There's something I've been wondering for a while. Steam doesn't actually mark down the prices for games in other regions right? It's the publishers that set the price or am I wrong in thinking that?
-
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.
Satisfactory removed from Steam to be announced as Epic Store game
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
Yeah, the issue with PC gaming is not that you have tons of trash but rather that you have too many good games and there is no reset button. The gold rush on pc has ended long ago and because there is not a reset, it wont be back like they do each new gen game console.
Steam need to improve discoverability and curators BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE BEST TOOLS ON THAT THEIR COMPETITORS
Steam offers preset value recommendations that the developers can change at will. The preset are normally marked down to take into account the economy of the country. For instance 20€ in Russia would be much mroe impactful that in Europe so they recommend something like the equivalent of 10€. That has helped create markets out of previously dead markets due to piracy.
This is real competition. They're competing for suppliers rather than for customers, but that's still competition.
OP
OP
Steam does it automatically and developers/publishers can manually set prices too.
They are competing for your dollars with an exclusive.
It is whether or not an action is monopolistic determines if it is anti-competitive. Having exclusivity to handful of videogames isn't inherently monopolistic.
Not like this.
Exclusive third parties are one thing.
I remember when steam started doing it and you had to install steam to play even physical disc copies of non-valve games, it was a shit sandwich but people ate it and nobody blinks an eye at it anymore.
That's just how the game is now.
However, removing shit from storefronts it's already listed at is another level of skeevy.
Exclusive third parties are one thing.
I remember when steam started doing it and you had to install steam to play even physical disc copies of non-valve games, it was a shit sandwich but people ate it and nobody blinks an eye at it anymore.
That's just how the game is now.
However, removing shit from storefronts it's already listed at is another level of skeevy.
Apparently Epic's storefront doesn't offer regional pricing, so yes, for many people prices will be significantly higher.
So everything gets marked down unless the publishers thinks it's too low? It's no wonder COD on PC costs more than on PS4 where I'm at.
I mean lets face, 97% of people screaming about competition donot understand what Steam is and are not pc gamers.
So the price hasn't gone up? What even was your comment then. What a joke!
This IS competition. Exclusives are a part of that. Epic need to do things like this when there is currently a near Monopoly. It's not great for people who are in love with Steam like you, but on the grand scale of things they could do to piss of the consumer, this has little impact on you. And the NET result is they are a more viable competitor which is good for the industry.
The action is monopolistic as now there is only one place ro get the game from- epic store.
This is absolutely not a dig at you, so don't take it as an insult, but...
I really think things would be different if Valve had EA's or ActiBlizz's standards of communication. That is, just yammer away about everything they do, non-stop, until people are sick of hearing from them. Regional pricing is one of those things that benefits both consumer and dev, but few realise that Steam is essentially the leader in it.
epic are not your friends they are a greedy company like any others, some just differ in their level of pro-consumer-ness because they've weighed their options as to what will raise profits
anyone from the epic store annoucement thread who didn't see this coming was naive
anyone from the epic store annoucement thread who didn't see this coming was naive
He is wrong, when he equates the end user experience to nothing more than "just install another launcher" and that the benefit of steam is some sort of linux connection. He's an editor at a tech publication and he doesn't know why people use Steam??
OP
OP
When you post store page you have pricing section where salve by default recommends you prices for regions. If you click publish those prices will be on store. If you don't like it you can go and change prices manually ti whatever you want. It is all based on data Valve collected about different regions.
The only joke here is your reading comprehension.
Being sold on one place means price fixing + no competition. That's simple math for you.
That means "game more expensive" as in "not being sold elsewhere for cheaper". Duh.
What monopoly are you even talking about ? You are telling me when a game is sold on Steam + multiple 3rd party store, it's a monopoly, but when it's sold exclusively on Epic's store, it's competition ? For real ?
And you are telling me that, it has no impact on me, that not only I have to pay more for an objectively worse product, but that the NET result is that this competition is good for the industry ?
Holy Shit.
It's only one videogame in a genre that has highly diversified. You might as well argue the console manufacturers are monopolistic with their exclusives.
That is why exclusivity isn't inherently monopolistic. Substitutes usually exist elsewhere and when they don't you have to prove the barriers to making a substitute are high.
