Epic Games Store

[Flogger23m]

About time. Hopefully the roll out is better than what occurred with Steam. For a long time I simply turned it off because it was so inconsistent in the beginning. And do they seriously not have a shopping cart option yet? Not the end of the world, but that is a pretty simple feature.

 

[Denpepe]

About time. Hopefully the roll out is better than what occurred with Steam. For a long time I simply turned it off because it was so inconsistent in the beginning. And do they seriously not have a shopping cart option yet? Not the end of the world, but that is a pretty simple feature.

While it's something that should have been there from the start, I rarely buy more then one game at a time unless during a sale. Their BS tactics are far more disturbing to me.

I still need to see how we as customers are getting better of the whole thing.

 

[sharknice]

While it's something that should have been there from the start, I rarely buy more then one game at a time unless during a sale. Their BS tactics are far more disturbing to me.

I still need to see how we as customers are getting better of the whole thing.

I have gotten 25 free games so far and I paid $10 less for the one game I bought. The games download about 8X faster than Steam for me.

As for future long term benefits.
Ironically having another launcher could prevent having more launchers. Since the margins EGS is taking are so much lower than Steams it could encourage a lot of developers to use EGS instead if creating their own launchers/store like so many have been doing to avoid paying the Steam tax.

There are other potential long term benefits like more money going to developers leading to be invested into making better games and more niche games that wouldn't have been profitable enough with Steam's margins etc.

 

[Viper87227]

There are other potential long term benefits like more money going to developers leading to be invested into making better games and more niche games that wouldn't have been profitable enough with Steam's margins etc.

I've been saying this for months. Everyone thinks that the greater revenue share means games should be cheaper on EGS, but that's now how economics works. The extra revenue is for the publishers and developers. A lower price point is the instant gratification way to benefit the consumer, but it's not the only way to benefit the consumer. Sure, some publishers and developers will get greedy and use that extra money to fill their bank accounts, but thankfully the industry isn't a hive mind. My hope is that will see some of the more consumer friendly companies do something positive with those additional profits. They could use it for bigger, better DLC, or use it to make future projects more ambitious. They could use it to fund games without having to rely on crowd funding. Maybe publishers will be more likely to take risks knowing that they'll have an easier time covering a games costs with lower sales figures. These are all things can benefit the consumer even though they aren't things that are putting more money in our wallets. Video games are my primary source of entertainment and given the choice between cheaper games and better games, i'd much rather have better games.

Obviously right now we have no way of knowing if EGS can accomplish any of those things, but I'd rather be hopeful for the future than piss and moan because things haven't gone exactly the way I like them. Even though I prefer Steam, i'm not losing sleep over getting games elsewhere, and it's really just not a thing that's worth getting angry over. I will continue to buy good games, wherever I have to, without complaint.

 

[jiminator]

everybody likes to harp on and on about how developers and publishers are "greedy" and how EGS "stole" games away from steam.

the problem has nothing to do with EGS. There will be 3 or 4 games that do well every year, and many others will do ok, and the rest will fail in terms of cost vs sales. This results in continual studio shutdowns and buyouts.

To combat that companies are increasingly turning towards monetization schemes.

Like I saw the new wolfenstein yesterday and was impressed at how low the cost was. Then I saw they sell gold bars for the game, and it was like oh, trade grind for money.

In terms of getting more income from games produced, recovering 18% that would be wasted on steam is an easy choice. I mean if you could instantly make 18% more income, would you say no? for many people that is 4 years worth of raises.

And then what does steam do with that money? They sure as hell don't use it to produce games anymore.

And then people point to "consumer friendly" policies like CDPR who offer their games in all stores. That IMO was a bad move. They should have made it GOG exclusive for a year. The fact that they didn't means that for each customer that buys it on steam, they are paying $18 to steam so it can be "in their steam library". If steam gets 3 million sales that will be $54 million wasted. I'd rather have seen that money going to enrich CDPR and fund future games rather than enriching gaben, who already makes so much money off his store that he no longer gives a shit about creating anything else.

 

[djoye]

Thanks for bumping this. Almost forgot to claim my free games! At this rate, my EGS library will be larger than my Origin library.

P.S. Can't wait to play Borderlands 3 in April 2020.

