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.
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.i mean that is true
but epic being successful on this model would force steam to adapt. that is a good thing, and much more important than the unimaginable hassle of installing 2+ launchers on your PC
No, that's funding development. Elicnisnt doing that.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.
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.
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?
Did Valve use their money to make a game exclusive on PC to their own platform?Are you really going to compare BUYING OUT THE STUDIO.
To money hatting a third party exclusive????
Did Valve use their money to make a game exclusive on PC to their own platform?
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"?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.
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.
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"?
not at all, it was available on Origin and Uplay.Did Valve use their money to make a game exclusive on PC to their own platform?
Absolutely.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"?
If you can't see the similarities you are 100% not arguing in good faith. For example you say Valve "bought and funded", when it was the other way around. They funded then near the end of development acquired. In both cases it's a platform giving the dev money and then the game being exclusive to that platform on PC.
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.Q) OK, maybe this is good for developers, but how is this good for customers? (still a monster)
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.not at all, it was available on Origin and Uplay.
Nice try though.
Absolutely.
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.Listing some features does not at all equate to a justification for 30% being necessary. That's now about $2BN per year. With <400 employees that's >$5M per employee. Of course they are allowed to make a healthy profit but let's not pretend some new feature created by a small group of employees cost them $2BN to implement.
It's no longer there because Uplay stopped selling third party games entirely.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.
That is supremely ironic coming from a poster with bad faith posts here such as this: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.
Bad faith posts?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/
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).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?
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.
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
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.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?
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?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.A) From our standpoint as customers, a curated store with a more limited selection of quality games is a plus.
Its good for you, not the consumer. I remember when Indie devs complained that Valve was gate keeping too much games from it store and when it opened the floodgates, they still complained. I wonder what will happen to the Epic Store when it also gets flooded by indie games :thinking:
Having the ability for you to share your emails with us (optionally) so we can communicate directly with you is hopefully also a plus for you
????????????????????????????????????????????
Though I will say I enjoy the YouTube videos that showcase the worst of the worst. So there's that I guess.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.
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.
There are certainly a lot of people who don't actually use Steam but know how horrible it is from Youtube "personalities".Though I will say I enjoy the YouTube videos that showcase the worst of the worst. So there's that I guess.
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.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.
When there's a way they can get to those customers without giving the 30%.So when will they start boycotting Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft with their 30/70 split. :thinking:
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.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?
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.You know what's more money ?
40k at 88% + 40k at 70%.
I'm all for indie devs getting paid. But if they dont want my money, that's on them !
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.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?
Imagine if Jim focused on good, underappreciated indie games.There are certainly a lot of people who don't actually use Steam but know how horrible it is from Youtube "personalities".
Then nobody would watch those videos and his Patreon would be cut in half.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, the smaller overall Steam's (Origin's, Ubisoft, whatever) cut becomes, the smaller margin 3rd partybsotes have to operate in as Devs can just go to Steam and call it a day it cuts are close.
This also drives lower incentives to customers.
Also, the lower Steam's cut is the less they have to invest in fundamental features that helps PC Gaming as a whole. Again, Epic does jack in that front and is not planning to participate. They had plenty of options to get onboard after Fortnite hit.
It's wspecially hypocritical conspiring Sweeney's cries about MS (not unjustified mind you). Except Valve is doing something with both Proton/Wine and Vulkan/Kronos support.
Ruination? No but this gives the third party sites like GMG even less margin to do their business. For example, Just Cause 4 is $46.19 in the US on GMG for VIP members, that's 23% off. If Valve hits a switch tomorrow to change the cut to 80/20 then it's impossible for GMG to over that discount and would have to lower it to 16% or less. To be clear, Valve/Steam doesn't make a cent off these steam keys being sold on the publisher website or third party sites like GMG.
70/30 is the same on MS, Sony, Nintendo, Apple, Google. I know Apple has reduced their cut on subscriptions to 85/15. Shouldn't we be asking all the platform holders to do the same to be "pro-dev"
Edit: I never thought you were anti-consumer fascist btw.
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?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?
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.
Who needs facts when you can watch some YouTube video harping about how Terrible Steam is in regards to their "cluttered" store.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.