Epic buying exclusivity is the same thing as them having a monopoly on that individual title. The very thing you are decrying -- limiting consumer choice -- is what Epic is doing.
I think alot of people are conflating the 'Console wars' with the 'PC Launcher' wars.
See, when nintendo sony and MS release platforms, they have to compete against each other. This means exclusives. They want you to buy their 300 dollar box.
With PC? They're competing for a 'click'. That's all it takes. I can have a Blizzard, Steam, and Epic launcher open at the same time. And unlike the consoles, it doesn't cost me anything. It doesn't cost me $300 to download the epic launcher and try a new game. It doesn't cost me $399 to use steam. I can't believe that there are those who feel attacked that a game isn't on steam? "It had a steam page, how dare they take it down"? Seriously dog, you gonna chew on an indie dev for wanting to make money?
As for this whole "It's bad for the consumer" it's not. Not when you have free access to multiple launchers. Like...were you around 20 years ago? When you had to download PC games and have to open separate .EXEs? This is no different from that.
See, when nintendo sony and MS release platforms, they have to compete against each other. This means exclusives. They want you to buy their 300 dollar box.
With PC? They're competing for a 'click'. That's all it takes. I can have a Blizzard, Steam, and Epic launcher open at the same time. And unlike the consoles, it doesn't cost me anything. It doesn't cost me $300 to download the epic launcher and try a new game. It doesn't cost me $399 to use steam. I can't believe that there are those who feel attacked that a game isn't on steam? "It had a steam page, how dare they take it down"? Seriously dog, you gonna chew on an indie dev for wanting to make money?
As for this whole "It's bad for the consumer" it's not. Not when you have free access to multiple launchers. Like...were you around 20 years ago? When you had to download PC games and have to open separate .EXEs? This is no different from that.
So at first I thought that becuase of all the indies exclusives - Maybe Epic decided to only have exclusives on their store or something? But I also noticed how Darksiders 3 is not exclusive. So Epic can only bend the arms of smaller devs to make them remove their Steam listing, making them potentially lose much more if this whole thing doesn't work out.
And to think I used to hold Epic in some regard before this...
And to think I used to hold Epic in some regard before this...
Yes, but if I take exclusivity to one app vs another then having a monopoloy on the whole PC market regarding DD, I would rather take the first.
"It doesn't cost me anything".
So when a publisher pays so that a game release ONLY on their store, which means only ONE place to buy the game, which means no 3rd party stores, which means price is set by one person, which means more expensive games, it doesn't "cost you anything" ?
You're right, it's not bad for consumers when someone pays to make a product worse (because it'll be more expensive as there'll be no price competition and releasing on a worse launcher) and we clearly should go back to what PC gaming was: A mess without any convenience. Were you around 20 years ago ? Heck, were you around 10 years ago ?
Doesn't surprise me. They said, a long time ago, they would charge MUCH more for games if they could. It seems they can.
In regards of the topic: it is competition but probably not the way most people want competition. It's rather a scheme like this: competitor 1 -> dev <- competitor 2. Personally, I don't care what launcher starts when I click on a game if the launcher/company offers refunds and is sophisticated developed (Bethesda's launcher for example won't even let you uninstall the Fallout 76 beta... fuck this half-ass, poorly coded launcher by amateurs). If the launcher doesn't, count me out.
I don't use steam that often but whenever I do, the lower prices of games are definitely something I'm happy to see and I hope Sony/MS/Nintendo get more aggressive with their regional pricing as well.
This is implying it will never go on sale in the the epic store, it's also implying that the game would be at a huge discount on release at Steam.
I'm sure the epic store will have sales, if that's what you're worried about
So, you prefer to take the first, which means a more closed system and a more expensive one (on top of being worse) rather than the more open, cheaper option ?
I swear, you people are just throwing word aroudn without even understanding them. You just decided in your mind "Valve is the big guy here... So it's a monopoly. A monopoly is bad" and apply that as a mantra without any thought.
That is implying that when a game is releasing on the terrible monopolistic Steam store, it also releases on nearly every 3rd party stores around, because monopolistic Steam allows for free key generation sold at 100% of revenue for the dev (they then decide to sell them on their site or elsewhere, where the store might take their own cut). It usually means selling it on GMG or Voidu where these stores, because that 30% cut is a thing, can eat into their own 30% cut and offer 20% discounts at launch.