 

[odditory]

everybody likes to harp on and on about how developers and publishers are "greedy" and how EGS "stole" games away from steam.

the problem has nothing to do with EGS. There will be 3 or 4 games that do well every year, and many others will do ok, and the rest will fail in terms of cost vs sales. This results in continual studio shutdowns and buyouts.

To combat that companies are increasingly turning towards monetization schemes.

Epic isn't Captain Save-A-Company, here to rescue failing developers from their bad business decisions, mismanagement or just bad luck/timing that led them to their fragile or dysfunctional financial state. Epic will feed on the carcass of whatever built up PR value and name recognition a game had that preexisted them, and eventually leave it to rot - Tim has no scruples.

And alternative monetization schemes aren't a reaction to "combat" anything - they're being employed simply because there's money to be made there.

In terms of getting more income from games produced, recovering 18% that would be wasted on steam is an easy choice. I mean if you could instantly make 18% more income, would you say no? for many people that is 4 years worth of raises.

Except Epic isn't offering "18% more income", as anyone with the basic math and deduction found in 3rd graders would understand. Epic is offering 18% more OF LESS MONEY. Would you rather have 70% of a pie, or 88% of a crumb? Sales volume matters, and looking at "88/12" alone is pointless without the context of volume. Nevermind Tim said long ago that 12% wouldn't be sustainable if they get bigger.

And then what does steam do with that money? They sure as hell don't use it to produce games anymore.

Who cares what they do with their money? Lots of VR investment apparently, but irrelevant to this discussion. Valve's lack of new firstparty titles isn't a license for Epic/Tim to be anti-consumer, polarizing shitheads.

 

[jiminator]

Except Epic isn't offering "18% more income", as anyone with the basic math and deduction found in 3rd graders would understand. Epic is offering 18% more OF LESS MONEY. Would you rather have 70% of a pie, or 88% of a crumb? Sales volume matters, and looking at "88/12" alone is pointless without the context of volume. Nevermind Tim said long ago that 12% wouldn't be sustainable if they get bigger.

I doubt anyone is losing any sales. I see people post all the time "I'll buy it when it gets on steam". So companies do an epic launch, and 6 months or a year later they do a steam launch. That 18% would be from all the people that "have to have it early" and may represent the bulk of sales.

The fact that 12% is not sustainable is also a ludicrous concept. It is risk free a 12% pure profit for doing almost nothing. Just hosting some files and making a webpage. Which goes to show what a killing steam has been making over years. You can claim that 30% is some type of industry standard, yes, back when the industry actually had to take risks creating physical media and distributing it. Or no, you mean the electronic industry. Well, steam does not build hardware or operating systems, so it does not apply there either.

 

[Denpepe]

I doubt anyone is losing any sales. I see people post all the time "I'll buy it when it gets on steam". So companies do an epic launch, and 6 months or a year later they do a steam launch. That 18% would be from all the people that "have to have it early" and may represent the bulk of sales.

The fact that 12% is not sustainable is also a ludicrous concept. It is risk free a 12% pure profit for doing almost nothing. Just hosting some files and making a webpage. Which goes to show what a killing steam has been making over years. You can claim that 30% is some type of industry standard, yes, back when the industry actually had to take risks creating physical media and distributing it. Or no, you mean the electronic industry. Well, steam does not build hardware or operating systems, so it does not apply there either.

I know it is less relevant know, but when steam started, a lot of games were still sold as physical games but did require steam to run for which Valve did not get a cut, so their 30% was more justifyable. Now that games are almost digital only that might be less the case but they also lost some of the big companies games as they laucnhed their own digital distribution.

With current gaming trends I doubt we the players will get much out of the deal here whoever wins the launcher wars as the big companies make less and less games and just monetize the few they do still make to death.

 

[Flogger23m]

I doubt anyone is losing any sales. I see people post all the time "I'll buy it when it gets on steam". So companies do an epic launch, and 6 months or a year later they do a steam launch. That 18% would be from all the people that "have to have it early" and may represent the bulk of sales.

The fact that 12% is not sustainable is also a ludicrous concept. It is risk free a 12% pure profit for doing almost nothing. Just hosting some files and making a webpage. Which goes to show what a killing steam has been making over years. You can claim that 30% is some type of industry standard, yes, back when the industry actually had to take risks creating physical media and distributing it. Or no, you mean the electronic industry. Well, steam does not build hardware or operating systems, so it does not apply there either.

