But that's a subscription service...
I wouldn't call that a feature anymore I would called netflix a feature.
It's a paid service.
-
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.
Rebel Galaxy Outlaw is 12 Month Exclusive for Epic Store (possibly other titles too)
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
- Status
But that's a subscription service...
I wouldn't call that a feature anymore I would called netflix a feature.
It's a paid service.
Didn't Valve "moneyhat" Turtle Rock and Left 4 Dead? That was an indie studio who came up with the L4D concept by themselves. They showed it to Valve who funded them and then acquired them. Which non-Steam PC platforms is that on?
But most people have more than 2+ launchers. You act as if people only have Steam installed. Want to play GTA or ubisoft games from steam? Need uPlay and social club. Want to play EA and Battle net (soon Activision) exclusives? need origin and battle net. Soon Bethesda as well. Discord and Twitch both now have launchers and give you ability to buy which people have installed. Not to mention the slew of other launchers out there.
This isn't just a cut and dry oh people just want steam and nothing else it's the fact we are already bombarded with 100 different launchers. Also the fact that third party games being exclusive to X or Y platform is something most of us don't want and won't support.
Are you really going to compare BUYING OUT THE STUDIO.
To money hatting a third party exclusive????
Um, besides this comparison being stupid because Turtle Rock was purchased by Valve at the time, you were able to buy retail copy of Valve Published games on EA Play store at the time.
Did Valve use their money to make a game exclusive on PC to their own platform?
Wow, you have reached into the farthest reaches to find an argument that supports you.
Valve bought and funded a pitched game concept form a company and paid them for the studio and then continued to pay them as Valve employees.
Epic bought exclusivity to finished games, many of which were funded by another publisher. Epic is not paying their salary, or paying for their company.
If you can't see the differences then you are 100% not arguing in good faith.
So if Epic were to acquire studios like Double Damage and make the games exclusive on PC to the Epic Store, that would be OK and not "moneyhatting"?
I mean yes it paid, but it still something that Origin has to offer over other alternatives and unlike netflix, it just optional way, you can still do standard purchases too.
But if we are talking about just free features, I don't think there's really been anything.
Just like I have no issues with Microsoft buying up all those studios. They are taking the risk of funding the developers salary and everything else in between. Also you might have confused me with other posters but I have no issue with Epic's store and what they want to do. The developers that took the money from Epic for that 12 month exclusive period or w/e, that's cool too.
Like I said, in the past it was easy to buy Valve games on EA Play/ EADM when it wasn't a fucking mess to use the service. Why haven't you acknowledge this?
not at all, it was available on Origin and Uplay.
Nice try though.
Absolutely.
This is going to be so good for pc gaming. I can't wait to see where the Epic store is a couple years from now. I would not be surprised if my attention transitions over to their platform.
You just confirmed to and acrosss other threads your really aren't arguing in good faith.
You don't address arguments, you just keep making false equivalences.
People are extremely short sighted, valve fanboys, or are willingly refusing to acknowledge the long term benefits competitive moves like this can lead to. If/When valve lowers their cut to similar or lower margins then exclusive deals like this wont be a driving motivator for devs and store fronts are going to have to improve their efforts elsewhere. Do people think Steam is a perfect marketplace for developers and that there aren't realistically achievable steps Valve could take to make things better? They need a kick in the ass but they're too big for most boots to be effective.
The Uplay network launched a year after L4D, and the Uplay client launched almost 4 years after L4D. Origin launched nearly 3 years after L4D. Checking the Uplay store now, no sign of L4D.
Those features aren't free. Hosting a metric shitload of servers all around the world. Isn't free the bandwidth to have all this upkeep isn't free. Creating and maintaining this isn't free. R&D isn't free.
i never once said that it cost 2BN dollars to create a feature. Also where did you get 2 billion from? Do you have any sources to back that number?
It's no longer there because Uplay stopped selling third party games entirely.
That is supremely ironic coming from a poster with bad faith posts here such as this:
"Epic doesn't believe in sales"
Here's a link describing Epic's recent sale just two weeks ago.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/fortnite-black-friday-2018-deal-discounts-skin-bun/1100-6463420/
Bad faith posts?
They're literally telling you what Epic has publicly said since the store opened for third parties. How did you miss that?
Also lmao @ 15% on expensive skins being a "sale".