It's that fucking simple. But fuck monopoly, yay for competition even if it means higher prices and worse products.
I use Steam because I have no damn choice. That's the only reason.
(That's not a slam on Steam compared to any other launcher, its universally applicable)
If it helps a developer they should launch on whatever launcher or platform they like. When a developer is targeting younger players who love watching streams then Epic's launcher is ideal.
Every market has some version of this. Movies have cinemas. Books have hardbacks.
Maybe it'll hit Steam later, or maybe never. Just like price point, it's an inconvenience that might be enough to lose you purchase, but probably not if you're interested enough.
I'll always favour supporting artists over consumer convenience.
Every market has some version of this. Movies have cinemas. Books have hardbacks.
Maybe it'll hit Steam later, or maybe never. Just like price point, it's an inconvenience that might be enough to lose you purchase, but probably not if you're interested enough.
I'll always favour supporting artists over consumer convenience.
Excepting for a handful of games, you have a choice to buy outside Steam, which minimises your interaction with it, and gives you the potential for cheaper games.
For those game currently exclusive to Epic Launcher, this choice does not exist.
Monopoly is almost always bad, even if Valve today is the good guys, fighting the good fight, what will happen in 20 years when their policies have changed, been bought by some larger company where they just want to get cash?
Of course I see the issues with app exclusivity, but I see a far more dangerous path with a monopoly for DD on the PC market.
Cool?
An enormous part of the PC gaming landscape uses Steam, because of features steam provides. Even down to the API stuff, which you might not even be aware that you take advantage of.
Of course you would, you're a developer too. But the thing is some people here forget who pays for the product. Because we hold developers so high in our esteem that we often forget that they sell us a product.
You're right, I think it's dangerous that Valve holds a "monopoly" for digital download on the PC market. Who knows, maybe in 20 years, they'll start buying store exclusivity, remove Steam Controller API and all the other neat stuff and shut down 3rd party stores to fix prices. You changed my mind, I'm going to buy exclusively on the Epic Store, which already does the same, 20 years earlier.
You ok there? I can go download steam or whatever 3rd party store you want me to, I dunno why you're bent on calling steam a monopoly.
this is uh...scary rhetoric? Like almost gamergate level. "Yeah devs we PAY for your product! Respect us gamers!"
If a dev wants to make money, and that means getting money from Epic and releasing it exclusively on a launcher, let them?
STEAM. IS. NOT. A. MONOPOLY.
How, how the flying hell do people like you still not get that there is a difference between Steam, the store, and Steam, the API. What you conflate as being "exclusive to steam" is developers using Steam, the API. There is no such thing as a steam store exclusive.
The only way I can assume you don't get this is if you flat out don't play PC games.
This.
The idea that Steam got into the position it's in now based purely on features and service is bull, the PC gaming base was practically brute-forced into using it if they wanted to keep gaming on PC.
You talk about reading comprehension but then completely miss out saying NEAR a monopoly. Actually that's not reading comprehension, that's intentionally arguing in bad faith which, given you're emotionally blinded by your brand love, is hardly surprising.
Price fixing doesn't apply to a single game. People are making purchase decisions based on everything in the store. If one is too expensive compared to other games of perceived equal value, then people will be less likely to buy it and less likely to use the store. And there's not even any evidence of the price going up.
No one will come to the Epic store unless they give a compelling reason to. Epic aren't in this for one little game at a time. And people don't have to go to Epic because there already is a very good store the vast majority of people use and are emotionally tied into with the ecosystem. That's competition. But it's one way. If Steam fucks up then there needs to be competition, not just a back up alternative, a serious competitor. There isn't one at the moment.
You may say, well steam haven't fucked up, they're a very trustworthy company. And you're right, I won't even try and say "yeah but what if?". They're very good...for consumers.
For developers there are a ton of complaints, and there's no viable alternative for them at the moment because of Steam's near monopoly. Do you think it's a coincidence that Epic's tactics have been pro dev? Developers are an important part of the equation for all of us. The industry needs this.
It's on Epic to do it in a way that adds value to the consumer as well. If they don't, they won't be a viable competitor and they don't deserve to be.