Indeed and as time goes on there is less hostility towards Steam because after a few big AAA releases people will stop resisting. But 12% is a bit low (for long term), especially with waived UE4 fees. They make a few percent off the store but nothing off the engine. Their engine support is top notch and that doesn't come for free. As EGS expands in features and software sold they will need to spend more money on maintaining it. I assume they will still offer an incentive for using both UE and EGS in the future, but I think it will shoot up to 16% or so and maybe UE4 fees at 2%. Maybe more, maybe less. But the margins as of now are thin.

Being the first is always risky, but right now we're entering a time frame where there is less animosity towards EGS as basic features start getting added and the lineup of games worth buying increase. A lot of developers who were hesitant will probably make the switch for their upcoming games to take advantage of the 12%, especially with waived UE4 fees if they're using that engine, while the offer is available. Because it won't be this cheap forever.

 

[Viper87227]

Except Epic isn't offering "18% more income", as anyone with the basic math and deduction found in 3rd graders would understand. Epic is offering 18% more OF LESS MONEY. Would you rather have 70% of a pie, or 88% of a crumb? Sales volume matters, and looking at "88/12" alone is pointless without the context of volume.

1.) We don't actually have any sales data from games that are Epic exclusives. In fact, we rarely see sales data from AAA PC releases at all, seeing as Steam doesn't share this info either. We don't know what numbers these EGS exclusives are selling. Hell, most major know EGS exclusives aren't even released yet. This data straight up does not exist.

2.) As far as I know, there is not a single EGS exclusive that is a PERMANENT exclusive. Every single one I know of is either a six or twelve month exclusive. That means every single one of these games will be on Steam eventually, where they will still get a majority of the EGS boycotters. There will no doubt be people with a rod so far up their ass that they refuse to buy any game that had an agreement with EGS (and probably use that as a bullshit reason to justify pirating the game instead), but that's going to be such a small number that we are so very far away from your pie vs. crumb analogy.

You've convinced yourself these games will sell much more poorly, but that logic exists as a product of your discontent for Epic; it's not based on reality. They'll sell well enough on EGS, getting better margins out of the people who have to have it now. For everyone else, they'll still get their Steam sales eventually. Publishers and developers are pretty smart... maybe even smarter than you. They know the increased revenue share combined with whatever cash deals Epic is offering is more than enough to cover the lost sales from the people who straight up blacklist the game. It's not as if they aren't aware of the negative publicity this choice generates, they wouldn't do it unless they were extremely confident in seeing favorable results financially.

 

[jiminator]

With current gaming trends I doubt we the players will get much out of the deal here whoever wins the launcher wars as the big companies make less and less games and just monetize the few they do still make to death.

I don't really understand this logic. Everyone has to eat. Gaming companies need to bring in revenue so they can continue creating games. What people should hope for is a great game for the amount of money they spend. Getting 18% more revenue per customer dollar spent is an easy decision, and one that has potentially much less annoyance than gimped games for purpose of forcing MTs on the players.

Gaming stores are not about bringing cheaper games to the masses. If you want that, just pirate a game, as grey market key sites often leave companies to deal with fraud and chargebacks. Piracy is at least a more honest method of ripping them off vs costing them money.

 

[janas19]

I know it is less relevant know, but when steam started, a lot of games were still sold as physical games but did require steam to run for which Valve did not get a cut, so their 30% was more justifyable. Now that games are almost digital only that might be less the case but they also lost some of the big companies games as they laucnhed their own digital distribution.

With current gaming trends I doubt we the players will get much out of the deal here whoever wins the launcher wars as the big companies make less and less games and just monetize the few they do still make to death.

The situation is somewhat akin to digital streaming platforms, where the trend is each media company having their own individual platform (Disney supposedly being next). The difference is indie game developers rely on Steam, so it's the de facto store of PC gamers.

 

[odditory]

Getting 18% more revenue per customer dollar spent is an easy decision, and one that has potentially much less annoyance than gimped games for purpose of forcing MTs on the players.

18% more revenue per customer dollar spent, but 100,000% less customers spending dollars. How is that an easy decision unless you're allergic to calculators and logic or just being obtuse?

 

[GoldenTiger]

18% more revenue per customer dollar spent, but 100,000% less customers spending dollars. How is that an easy decision unless you're allergic to calculators and logic or just being obtuse?

What makes you think it's a smaller customer base? Please link your sources.

