You mean that Epic did an Epic and thought that throwing around a bunch of money was enough for them to get all relevant parties supporting them.
-
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.
Oxygen Not Included not included in Epic Mega Sales, game listing is missing on EGS at the moment
- Thread starter Arthands
- Start date
What makes the whole thing a bit more shambolic is Galyonkin saying - ''sales are training customers to wait for discounts instead of buying games at full price.''
which combined with - ''There won't be massive sales events that take up the entire store like on Steam. Such events effectively kill off sales for games that don't participate in them as well as for new games that launch right before that event. Instead, games on sale will be featured alongside non-sale games.''
And people wonder why some of us don't want to give Epic any money no matter how much they bribe devs and now even customers. They are absolutely making this up as they go along and it's shit to see so many support it. That's not me telling people what to do with their money far from, just the more people that buy in to their eco system the more their shitty behaviour in enabled.
which combined with - ''There won't be massive sales events that take up the entire store like on Steam. Such events effectively kill off sales for games that don't participate in them as well as for new games that launch right before that event. Instead, games on sale will be featured alongside non-sale games.''
And people wonder why some of us don't want to give Epic any money no matter how much they bribe devs and now even customers. They are absolutely making this up as they go along and it's shit to see so many support it. That's not me telling people what to do with their money far from, just the more people that buy in to their eco system the more their shitty behaviour in enabled.
We actually see this a lot on the digital console storefronts. The Way Remastered on Switch, for instance, has been routinely on sale for 90%+ off the last few months and has maintained a spot on the top sellers list because of it.
It's not industry-specific, either. The data available to me for my completely separate industry also shows that our products aren't devalued by sales, but those are physical goods.
and all the other games that don't follow this pattern? Are their publishers averse to maximising revenue?
I mean, obviously every dev/publisher has their own reasons, correct or not, and not every game would benefit from a deep cut sale. All I'm getting at is that the industry data and professionals like Mat say that sales don't devalue games. Anecdotally, I can also say that it holds true for my industry, as well. This might be news for some developers.
You've not presented any evidence or argument to support this assertion.
The fact that all games are not constantly aggressively discounted is a pretty strong case for the fact that your assertion is incorrect. If running a sale has no negative impact on future revenue, then there's no reason for all games to not be on sale at all times.
I mean, there is a difference between sales and aggresive sales. You can clearly see it in how the Steam Sales have evolved as publishers learned more about how to maximize revenue:
Before, it was common to have games in their first year at up to 75% or even higher to just move more numbers. Nowadays, they start with lower discounts of 25-30% and ramp up over the years, reaching the 75% value or higher.
That is not to say that sales do have a positive impact on the game (as it creates more people talking about the game).
Before, it was common to have games in their first year at up to 75% or even higher to just move more numbers. Nowadays, they start with lower discounts of 25-30% and ramp up over the years, reaching the 75% value or higher.
That is not to say that sales do have a positive impact on the game (as it creates more people talking about the game).
...did you not see the tweet from Mat Piscatella? His literal job is tracking video game sales, and he states conclusively that all of the data he sees (that we cannot see) says that sales do not devalue games. I'm not sure what further information you could possibly want.
On the flip side, I have literally never seen any evidence towards a temporary sale permanently devaluing a game.
There's a reason that sales and marketing people are not the people that make products. People that make products are unreasonably attached to what they think the "fair" value of the cost is. That's why we hear a lot of indie developers claim that sales devalue their games. It's an emotional argument, not one grounded in the data.
Companies use sales to generate buzz in titles that carries over after the sales. The data bears that out. If EA or Activision Blizzard didn't see a return from sales, *they wouldn't have sales.*.
I just want to alongside this they make it sound like valve are the bad guys and that steam is worse for everyone. This narrative of EGS bashing steam while doing shady actions because "competition" is disapointing.
I wish journalist pressure EGS week after week because of their actions until EGS at least behaved like a normal store.
Humble is more consistent then epic is!
My literal job is tracking video game sales.
I have lots of data that you can't see.
I'm not categorically stating that all discounts ever will always devalue all games.
I'm saying it's more nuanced than that, and past pricing impacts present consumer activity.
An interesting example is Nintendo. They're notorious for doing a bunch of things to maintain the value of their games, and probably do it better than any other publisher.
