Out of interest what percentage of a cut to developers get when releasing their game on consoles?
-
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.
Super Meat Boy Forever release window set, will be Epic Store exclusive for a year
- Thread starter Vaelic
- Start date
Not every game forum on Steam is a cesspool. It depends on the game and it's target audience. You can have nice mature discussions on it. :) It's also helpful for troubleshooting or getting in contact with the devs.
Digitally? Developers are bound into the tyranny of a 70:30 split on consoles, too.
I wonder whens the right time to talk about this without getting labelled as a troll. So many concerned people about the developers cut, but theres 0 conversation around the console market, which often makes the bulk of revenue for some franchises.
Yeah it's a shame that all these developers taking a stand against Steam have entirely capitulated to the console overlords.
That's a pretty hot take on the issue, that we have no interest in that. The main issue in this particular thread is the dumb (and arrogant) comment from the dev about this, and if devs wants us to symphatize with them on this, they need to express themselves better then what they have done so far, especially Team Meat.
They are an extremely succesful developer, with a massive hit on Steam in their luggage, so this move where they are angling for a bigger cut, which results in us having to buy the game from a much worse store/launcher, really isn't as straightforward as just us having to feel obliged to think "poor devs, good on you for this".
Consoles are already charging users $60/year ($20 in case of Nintendo) to access servers that a multiplayer game's developer/publisher hosts, and they get zero dollars out of that fee. "Only" getting 70% of sales revenue is nothing compared to that.
There is. But you get the same arguments over and over again.
"They do more for it than Valve."
Yeah that's what I was getting at.
Where's the developer pushback on consoles?
Surely they should be saying 'I'm not going to pay 30% just to release on PS4'.
Also just a thought. But if developers are saving 18% by releasing on Epic vs anywhere else then shouldn't games be cheaper on Epic's service? Pass a little savings onto the consumer?
Because in all of this I am struggling to see where I as the consumer benefit here.
There isn't going to be a huge direct benefit to the consumer, if that's what you're looking for, in the same way valves recent decision to offer a bigger cut to games that make more money isn't going to really do anything for us.
"trickle down economics"
smaller milestones to break even, so the company can carry on existing and sell you more games/content
i'm jesting, but at the same time there's no other real finite end reward for customers in this scenario. I seriously doubt developers are going to challenge current price models in order to capitulate to customers as a form of thank you for using the service.
This is untrue. I've just checked out a couple of PC gamer articles on this and the reaction can hardly be said to be 'overwhelmingly negative'. One can even see a couple of familiar names from Era further skewing the discourse.
On Twitter, developers arent overwhelmingly negative towards the increased competition for Valve.
The market will decide.
We're also free to talk, discuss, and argue about it on this enthusiast message board that exists for the purpose of talking, discussing, and arguing about video games.
This is the best, most solid argument I've seen in three entire threads why this may not be a net win; thank you. It doesn't seem entirely fair to me that games that get most of their sales through Steam are basically funding the games that get a lot of sales from, say, Humble, but the point still stands that this particular scenario would be a net loss for consumers.
It doesn't seem likely to me that Steam would ever remove free key generation, though. Steam is a hugely successful company with profits in the millions. I have a hard time believing reducing their fee would make things so dire for them that it'd force them to shut down free keys and give up on the entire Humble ecosystem. Let's be honest, if this happens you know Humble will just set up their own client, and Steam doesn't want that.
I have (checks) 938 games on my Steam account. Do I meet the qualifications for my opinion to be valid?
Yeah I doubt Valve would take unilateral action like that.
I think if they're going to do anything like that, it'll be like "you'll get significantly reduced visibility if you don't commit to release date parity". or similar soft measures.
Everyone should really read this excellent post from ListeningGarden :
https://www.resetera.com/threads/pc...s-but-76-aint-one.84454/page-61#post-15840077
I couldn't have said it better.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/pc...s-but-76-aint-one.84454/page-61#post-15840077
I couldn't have said it better.
Ah yes, Team Meat: an award winning, multi million selling small dev whos game is on PC, PS4, Vita, Xbox 360, Xbox One BC, Wii U and Switch.
I do get developers need exposure and whatnot but they are from that.