 

[odditory]

1.)
You've convinced yourself these games will sell much more poorly, but that logic exists as a product of your discontent for Epic; it's not based on reality. They'll sell well enough on EGS, getting better margins out of the people who have to have it now. For everyone else, they'll still get their Steam sales eventually. Publishers and developers are pretty smart... maybe even smarter than you. They know the increased revenue share combined with whatever cash deals Epic is offering is more than enough to cover the lost sales from the people who straight up blacklist the game. It's not as if they aren't aware of the negative publicity this choice generates, they wouldn't do it unless they were extremely confident in seeing favorable results financially.

It's simple deduction: Steam has 90+ million users, and Fortnite kids don't buy games. If games were not going to sell more poorly on EGS, Tim's bribe checks wouldn't need to be in the millions of dollars, for the "first 500,000" copies. More hilarious is the agreement appears to mandate that the dev/publishers turn around and spin how "well" the game is selling by announcing they've "already sold ("500,000" + whatever number they actually sold) copies in the first week". Exhibit A: Coffee Stain Studios.. One minute he's complaining on Twitter how anemic sales have been and they haven't even sold 12 copies of their game, the following week he makes a Youtube video announcing "507,234 copies sold".

As for game studios being smarter than everyone, they're either not realizing how big the anti-EGS basklash actually is, or gambling that it will blow over, and taking Tim's assurances at face value. Good luck with that. EGS exclusivity could equal Franchise death. Then, no matter how big the bag of money Epic hands the publisher, they'll eventually understand that its the end of the career/studio if they accept that bag.

Case in point: Mechwarrior 5. Within 48hrs, 20% of their preorders had already canceled. Source: Developer AMA. By all means keep thinking its only a small minority of "haters" that have a problem with Epic bribing publishers to remove their titles from other stores.

2.) As far as I know, there is not a single EGS exclusive that is a PERMANENT exclusive. Every single one I know of is either a six or twelve month exclusive. That means every single one of these games will be on Steam eventually, where they will still get a majority of the EGS boycotters. There will no doubt be people with a rod so far up their ass that they refuse to buy any game that had an agreement with EGS (and probably use that as a bullshit reason to justify pirating the game instead), but that's going to be such a small number that we are so very far away from your pie vs. crumb analogy.

Problem is, if/when it ever comes to Steam or other stores (who knows if Tim won't just keep throwing more Fortbucks at publishers to extend the exclusivity) a lot of people that really wanted to play the game will have already done so illegally in the meantime, scratched that itch, and moved on. The news hype will also be nonexistent a year later versus the initial launch window. They'll never recover those lost sales than if they'd just offered the game on multiple stores from the get-go.

 

[Flogger23m]

No, the logic exists as simple deduction: Steam has 90+ million users, and Fortnite kids don't buy games.

I know you're just cutting/pasting someone else's argument, but it makes no sense. Your assertion is that a platform/client that caters to a free to play game cannot cater to traditional paid games. It literally makes no sense as there is no logic to derive that conclusion. A 13 year old who only plays Fortnite may have no interest in a game like Control or Metro Exodus, but that doesn't invalidate the people that do have such interest in those games. "This single player game looks good. Oh no, there is a free to play game on this platform. Therefore, I am not going to spend my money there."

Is the reverse true? Will a free to play, micro transaction based game not be viable on a platform that once catered to high priced, high quality AAA games? Of course not. See Steam with Half Life 2 and now DOTA 2 or other cheap, free or low quality shovelware.

Also, many Steam accounts are junk accounts, extras and used for free to play games only. By your criteria, these would be inferior accounts as they aren't buyers of AAA games. So how many actual Steam users are there? 60 million? 70?

If games were not going to sell more poorly on EGS, Tim's bribe checks wouldn't need to be in the millions of dollars, for the "first 500,000" copies. More hilarious is the agreement appears to mandate that the developer/publishers turn around and spin how "well" the game is selling by announcing they've "already sold ("500,000" + whatever number they actually sold) copies in the first week". Exhibit A: Coffee Stain Studios.. One minute he's complaining on Twitter how anemic sales have been and they haven't even sold 12 copies of their game, the following week he makes a Youtube video announcing "507,234 copies sold".