They could do a 90% off sale on titles like Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey, and they would likely make a bunch of money in the short term from doing so. Your argument seems to be that they should do this and there would be zero negative impact on their future business by doing so.
I would argue that this is in fact not true, and Nintendo are in fact smart to manage their pricing as they do, and are able to often sell a huge number of games at full price with relatively little marketing spend. Whereas other publishers often have to spend huge amounts on marketing, and are unable to maintain the price of their games for anything but a short period of time.
Last edited:
What's rewarding exactly? Missing out on one of the best sales event?
Giving $10 off any purchase is scummy now. Ok.
Even though I love me some sales as a consumer, I do also hold the opinion that Nintendo is very smart with managing their prices. I understand and respect that some people will just scoff at the idea of prices not lowering sometimes even after multiple years but no other game titles out there feel worth purchasing for full price (at release I mean) than a Nintendo title.
And yeah, if a Nintendo made game like BOTW were ever to reach some crazy price like $10 within the first 2-3 years of release, it would dramatically change how some people would purchase all their future titles.
What? No, that's not my argument. I'm saying that in the general sense, game sales do not devalue a game. Obviously there are extreme examples and nuances to sales, but that's not what the original discussion was about. Epic's sale isn't devaluing games, like some folks are saying.
So discounts never ever devalue games. But also discounts sometimes devalue games. Got it.
I may be misunderstanding something here, but are you an analyst as well?
Mat Piscatella is an analyst and I imagine would have access to all kinds of data to back up his claim (which is what Winterreise is referring to when he said his job is tracking video game sales). From what I can see, what I've left in your quote refers to tracking when games go on sale? You own a site that does that, which is cool, but not the same thing?
I really can't see why you are so strongly dismissing the Mat's tweet about sales.
Geez, man. You're really picking out the extremes here. Arguing some crazy hypothetical cases ("If Nintendo sold BotW at 90% off they'd devalue their game") does not make a hard and fast rule that applies across the board.
Yes, obviously, if a company puts their AAA game at some insane clearance price for an extended period of time, they have most likely devalued the game should it return to full price. Furthermore, Nintendo isn't price protective in the sense that their games never go on sale, they just don't lower their baseline price over time. Nintendo games go on sale plenty of times per year. As an example, last E3 I picked up nearly every 2018 Nintendo-published release for $50 each from Walmart Canada, a nearly 40% pre-order discount from the normal $79 CAD MSRP.
No, participating in even a deep cut sale for a period of time isn't going to devalue your game. Bloodlines 2 being sold for $10 off for a few weeks isn't going to devalue the game upon release (if it did, do you think companies would offer pre-order discounts or be okay with resellers like GreenManGaming offering their own pre-order discounts?). Epic offering an additional $10 off at no cost to the developer isn't going to devalue the games on sale on the EGS right now.
As Mat Piscatella said, if sales devalued games there would be no data to support the fact that demand returns to baseline levels (or even higher levels) post-sale. I can respect the fact that you have your own data that may say otherwise, but I'm going to choose to rely on the person who works at one of the largest market research groups in the world in this case.
I am not entirely dismissing it, I am saying it lacks nuance. It's obviously not entirely true that no discounts ever result in games being devalued. It is possible to do discounts without significantly devaluing games, but again, were it accurate that no discounts ever devalue games then all games would be aggressively discounted at all times.
No I am not an analyst, but I do have access to a lot of data, especially relating to sales of games when they are discounted. I've also discussed this subject with lots of people responsible for selling/pricing games, and observed the market for this kind of thing for many years.
Mental gymnastics over whether a sale is a sale or 'a way to steal purchases from other stores' aside, your conclusion about devalued games is disproven by the data.
By trying to turn a featureless app meant to launch a handful of free-to-play games into a fully-fledged store.
Person A: "I'm going to buy VtM:B 2 on Steam at some point, cos I loved the original so much."
*EGS Sale starts*
Person A: "Well, guess I'm not buying it on Steam after all. EGS, here I come."
Edit: Galyonkin says as much in the screencap in this post - "other stores where the game is also available, most likely lost, yes."
Does that also apply to titles not yet released? Like, literally a year out from release, like VtM:B 2?
Last edited:
I checked the store out and I don't see how its the best sales event. Every game on GMG gives me $10 off and sometimes more. I can get Rage 2 for $65 instead of 79.99. The only games that I can save money on are the ones I can't buy anywhere else.
