was published by Bandai Namco or Activision.
I think that From Software are some of the few devs who would sell games exclusive at EGS, because a large percentage of their audience would follow them, but I think From and their respective partner publishers know better it's not a good idea erode the good image From have, because it take years to build it, but just a small span of time to destroy it.
I think that From Software are some of the few devs who would sell games exclusive at EGS, because a large percentage of their audience would follow them, but I think From and their respective partner publishers know better it's not a good idea erode the good image From have, because it take years to build it, but just a small span of time to destroy it.
At least they're relatively honest rather than trying to spin it as an absolute plus for the players.
I'm all for developers getting a bigger piece of the pie, but if it's at my expense then I don't have to put up with it either. There's a reason these devs are only getting paid for exclusivity rather than to support the store by being on it. This isn't philanthropy. So if they're acting in their self-interest, there's nothing wrong with players acting in their own self-interest as well -- no allegiances or whatever necessary.
I'm all for developers getting a bigger piece of the pie, but if it's at my expense then I don't have to put up with it either. There's a reason these devs are only getting paid for exclusivity rather than to support the store by being on it. This isn't philanthropy. So if they're acting in their self-interest, there's nothing wrong with players acting in their own self-interest as well -- no allegiances or whatever necessary.
Last edited:
i stumbled upon this the other day and what i want to know, and someone should ask him on twitter because I don't have one of those things, is why is Timothy D Sweeney STEALING 4 percent of profit that these indies earned
according to this article from a few years ago: https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam-revenue-cut-tim-sweeney
"The game market system is pretty unfair," Sweeney explained at a keynote address as part of Gamescom's Devcom. "All of the app stores take 30% [of revenue per transaction]. That's strange, because Mastercard and Visa can do a transfer for three dollars." Sweeney also gives the example of a hundred million dollar transaction that just took place with Bitcoin, with a total transaction cost of just a couple of cents.
To name names, both Steam and GOG take 30% of your money when you buy a game on their platforms. Given the minimal costs to them, Sweeney reckons there's no reason for such a high cut – even if it is a better deal than devs would get at a physical store.
"CDN [Content Distribution Network] Value is one percent of your revenue," Sweeney says. Given this, "it's very difficult to see that app stores need more than seven to eight percent of revenue. I think you could quite easily run an app store on [a cut of that size] and still make a significant profit. They're not really helping any more."
he's already making a "significant profit" at 8% so why is he skimming 4 more off the top? he's not helping any more!
according to this article from a few years ago: https://www.pcgamesn.com/steam-revenue-cut-tim-sweeney
"The game market system is pretty unfair," Sweeney explained at a keynote address as part of Gamescom's Devcom. "All of the app stores take 30% [of revenue per transaction]. That's strange, because Mastercard and Visa can do a transfer for three dollars." Sweeney also gives the example of a hundred million dollar transaction that just took place with Bitcoin, with a total transaction cost of just a couple of cents.
To name names, both Steam and GOG take 30% of your money when you buy a game on their platforms. Given the minimal costs to them, Sweeney reckons there's no reason for such a high cut – even if it is a better deal than devs would get at a physical store.
"CDN [Content Distribution Network] Value is one percent of your revenue," Sweeney says. Given this, "it's very difficult to see that app stores need more than seven to eight percent of revenue. I think you could quite easily run an app store on [a cut of that size] and still make a significant profit. They're not really helping any more."
he's already making a "significant profit" at 8% so why is he skimming 4 more off the top? he's not helping any more!
If all of you are that upset these devs want money in a world where devs shut down studios every week, idk what to tel you
Yea maybe they should fork over some money to the players too.
It's funny just how bad these games sell on EGS yet devs are willing to do it for that short term cash.
Metro was a biggish release and was a disaster sales wise on egs.
The pc gaming community has already pushed back against it, it's dead. Epic should have just offered games at lower prices to compete and released their own exclusives if they want it to grow.
If epic stopped their bullshit and released a new UT to their story I'd definitely buy it.
Metro was a biggish release and was a disaster sales wise on egs.
The pc gaming community has already pushed back against it, it's dead. Epic should have just offered games at lower prices to compete and released their own exclusives if they want it to grow.
If epic stopped their bullshit and released a new UT to their story I'd definitely buy it.
so you're saying epic is picking and choosing who lives?!? death panels have returned!!
The PC gaming community pushed back against Steam when it launched too. People eventually gave up on being mad about that platform. We'll see what time, added features, etc does here.
"it's fine for developers and publishers to be totally self-interested but not their customers"
That's extremely revisionist.
People pushed back against Digital Distribution in general, not against Steam specifically.
Digital distribution is not a new thing now. There's no excuse for Epic store missing extremely basic features that Steam has had for over a decade. Epic store is extremely below the industry standard in terms of functionality and features.
Valve have spent the last 15 years earning people's trust with an extremely customer-centric approach, and lots of pioneering features.
During this time Epic accused PC gamers of just being pirates, and stopped releasing games on PC.
PC gaming is now a booming business, and Valve had a large hand in that. Now Epic want a piece of the pie, but are offering consumers absolutely nothing of value.
The devs are gonna use the money from Epic to give me the game for free, right?