I watched the video in question, which doesn't claim or prove anything you mentioned above. Essentially the guy was extremely cringe worthy; a creepy modern gaming journalist type who thought it would be cute to say "we sold...., no we sold...., actually we sold". The 500,000 number if I recall was pulled out of someones ass as there are no official numbers or amount given for the guaranteed sales. But I suggest you watch the video. Everything is downright creepy and they have a "funny" way to describing things. I'm not sure why they even pay a guy to film inside their studio and put out crappy videos like that.

As for game studios being smarter than everyone, they're either not realizing how big the anti-EGS basklash actually is, or gambling that it will blow over, and taking Tim's promises at face value.

More realistic answer: They know what is making them money because they have the numbers and you literally have nothing. Your entire post has nothing concrete in it and is just wild speculation pulled out of your butt. A couple of people on reddit/forums that don't have any numbers regarding sales, profit margins, or Epic's terms aren't going to be more knowledgeable than multi million dollar companies. To suggest so is just laughable.

Case in point: Mechwarrior 5. After 48hrs, 20% of their preorders had already canceled. Source: Developer AMA. By all means keep thinking its only a small minority of "haters" that are against Epic's shady business tactics of paying publishers to remove titles from other stores.

People are pissed because they didn't get what they pre-ordered. I'd cancel to. For normal situations it won't change as much. The fact that it is only 20% further solidifies how few people are turned off by EGS. If you only loose 20% sales when you sell someone a Steam game and then change it after you paid to EGS, that certainly doesn't help your argument.

Problem is, if/when it ever comes to Steam (who knows if Tim won't just keep throwing more Fortbucks at publishers to extend the exclusivity) a lot of people that really wanted to play the game will have already done so illegally in the meantime, scratched that itch, and moved on. The news hype will also be nonexistent a year later versus the initial launch window. They'll never recover those lost sales than if they'd just offered the game on multiple stores from the get-go.

[/QUOTE]

Most people who will pirate will pirate it anyways. Very few a principled pirates.

We'll see how things pan out. With more games going to EGS it seems like you're theories are just as far from reality as your gaps in logic.

 

[jiminator]

If EGS exclusives are not beneficial than people will stop doing them. You don’t know whether it is or isn’t. What I can say for sure is that on steam you have barely anything upcoming whereas EGS has lots of big titles coming up. Maybe it’ll work maybe it won’t. But there is not enough information out there to speculate. As for them throwing their money around, why is that a bad thing? It’s still like money… That they don’t need to spend. But they are choosing to do so. New games bring customers to stores. EGS has recognized that. Steam has not. In a capitalist market place stores should be bidding on games to be able to sell them. Steam has chosen not to. the blame is not with EGS it’s with steam.

 

[M76]

If EGS exclusives are not beneficial than people will stop doing them. You don’t know whether it is or isn’t.

It's not about whether it's beneficial or not. It's about being safe. EGS guarantees a minimal sale for every exclusive. Say the deal is 500k units. If the game sells 400k epic still pays the dev as if it sold 500k. If it sells 550k they get paid after 550k.

But you bet your ass it is not beneficial to the actual number of units sold. How can it be? It's simple logic: If there is just one person on the globe who didn't buy a game because of EGS then it already hurt sales.

The question that is impossible to know is how much less a game sells due to being EGS exclusive. But if the unintentionally revealed indicators are to be believed it's worse than even the most pessimistic have thought.
So being on EGS is only worth it to developers as long as this deal is in place. As soon as they stop offering guaranteed sales devs will flee them like crazed rats. The loss in volume shifted can be anywhere between 10-40%

So to sum up: EGS is a great place for developers who are not confident in their games ability to shift a certain volume on their own merit. Well if they aren't confident in their own game, then why would I buy it? So no great loss.

 

[Denpepe]

The 18% extra might be nice, but as a developper you only get that if you self publish, gearbox already stated that is was 2k's decision to go EGS exclusive, for all I know 2k puts that money in their own pocket and gearbox does not get a cent more.

Some of the other game developpers also stated it was the publisher (deep silver iirc) that chose to go the EGS route.

 

[jiminator]

So to sum up: EGS is a great place for developers who are not confident in their games ability to shift a certain volume on their own merit. Well if they aren't confident in their own game, then why would I buy it? So no great loss.

What will happen is that steam gets a patched "improved" release a year later. all the steam users can crow about how holding out was a good thing as they buy the game. Look at the mech warrior example. 20% cancellations. 18% more revenue. Its a wash.