Revenue in 2017 was estimated at $4.3BN, up from $3.5BN the year before. That's not including DLC or IAP, which we know from many other sources is a significant part of total revenue. Similar growth in 2018 would mean almost $5.3BN revenue, again not including DLC or IAP, which would surely put it well over $6BN. Valve was getting 30% from most of that, and 100% from some of it (their own games and IAP).
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/artic...-breaking-usd4-3bn-from-sales-revenue-in-2017
So none of that still has any regards to consumers.
Do even long term your can't find anything for consumers?
But this is an estimate, and we've seen people give out wrong estimates. Valve is a completely private company and I do not see them ever releasing their sales so someone's estimate is not really enough for me to believe the number.
Buying studios is different, once they buy they become first party. Those guys may have come with the idea but it wasn't a finished game, it was a concept that got developed with Valve's money after they got purchased.
This is like saying MS moneyhatting Bungie when Bungie had the original concept of Halo (which was a third person game) for Mac and Windows until MS bought them.
I think people are generally passive about publishers selling first party titles on their own platform. It's when third party games end up being store exclusives like this is what's irking most people. If Ashen, Rebel Galaxy became Epic first party before launch I doubt people would've been concerned this much. Sure there'd still have been an outrage but I don't think it'd have been causing so much anger that you see 5 active topics about it.
I'm sure you're aware Steam is the bulk of the PC games market, and Gabe once said Valve was more profitable per employee than Google and Apple. Do you really believe the number is substantially different from that estimate? And if so, on what basis?
Uplay doesn't sell non Ubisoft games anymore. For a short time this year they even disabled their store and weren't selling anything due to a bug.
What I'm getting at is this constant use of the term "moneyhatting" that I see in these topics. When I Google that term, it's defined as "paying large amounts of money to gain an unfair advantage". People are willing to give a pass if the platform spends more money to acquire a dev and make them exclusive. However if the platform spends less money to gain an exclusive, that is called moneyhatting. If exclusivity through a deal is moneyhatting, why isn't exclusivity through a more expensive transaction to acquire also moneyhatting? Same end result to the consumer in both cases, except one costs the platform more than the other.
Steam was much better before they opened it up to everyone. Now it's polluted with shovelware and garbage stock asset games. It's difficult to find quality games sometimes.
Though I will say I enjoy the YouTube videos that showcase the worst of the worst. So there's that I guess.
There are certainly a lot of people who don't actually use Steam but know how horrible it is from Youtube "personalities".
People will give a pass when it's first party because then they actually fund the game for its development and pay the developers as their own employees. Being angry at that is like being angry at Sony for having Uncharted as their exclusive. Moneyhatting third party exclusives is different because first of all, atleast these games are actually going to end up on steam.
Remember Rise of the Tomb Raider? People got pissed when MS moneyhatted that game for timed exclusivity. But when MS bought Ninja Theory and Obsidian, people actually cheered. Why do you think that is?
When there's a way they can get to those customers without giving the 30%.
They can get steam users because the actual platform is windows, of steam.
I wasn't cheering about the RotTT or Ninja Theory news. In the case or RotTT it was first released on hardware I didn't own, which makes it very different to the Steam/Epic situation. At least with RotTT, the game was only a timed exclusive and I got to enjoy it later on PS4. OTOH I've enjoyed Ninja Theory on Playstation and now there will be no new games from them on that platform, so that's worse for me as a consumer.
Where the extra 40k would come from? This isn't a console situation where some can have a Ps4 but not an xbone for instance, a potential steam consumer is also a potential epic consumer. They are precisely betting that those consumers will just move to the new store to buy their games.
That's because people only act like normal people when it involves Sony. When they moneyhatted SFV, also another big multiplat game people cheered or at least understood why they did it.
An some people cheered for Ms buying NT but many also got pissed saying they were stealing developers that used to make ps games. I'd say most of them even considered how the acquisition threads went.
I had to do some googling to check some of the store timeline, so Uplay was released July 2012 ( and June 2011 for Origin ) .