Maybe it's great if you live outside NA but I don't see how saving $10 is amazing when that's been pretty much standard on games not locked to EGS.
As a dev, I would like nothing more than stores "harming" me by subsidizing my game's sales out of their own pocket and paying me full price, even if that means I'm getting the money when the store puts up the sale rather than on release. I can't think of a better scenario that Steam getting on board this "harming" as well. Hurt me, Gaben, I've been naughty.
I mean, I should not be surprised that people don't know the first thing about the business of game development, but I still find it amusing that people think what hurts us about "wait for a sale" mentality is the "wait" rather than the "sale".
Yes - that's the point of a sale. To attract customers. A customer buying from one store means they're not buying from another.
This post is bizarre.
I mean, that's not the only point of a sale. The other point is to give your regular customers good deals.
Great. That's good for you. But obviously Paradox and Klei felt differently, otherwise they wouldn't have removed their games. Right?
Edit: Like, there are no small number of devs on Twitter who consistently call out other devs who say "Well, this is good for me/worked for me, so everyone must feel the same way/do the same thing." Just because your business wouldn't be harmed by a perceived drop in value from a larger than normal discount on a pre-order game, does not mean everyone would feel the same way.
Person A buys game from Epic Store rather than Steam: "Epic stole a sale."
Person A buys game from Steam rather than Epic Store: "Customer is boycotting Epic's scummy practices."
Good to see any pretense of impartiality finally cast off, at least.
I mean, I never introduced anything about scummy practices? So this is well disingenuous. I didn't give a reason why Person A wanted to buy on Steam, so you're just trying to push some weird ulterior motive onto my argument.
I'M A THIEF
I'M A SLASHER
...OF PRICES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE0s31IODJA
MY DISCOUNTS ARE CRIMINAL
I'M A SLASHER
...OF PRICES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE0s31IODJA
MY DISCOUNTS ARE CRIMINAL
..no shit?
You implied that Epic might not be aware that holding a sale would attract customers lmao, and keep framing it in a way that makes a pretty basic facet of a sale seem complicated.
Like I said, it's bizarre. You're just overcomplicating very basic things..
*shrugs* Okay.
Edit: Maybe I am over-complicating things, but I've read enough to know the difference between "Big Sale" and "loss-leading", for example. So, I'd rather add complication and have it stripped away through debate, than approach a discussion without nuance or depth. :) I'm not so proud I won't take an L on something.
Still so weird thinking that the guy who starred in Spaced and Hot Fuzz is the same guy starring alongside Tom Cruise in M:I films.
That two developers pulled two games and several hundreds did not is proving the opposite of your point. More importantly, it does not give you the authority to speak on our behalf making generalizations about what is good or bad for us.
Out of all the shit regarding the Epic store, I swear there's nothing more infuriating that being used as ammo by people who otherwise display a clear and consistent lack of regard or respect for devs and are more than happy to throw them under the bus the second they sign with Epic. Shit on your hated storefront all you want, but don't pretend to be championing or looking out for our rights when you're doing the exact opposite.
Stop using developers to justify what is obviously your own self-interested opinion.
"I only said Epic is stealing sales from Steam, there's no weird ulterior motive to my argument or the language used therein."
Seems legit.
Did you just tell me, a dev, not to generalize about what is best for other developers (which I did not) after you literally said this sale "harms devs/pubs in the long-run"?
What. The. Fuck? Mods, how is this allowed?
Edit: Misunderstood the post here. Sorry.
Oh, okay. Tempted. Is that a better word? I mean, in both cases, the mind of the consumer has been altered, and I don't actually have any negative connotation with stealing in the sense I used it. A customerr is loyal to one store, and then is "yoinked" by another. *shrugs*.
Perhaps I misunderstood your words. It seemed like you were speaking for devs generally. Apologies.
I took this to mean you were speaking for more than yourself, not just yourself. Honestly, not trying to be a dick here. So, yeah, sorry again.
Oh, okay. Tempted. Is that a better word? I mean, in both cases, the mind of the consumer has been altered, and I don't actually have any negative connotation with stealing in the sense I used it. A customerr is loyal to one store, and then is "yoinked" by another. *shrugs*.
Perhaps I misunderstood your words. It seemed like you were speaking for devs generally. Apologies.
I took this to mean you were speaking for more than yourself, not just yourself. Honestly, not trying to be a dick here. So, yeah, sorry again.