The 18% extra might be nice, but as a developper you only get that if you self publish, gearbox already stated that is was 2k's decision to go EGS exclusive, for all I know 2k puts that money in their own pocket and gearbox does not get a cent more.

Some of the other game developpers also stated it was the publisher (deep silver iirc) that chose to go the EGS route.

my understanding of the publishing industry is that they may have like a 60/40 (*.7=42/28, *.88=53/35) split the first year, which then changes to a 40/60 split the following years. Regardless of structure if it is known that more money will be available at launch that will be a part of any future negotiations.
either way, the money is going to people involved in the creation of games vs making someone richer.

 

[Viper87227]

18% more revenue per customer dollar spent, but 100,000% less customers spending dollars. How is that an easy decision unless you're allergic to calculators and logic or just being obtuse?

You are breaking this down way to simply. Steam having significantly more customers doesn't mean nearly as much as you want it to. I mean, by that logic, Steam releases should significantly outsell their console counterparts, where the install base is lower... But they don't. Steam has an extremely divsere user base. Just because there are 90 million accounts doesn't mean there are 90 million potential customers.

For major releases, if people want them they'll know where to find them. If someone chooses not to buy the game on EGS it's going to be because they are activly boycotting EGS. How many people out there do you think they are who activly cruise steam for new games, while simultaneously putting on blinders to every bit of video game journalism in existence... Where the only possible place they could learn about what games they want is Steam? That's not a thing. If someone wants the game, they'll know its on EGS and be able to chose for themselves if they want to buy the game on EGS, wait for Steam, or be a bitch and pirate it.

For indie titles that might need to rely on discovery, I still question the benefit of steams install base. Yes, there are a lot more people, but there is also a constantly growing cesspool of shit that's slowly taking over steam. Steam topped 30, 000 titles early this year. Epic has what, 100? Which one do you think would be easier to get noticed in?

 

[jiminator]

The EGS thing may actually be a good thing for indie titles on steam. Two of them were in the top 10 sellers a couple of weeks ago. killsquad and some dungeon rogue card game.

 

[Flogger23m]

Look at the mech warrior example. 20% cancellations. 18% more revenue. Its a wash.

It is actually 22% because UE4 fees are waived. Steam = 34% per sale, EGS = 12%. This will quickly drop to 29% on Steam, but it won't drop to 24% until they move thousands on copies. I don't know the price of Mechwarrior, but lets say it is $40 (average range for middle tier indie games). If you sold 1.2 million copies at full price (under $48 million in sales) you'd wouldn't hit that 24% range yet on Steam. For a smaller game 1.2 million copies on PC can take a while to hit, if ever. Most of those sales will be at a 29% fee rate.

1.2 million copies sold - 250,000 copies are at 34%, 950,000 are at 29%. Total fees owed: $14,420,000
1.2 million copies sold EGS - 1.2 million at 12%. Total fees owed: $5,760,000

Difference: $8,660,000

Lets say selling on Steam day one nets you an extra 200,000 sales (16.6% more), and these 200,000 will fall into the 24% fee range (it isn't exact as a number of these would still fall into the higher rate, but we'll simplify it). With these extra 200,000 sales a developer takes home $30.4 per sale at full price; 200,000 * $30.4 = an extra $6,080,000 in profit. But that is still $2,580,000 less than selling on EGS .

The higher priced the game is, the bigger the deviance will be. It will come down to how popular the game is in the end and the exact pricing. People will go to another platform if they really want a game though. Obviously it is possible to loose out when going to EGS only, but in general you're going to make more money especially considering the initial sales loss will be partially made up by people buying it on Steam later.

As for Mechwarrior, 20% cancelled pre-orders may grow higher. But keep in mind that is for pre-orders. Switching the terms after you purchased will see a bigger loss in sales than those that know what they're getting at the time of purchase.

 

[M76]

buy the game on EGS, wait for Steam, or be a bitch and pirate it.

The only bitch I see is the developer who chose to be the bitch of EGS. I wouldn't even pirate their games after that. And definitely not buying it on steam later, that's rewarding them even more for showing you the middle finger.