Since, the stagnating Valve introduced :
Aug 2012 - Steam Greenlight
Dec 2012 - Steam Market
Sept 2012 - Steam Big Picture
May 2013 - Steam Trading cards
Sept 2013 - Steam Family Sharing introduced
Nov 2013 - User review system
May 2014 - Steam Home Streaming
Sep 2014 - Discovery Update introducing the Curator system
Jan(?) 2017 - Steam Input
Jun 2017 - Steam Direct
Aug(?) 2017 - OpenVR
Mai 2018 - Steam Link for Android
Aug 2018 - Proton
I didn't take time to add some smaller stuff like the second Discovery update giving users more control over what titles they want to see or ignore within the Steam Store, the updated review system, the refund policy ( europe(?) didn't give them much choice ), smaller-ish update to SteamVR ( steam home and the like ), on the friend list, etc.. might have forgotten some things thought ( or valve did nothing but swim in their pool of money during 2015-2016, which is a possibility ).
In comparison, I'd like someone to list what Origin and Uplay did other than release their own exclusive titles to their store. I'll be honest I use them so little I wouldn't even know where to start.
Since, the stagnating Valve introduced :
Aug 2012 - Steam Greenlight
Dec 2012 - Steam Market
Sept 2012 - Steam Big Picture
May 2013 - Steam Trading cards
Sept 2013 - Steam Family Sharing introduced
Nov 2013 - User review system
May 2014 - Steam Home Streaming
Sep 2014 - Discovery Update introducing the Curator system
Jan(?) 2017 - Steam Input
Jun 2017 - Steam Direct
Aug(?) 2017 - OpenVR
Mai 2018 - Steam Link for Android
Aug 2018 - Proton
I didn't take time to add some smaller stuff like the second Discovery update giving users more control over what titles they want to see or ignore within the Steam Store, the updated review system, the refund policy ( europe(?) didn't give them much choice ), smaller-ish update to SteamVR ( steam home and the like ), on the friend list, etc.. might have forgotten some things thought ( or valve did nothing but swim in their pool of money during 2015-2016, which is a possibility ).
In comparison, I'd like someone to list what Origin and Uplay did other than release their own exclusive titles to their store. I'll be honest I use them so little I wouldn't even know where to start.
Then nobody would watch those videos and his Patreon would be cut in half.
To be frank, On a fundamentally open platform like PC having the vast majority of games centralized around a single middle man store is much more the outlier than having two (possibly more in future) head to head competitors going for that majority hold
1. RotTT got timed exclusive on Steam as well because of that deal. It was 90 days after launch on xbox one and windows store. You couldn't mod or anything else that you can normally do on Steam. On top of that, it sold very little copies.
2. With these indie games being on Epic store, I can't say play them in Linux, put it on Big Picture Mode, use my switch pro controller, allow my family/friends to access it via family sharing or even have cloud saves to switch between my PC and my laptop. Yes it's just launchers and giving an email and payment but these features are important to steam users who been using it a long time.
Eh, sensible response regarding the why. If it helps Indie devs not just survive but thrive, assuming the leverage actually does create movement and picks up...steam...then I'm all for it.
Pretty good list there, and Steam is still working on improving those listed features.
Your post contains facts, therefore it will be completely ignored by most. I'll make sure to link it to anyone that says that Valve has stagnated, so be prepared for lots of alerts!
Most of these stores already operate well below the 30% cut that is the norm, so I doubt they'd actually be hit that hard unless Steam went for something off the wall like 5% as its baseline, and just like the publishers or devs, it's not on me to keep them afloat if they can't tailor their business to the market. They aren't a charity and neither am I. It sucks, but pc gaming existed before gmg and humble and cdkeys and such, it will exist without them as well if they go under, someone else will come in fill the void.
Because it's someones estimate. Didn't someone also make an estimate saying that the switch was going to sell 32 million by january 2019?
Estimates are always wrong.
Also no you're not going to get any GMG/Humble's once that percent goes down. It will be on the part of Grey Market Keys then (G2A/Kinguin), and we already know how many of those keys are stolen so really say goodbye to the entire system if it does go that way.
Who needs facts when you can watch some YouTube video harping about how Terrible Steam is in regards to their "cluttered" store.
When in reality not only does Steam provide by far the best platform for its customers and helps PC gaming overall; the vast majority of games on Steam have absolutely nothing to do with the stupid troll or asset flip games. But why have facts interrupt "competition is great" tirades especially when the said competitor is very much anti-consumer per their own statements.
Cool, if they go away then they go away. I have no issues adapting since PC gaming has changed so much since I started back with Starcraft.
Yeah it's from SteamSpy change over year * USD price of game. Which fails to take regional pricing, sales, it also counts games purchased outside Steam as "steam sales". So very widly inaccurate.
So yeah it's nothing realistic.
- Status