Your opinion, as well as everyone else's, is validated through presenting a reasonable argument that is well researched and decently expressed. I personally don't require anything else to feel like I'm having a meaningful discussion.
It is, in fact, very true.
So if your comment dismissing people in favor of this as not actually playing games on PC wasn't a bog-standard "not true gamers!" gatekeeping... what exactly was it? What were you intended to convey?
I rarely game on PC, but this seems silly to say. It'll still only be one choice on PC, it'll just be a different one choice.
I do, Epic don't.
The indie developers who actually need the visibility don't even get onto Epic's store, the curation is too strict to give them any space. Epic's store is reserved for AAA developers and large indie studios like Team Meat who already have an established network to get visibility.
Its closest comparison is to Steam circa 2010 before the existence of Greenlight, which was a system so bad that it actively prevented the rise of indie gaming.
What exactly is wrong with choosing prominent studios to work with? Epic said nothing of helping small unknown indie developers to get visibility... that's a Valve problem. DEVELOPERS are choosing to work with Epic. And just because they choose to do so for WHATEVER reason... doesn't mean they are being bribed away from YOU or VALVE. They made their own decision.
Here's the "problem" as I see it. You guys love Steam, and so do I. I love tons of stuff about it and what they do for PC gaming. However, many developers have issues with Steam and what they see as potential roadblocks to doing better business for themselves there. Developers can choose where to work and who to work with. So I think now, people see Steam is losing BIG publishers like Bethesda, among others and potentially Ubisoft and Square and Capcom in the future. Who knows right? That's a scary thought. You don't want that to happen, understandably... because Steam is the best. But it's happening. So now the big publishers are leaving and with every new one that leaves, it becomes easier for the next one to.
Ok.. so now you need new clients for those BIG publishers.. whatever. They make their own games, and they sell keys in other store so... you deal with it. Steam still has tons of games from mid sized pubs and devs of all sizes, plus all the indie games. Still the best place to play. But now there's Epic... they've come in and secured some exclusive or timed exclusives for their platform, and they seem to be courting higher profile indie developers. That means, if those good indie developers have exclusives on Epic's store, that leaves Steam with less good games yet again.
I'm told though, that the problem with Steam is that there's just TOO MANY good games, and that's why developers of even good games find it extremely hard to be successful there. Surely losing a few prominent indie developers shouldn't matter too much if there's TOO MANY good games, right? It's not because there's so much junk there that people don't even want to sort through it with the best filtering tools in the business... nah can't be. But I think that people are realizing that if Epic is successful at courting high quality indie titles, and markets them and gives them good exposure, it will prove that curation is what Steam needed.. and Steam will be left with some good games here and there, but it will far and away mostly be garbage. The kind the people say doesn't hurt anything.
And they know deep inside that that would be bad for Steam.
Developers want to feel they are in a partnership where they are not left to simply exist and get pushed aside by the next wave of garbage games the next week.
IMO, Valve has work to do. Make the store more interesting. Improve the layout and give the games a richer presentation.. not these stupid little squares with the title logo on it. Do MORE to please GOOD developers. Let the shitty ones exist but prop up the prominent ones that keep people on your platform.
I think we really need to start using Tencent along with Epic in all these thread titles. Make sure people know there is an even deeper pocket behind Epic that owns multiple P2W games and would not blink at the chance to become a monopoly and probably have no interest in Linux support, regional pricing or any other activity Valve supports to make PC gaming more widespread.
I support this. They own just under half of Epic so that's more than enough to link them to Epic as you would with Activision-Blizzard. And they're such a scummy company that maybe some of the cheerleaders of this should know what they're wading into.
I already say Tencent-Riot, definitely might do this for Epic in the future.
For Linux though, you don't even need Tencent involvement to rule that out. Tim Sweeney himself turns into a completely ignorant moron any time the topic of Linux comes up.
Reality. When someone enters a thread and makes definitive statements on what is best for PC gaming and PC gamers but their posting history on this site indicates non-existent prior participation to any PC-related threads, it means that this person a) is not at all knowledgeable of the situation he is offering an opinion on or b) he might be trolling. It is their right to still express an opinion but it is also my right to not take it seriously if it isn't based on a solid argument.