 

[jiminator]

The only bitch I see is the developer who chose to be the bitch of EGS. I wouldn't even pirate their games after that. And definitely not buying it on steam later, that's rewarding them even more for showing you the middle finger.

how is a game company wanting to gain more income... and survive... from something they have been working on the past 3-5 years... showing you the middle finger? Oh, it doesn't go into your "steam library". So developers should pay 18% of their total income to put a game into peoples "steam library"... something that has absolutely nothing to do with the playing of the game. This just is an example of ludicrous entitlement. EGS... is a launcher. Yes, it lacks tons of useless features steam has but the launcher feature... works fine.

 

[M76]

how is a game company wanting to gain more income... and survive... from something they have been working on the past 3-5 years... showing you the middle finger? Oh, it doesn't go into your "steam library". So developers should pay 18% of their total income to put a game into peoples "steam library"... something that has absolutely nothing to do with the playing of the game. This just is an example of ludicrous entitlement. EGS... is a launcher. Yes, it lacks tons of useless features steam has but the launcher feature... works fine.

You still don't get it, but you make ludicrous assertions from thin air. It's not about survival, none of the AAA companies that go epic exclusive are struggling for survival.

I give zero ducks what launcher a game uses, I care about customer choice, and the ability to buy the same product from more than a single place. None of the epic exclusive games are available from 3rd party sellers, and none have regional pricing. That's exactly showing people from less rich countries the middle finger.
The average wage in my country is $650 roughly. NOT MINIMUM, that's the monthly average with 70% of people earning $450 or under. And we are still expected to pay 60 euros for a game on EGS, with zero alternatives. Well if that is not the middle finger then I don't know what is.

If EGS was really the white knight they claim to be they would allow 3rd party key distribution just as steam does. But nobody seems to talk about this or even acknowledge that steam takes 0% on 3rd party key sales. While EGS doesn't even allow 3rd party key distribution. Without including those numbers the 12% vs 30% is completely meaningless.

 

[jiminator]

You want to talk about EA or Ubisoft or now Bethesda, the main "AAA" offenders in terms of player monetization exploitation, that's fine. These are not EGS based companies. Sure, Ubi made their catalog available but that is after the fact.
Game companies have to make money so their employees can eat. Yes, EA and UBI have figured out ways to game the system, to collect tax breaks while paying no taxes and other evil shit. But the are by far the exceptions. Most companies are just struggling to survive.

3rd party keys are the worst shit ever, especially for smaller developers. Scammers just by tons of them with stolen credit cards, sell them to suckers, and then the companies have to deal with charge backs and complaints. If you want a game cheap then just pirate it. Regional pricing... I'd agree with that. They should have some method of supporting that.

 

[sharknice]

You want to talk about EA or Ubisoft or now Bethesda, the main "AAA" offenders in terms of player monetization exploitation, that's fine. These are not EGS based companies. Sure, Ubi made their catalog available but that is after the fact.
Game companies have to make money so their employees can eat. Yes, EA and UBI have figured out ways to game the system, to collect tax breaks while paying no taxes and other evil shit. But the are by far the exceptions. Most companies are just struggling to survive.

3rd party keys are the worst shit ever, especially for smaller developers. Scammers just by tons of them with stolen credit cards, sell them to suckers, and then the companies have to deal with charge backs and complaints. If you want a game cheap then just pirate it. Regional pricing... I'd agree with that. They should have some method of supporting that.

EGS has had regional pricing since the first month it was out.

 

[Comixbooks]

I just want to know when Epic is going to have sales they just had a spring or summer sale but if I have to wait 365 days for the next one because I really wanted the Sinking City.

 

[jiminator]

EGS has had regional pricing since the first month it was out.

Yeah...


But M76 doesn't think so, or maybe he feels his region is lumped in unfairly in a region that has high prices according to the local income.

 

[sharknice]

Yeah...


But M76 doesn't think so, or maybe he feels his region is lumped in unfairly in a region that has high prices according to the local income.

It's also up to developers to decide on pricing per region. They can choose not too.

 

[odditory]

EGS has had regional pricing since the first month it was out.

Have fun with that. If you're outside the US then EGS pushes the transaction processing costs onto the buyer, which in some places is enormous and ends up defeating the whole point of regionalized pricing. Steam eats that cost no matter where you live.

 

[Drexion]

I care about customer choice

Then you should be glad there's another company trying to shake up Steam's (effective) monopoly, even if they're using some tough tactics to get a foothold in the market.