I'm ok, I'm just saying you're throwing random words you don't even comprehend.
Also, nice for calling me a gamergater. We reached a new low.
And yes, sorry for reminding that, in an industry where publishers hold SO MUCH power, there are actual consumers.
Proving my point again. My reading comprehension comment was about you not even reading my point about why games are more expensive. Not because they put a markup but that price fixing means no price competition.
As for my "emotionnally blinded by your brand love", I'm only blinded by my wallet. I only see what benefits my wallet the most. I'll tell you what, I don't even care about Valve's games, I give no shit about Half Life and couldn't care less about Half Life 3. In fact, if they really stopped making games to support Steam fully, I'd be fine with it.
As for the rest, that's my problem with your argument. That we need to make an alternative out of TERRIBLE models because someday Steam might go wrong.
No, I don't think it's a coincidence that Epic's tactics have been pro dev. Developers are indeed an important part of the equation. So are we.
There are viable alternatives with Itch.io or Humble Store. You know why ? Because Valve's policy allowed it. You know what's the most pro-developer thing ? No curation.
Last edited:
What does it mean to be locked in to steam? Like, people throw around terms like "monopoly," describe how you people see PC gaming, the landscape. Give me a literal example of when you were forced to give valve your money and how it negatively impacted your experience.
In other words, tell me about how big bad valve forced you to use their store.
It's not about having to spend 400 dollars or the fact you can have multiple launchers.
It's about choice. People like to be able to buy their games from the store they like the most. Epic removes that by doing stuff like this. Why would consumers like it? There's no benefit for them.
It's the same when a game on GOG takes longer to get an update vs the Steam version or when I look at itch and wish the game was there. Except in this case Epic is looking for this exclusivity instead of it being just unfortunate.
There's no consumer benefit so the consumer doesn't like it
It's about choice. People like to be able to buy their games from the store they like the most. Epic removes that by doing stuff like this. Why would consumers like it? There's no benefit for them.
It's the same when a game on GOG takes longer to get an update vs the Steam version or when I look at itch and wish the game was there. Except in this case Epic is looking for this exclusivity instead of it being just unfortunate.
There's no consumer benefit so the consumer doesn't like it
If you read what I am saying, I am not talking about their practices.
Since Steam is SO big, it can become a monopoly just for being first and way earlier then all other.
Like how EU had to force Microsoft to open up to different browsers in their OS.
what does "being a monopoly" mean in context of what steam, the client, is? Like, you keep throwing this term around, "they're a monopoly," what does that literally mean? What are they monopolizing? Money?
You are aware, right, that you can use steam's technologies as a developer without selling your game on Steam, right? You are aware, as a consumer, that literally every game on Steam, can be bought at other stores, and will still work with all the steam features, without giving valve a dime, right?
You do know the entire purpose of stuff like enhanced steam is to point out to you non-steam stores that are selling the same stuff cheaper, right?
And which words are that? Did I call steam a monopoly in this thread? Quote me. I'm waiting.
Also, I didn't call you a gamergater. I said that the rhetoric is questionable and something a gamergater would use. "But the thing is some people here forget who pays for the product". Like wow, should we be reminded? Fuck the indie devs, am I right? You act like it's an attack on the consumer to have a game on the epic store. It's not. It really isn't. It also isn't at a level of gaming consoles and those exclusives, because those are locked behind hundred dollar+ boxes. On PC, it's a click away.
The fact that most games on Steam are priced with the local currency and yearly wage in mind clearly indicates that Valve/Steam think about the non-US user more than the Epic Store. That Steam has this functionality and devs/pubs use it is proof.
lol, I get one word answers out of you because you can't explain your position
what does monopolizing the platform mean? As I said, you know their technologies are freely available, you don't have to pay to use them, nor do they require any service subscription or terms of use. You can use their platform entirely independently of the store, and you can also use their platform without ever being on steam, the store, in the first place.
Describe the negative market affects of their supposed platform monopoly. How does this hurt you as a consumer? You are aware that specifically their "platform" is merely a series of tools which can be individually disabled, right? like, just because Steam provide chat, doesn't mean I can't use discord with my games, right? In fact, the way steam, the platform, works is that you can ignore all of it if you want, which is precisely what the dude preening about how he doesn't use any of the features is going on about.