I was thinking about that earlier too. On a $60 game, $10 off is often the minimum I'd expect to normally get buying a Steam key from a different store. I think the best deals seem to be on the games they bought exclusivity for, for the most part.
With all that money they're throwing around, wouldn't have thought there was anything they could do to annoy devs.
For AAA yeh but for games that are 20 and under this sale fuckin' slaps
The best Borderlands 3 deal so far was probably the GMG one where you got 15% off and a bundle of 10 mystery keys
I've seen a few pieces of news about this. I gotta ask though, is Epic being scummy or are they? Or just both?
Missing a word there, I think. But, really, LewieP has it right a page back, I think:
OK, even if you misunderstood my post, if we've estabilished that speaking for all devs is Wrong, please explain me why you (and everyone else shitting on the sale) speaking for all devs is Perfectly OK.
Okay.
This is all good faith, and not shitting on anyone. No... arrogance or being a dick here (not on purpose, anyways :) ).
Because devs are human.
Because devs (and pubs, btw, this isn't just self-publishers) aren't known for having long-term views on these things.
There was a bundle explosion which massively devalued games, which is still ongoing to a degree (I felt for the devs of One Finger Death Punch 2, recently).
There was a psuedo-race to the bottom through (official) key reselling sites.
Because a lot of devs attitude to EGS is "Fuck you, got mine" as the curation lets through "winners" whilst the "losers" aren't accepted, and many devs find this an acceptable way to participate in an industry, even though this is just repeating the indie-boom on Steam from a decade ago.
Devs/pubs need analysis that is divorced from them, to some extent. Because it's asking too much of them to handle creation, marketing, updates and see where the industry is going and where it's come from, and how those two things are eerily similar.
And am I say that speaking for all devs is fine. No. I'm saying that saying to a dev "deep discounting on a store that said not long ago they weren't going to deep discount" is not disrespectful. I'm saying to you - a dev - that just because you are okay with what EGS has done, does not mean everyone is. And maybe it's not me talking down to a dev, but just me saying that I've been playing and writing about games (mostly as an amateur) for 30+ years, and maybe there's long-term repercussions here. And maybe there aren't. But you saying:
lacks awareness, when you consider that every game on Steam is someone's creation, and you're fine participating in a store that actively removes those creations from being able to be seen, through their curation.
Moreover, I'm not shitting on EGS specifically. A competitor to Steam? Great. Bring it on. Just don't do shitty business practices like buy-up exclusivity and not telling publishers about a sale. That ain't hard, surely?
As a final fyi, I'm not sure if you've read Rob Fearon's blog. He's the dev of Death Ray Manta. Some of what I just wrote is just what he's said.
I hope you're not offended by this, because I'm honestly not the hypocrite who hates devs and loves Steam beyond all else that you think I am.
Last edited:
What you're saying is that devs, collectively, don't know what's best for them; and that you, coincidentally, know better. That's the long and short of it; no matter how many words you're using to sugar coat it; no matter how much justification you're using after the fact to paint devs as "shortsighted" and yourself as "knowledgeable"; no matter how you're attempting to distract with entirely unrelated matters like store curation (which is not the matter being discussed); no matter how you're cherry picking the devs that agree with you in the same breath you dismiss every other dev's opinions including mine. In the end, when all that smoke dissipates, that's what you're saying; that we don't know what the fuck we're doing.
I want to think that, for all your protestations that you're actually a super swell guy and you mean no harm and I have you pegged all wrong and that we're all pretty much clueless kids but you say that from a place of love and no offense meant you guys, cross my heart, there's still some shred of self-awareness in you that can make you understand exactly why I'm going to put you on ignore before I post something that gets me banned.
*shrugs*
You sidestep all my points, as well as the fact that an actual dev has said almost all of what I said. And then ignore me.
I mean, okay.
I'd just like to point out, for completeness sake, that analysis roles exist in every industry, and not every analyst has actually worked in the sausage factory, even if they do know how the sausage gets made, or can provide insight on how to make it better. Sometimes, yes, other people know better.
Between Lewie (who isn't an analyst but definitely knows all the numbers!) saying that nonsense and you saying that Epic was stealing sales from people you two are on a fuckin' roll lately aren't you
The buffoonery can not be sanctioned further
I have already apologised for the "stealing" usage. And I'll do so again - I did not think it was inflammatory, sorry.