It sucks that EGS's regional pricing isn't working for you, but I know for a fact that EGS has regional scaling that works a lot better in many parts of the world. I have quite a few friends in developing countries that purchased Metro instead of pirating it because instead of the hundreds of their local dollars they have to pay for one game on Steam, it was about the equivalent of 20 US or so for them on EGS, which put it in their affordable range. I'm sure most of them will be returning customers on Epic's platform.

 

[M76]

You want to talk about EA or Ubisoft or now Bethesda, the main "AAA" offenders in terms of player monetization exploitation, that's fine. These are not EGS based companies. Sure, Ubi made their catalog available but that is after the fact.
Game companies have to make money so their employees can eat. Yes, EA and UBI have figured out ways to game the system, to collect tax breaks while paying no taxes and other evil shit. But the are by far the exceptions. Most companies are just struggling to survive.

3rd party keys are the worst shit ever, especially for smaller developers. Scammers just by tons of them with stolen credit cards, sell them to suckers, and then the companies have to deal with charge backs and complaints. If you want a game cheap then just pirate it. Regional pricing... I'd agree with that. They should have some method of supporting that.

I'm not talking about g2a, you think that is the only 3rd party key seller? There are tons of others that aren't shady at all and get keys directly from the developer / publisher. Like GMG. No EGS exclusive game is on GMG except for ubisoft, but those activate trough uplay anyway and not the egs launcher.
The only game that I was able to purchase outside of the EGS that was exclusive was Metro Exodus, but that was probably because the keys were distributed before the last minute deal went down and they just converted those keys to retail keys.

 

[M76]

Then you should be glad there's another company trying to shake up Steam's (effective) monopoly, even if they're using some tough tactics to get a foothold in the market.

It sucks that EGS's regional pricing isn't working for you, but I know for a fact that EGS has regional scaling that works a lot better in many parts of the world. I have quite a few friends in developing countries that purchased Metro instead of pirating it because instead of the hundreds of their local dollars they have to pay for one game on Steam, it was about the equivalent of 20 US or so for them on EGS, which put it in their affordable range. I'm sure most of them will be returning customers on Epic's platform.

Well good for them, while everyone paid $50 for Metro Exodus in the rich US, EGS asked me to pay €60 euros. You think that is fair?
Please for the love of everything that's holy give that non-argument a rest already. Nobody is arguing against steam having competition. EPIC came in kicking and screaming, but instead of kicking and screaming at steam they are kicking the gamers. If Epic proven anything is that they don't care about the PC gaming community.

 

[M76]

EGS has had regional pricing since the first month it was out.

Yes, of course it had, how could I forget? 50 USD = 60 EURO

And steam is guilty of this as well, becuase they convert 60 USD to 60 EUR, but steam games can be purchased elsewhere for better prices, get it? Do you see now why epic exclusivity is hurting us?

 

[sharknice]

Yes, of course it had, how could I forget? 50 USD = 60 EURO

And steam is guilty of this as well, becuase they convert 60 USD to 60 EUR, but steam games can be purchased elsewhere for better prices, get it? Do you see now why epic exclusivity is hurting us?

Nope, just someone repeatedly whining and lying.

 

[M76]

Nope, just someone repeatedly whining and lying.

LOL, you're funny. First you lot accuse me of making things up, then when I rub it in your face you call it whining. I wonder how would you take it when you have to pay 20% more for the same product and your wages would be fraction of what they are. Would you not say a single word? I doubt it.

 

[Viper87227]

LOL, you're funny. First you lot accuse me of making things up, then when I rub it in your face you call it whining. I wonder how would you take it when you have to pay 20% more for the same product and your wages would be fraction of what they are. Would you not say a single word? I doubt it.

Just so I'm understand this right... You are unhappy that you have to use a specific platform that costs you more money? That's a bad situation that you can level with? Cause I hate to break it to you, but that is the exact situation publishers and developers are dealing with regarding Steam. They are paying more than they should have to because until now Steam was the only option. They aren't technically forced, but when that's the only platform that generates real revenue... they don't really have a choice either. It's very similar to what you are upset about... just happening to someone who isn't you.

I'm not going to say everything Epic is doing is right, but I understand 100% why they are doing what they are doing... and why publishers and developers are supporting them. Something needs to happen in the PC market to bring Steam down a few notches. Epic's brute force may not be the most elegant option, but it likely is the most effective.