It is your right not to take them seriously for any reason, including the color of their shirt. It's also my right to point out your fallacious discrediting of other's opinions by gatekeeping on arbitrary reasons. You're not fooling anyone with that "solid argument" escape clause; in fact, if we take it seriously, by logical complement of your statement, you're willing to accept any argument, no matter how flimsy, if they otherwise meet your arbitrary requirement of being active on PC related threads.
Either you evaluate their argument on their own merits, or you don't. There is no part of their gaming or posting habits that can inform you about the validity of the argument they're making.
Last edited:
Actually, yes, it very much can and does. As I have already explained to you in detail, the argument itself isn't validated by posting habits. If the argument is well reasoned and well presented, it can come from a first-time poster for all I can. On the other hand, if the argument is based on memes and colors all opposing viewpoints as born by fanaticism, then the person presenting that argument is either severely lacking in knowledge of the discussed topic or is trolling for shits and giggles. In such a case, a complete lack of interest in PC gaming before a spree of posting is pretty telling. The moderators of the site you are on right now are frequently using previous posting habits as a means of determining if someone is posting in good faith.
So you agree with me that arguments should be assessed on their own rather than poisoning the well or dismissing them via random ad-hominems.
Telling of what, besides confirming your own biases? What would a shitpost from a Verified PC Gamer (TM) be telling of? Does it make it worthy of consideration, or would you simply dismiss it wholesale because it doesn't fit your narrative?
Let me put it in very simple terms:
Shitpost + PC gamer = invalid
Shitpost + not PC gamer = invalid
Reasoned post + PC gamer = valid
Reasoned post + not PC gamer = valid
It's immediate that this reduces to:
Shitpost = invalid
Reasoned post = valid
And therefore "PC gamer" is entirely irrelevant to asserting post validity. The only reason to argue for the opposite is if one of the following is in your logic table instead:
Shitpost + PC gamer = valid
Reasoned post + not PC gamer = invalid
So which one is it?
Are you really comparing racism, sexism or homophobia to having fucking credentials as a PC gamer?
Weltall Zero You are quoting my posts but I honestly have no idea what you are replying to because I just can't make sense of your replies. Let's try this again.
Are you somehow under the impression that posting history isn't used in gaming threads? There are many bans on the gaming side where a poster's trolling or platform war history is specifically referenced? Do you not use the forum a lot or something? How can you possibly not know this?
Absolutely, categorically not. A valid opinion should always be based on experience or any otherwise knowledge on the subject. No one can stop you, me or anyone else from expressing an opinion on a subject that we know nothing about, but that opinion is not to be taken seriously. How can you express a valid opinion on whether or not the Epic Games Store is a good thing for PC gaming if you know nothing about PC gaming? I suppose I can express an opinion that, say, the best Uncharted game is Uncharted 2. I haven't played any of them for any noteworthy amount of time but I have an opinion because why the hell not.
So,here we are again. As I explained again and again, you can't comment on the inner workings of the PC market and expect to be taken seriously without having at least some amount of knowledge on that market. No one can stop you from opining anyway but that opinion will not be worthy of debate.
Are you somehow under the impression that posting history isn't used in gaming threads? There are many bans on the gaming side where a poster's trolling or platform war history is specifically referenced? Do you not use the forum a lot or something? How can you possibly not know this?
Absolutely, categorically not. A valid opinion should always be based on experience or any otherwise knowledge on the subject. No one can stop you, me or anyone else from expressing an opinion on a subject that we know nothing about, but that opinion is not to be taken seriously. How can you express a valid opinion on whether or not the Epic Games Store is a good thing for PC gaming if you know nothing about PC gaming? I suppose I can express an opinion that, say, the best Uncharted game is Uncharted 2. I haven't played any of them for any noteworthy amount of time but I have an opinion because why the hell not.
So,here we are again. As I explained again and again, you can't comment on the inner workings of the PC market and expect to be taken seriously without having at least some amount of knowledge on that market. No one can stop you from opining anyway but that opinion will not be worthy of debate.
I'm not going to waste any more time with this, you're obviously either disingenuously trolling or beyond any logical reasoning.