Phoenix Point developers got more than $2 million for Epic exclusivity deal

Straw man. You won't find anyone suggesting games be Steam exclusives. And certainly not Valve. Ideal for gamers is they be available on as many stores as possible. Anything else doesn't benefit consumers.

If it puts pressure on Steam to lower their ridiculous royalties/fees, then it does benefit gamers. That day may never come, but the more pressure from alternate platforms, the better.
 
Forums like these tend to be giant circle jerks where we delude ourselves into thinking the shit we say applies to the general audience outside our little circle. It is FAR too early to make any kind of definitive statement on how Epic, or any 3rd parties, will do with these contracts. All you are doing is assuming the, mostly justified, hate thrown out by these small communities mean all gamers think the same way and will do the same thing. Ubisoft, ActiBlizz, and EA have spent over a decade pissing off customers and they're still stupidly rich companies.

so true..
 
If it puts pressure on Steam to lower their ridiculous royalties/fees, then it does benefit gamers. That day may never come, but the more pressure from alternate platforms, the better.

It doesn't really benefit gamers at all. Games aren't magically going to get cheaper just because Steam takes less of a cut.
 
If it puts pressure on Steam to lower their ridiculous royalties/fees, then it does benefit gamers. That day may never come, but the more pressure from alternate platforms, the better.
I think you have that backwards. Steam has a vested interest in keeping consumers happy. They also can use their weight to oppose gouging moves by makers. Individually buyers have no respected say.

As more game makers release their own retail clients, eg. Ubi and EA the more cancer like Microtransactions have crept into games. Steam's been weakened by those and Epic is the killshot. Then we all get bent over.
 
It doesn't really benefit gamers at all. Games aren't magically going to get cheaper just because Steam takes less of a cut.
Games were supposed to get cheaper when delivery went digital.
No more card board game boxes, no dvd/cd's, no shipping & handling fees, no refunds due to defective media, no.. ... ..

still waiting:confused:
 
It doesn't really benefit gamers at all. Games aren't magically going to get cheaper just because Steam takes less of a cut.

It may help an

Of course they are on the side of developers. That is their customer and where they make their money (Unreal Engine). If small and mid sized developers make more money Epic does better. Even if you ignore the ideological goals of Sweeney, it makes perfect business sense.
 
Of course they are on the side of developers. That is their customer and where they make their money (Unreal Engine). If small and mid sized developers make more money Epic does better. Even if you ignore the ideological goals of Sweeney, it makes perfect business sense.

This is how one can easily tell Epic is being dishonest. Steam / Valve doesn't deal with developers, it deals with publishers. Publishers pay developers. Sure, there are Indy devs that self publish on Steam, but those are not getting exclusivity deals from Epic. Instead, Epic is paying the 2Ks of the world.

Note that this does nothing to help Epic subsidize developers or encourage them to use the Unreal engine. If Epic really cared about developers then why don't they lower the price of Unreal licensing to match that for Unity? It is funny how Epic will talk about Valve's 30% cut on Steam, but they don't like to mention that it is generally a whole lot less expensive to develop games in Unity instead of Unreal (which is why Indy devs mostly use Unity).

So, filter out the lies and it is clear that the real motivation here is to hurt Valve and increase the EGS market share.
 
This is how one can easily tell Epic is being dishonest. Steam / Valve doesn't deal with developers, it deals with publishers. Publishers pay developers. Sure, there are Indy devs that self publish on Steam, but those are not getting exclusivity deals from Epic. Instead, Epic is paying the 2Ks of the world.

Note that this does nothing to help Epic subsidize developers or encourage them to use the Unreal engine. If Epic really cared about developers then why don't they lower the price of Unreal licensing to match that for Unity? It is funny how Epic will talk about Valve's 30% cut on Steam, but they don't like to mention that it is generally a whole lot less expensive to develop games in Unity instead of Unreal (which is why Indy devs mostly use Unity).

So, filter out the lies and it is clear that the real motivation here is to hurt Valve and increase the EGS market share.

Developers can, and do, self publish on digital store fronts all the time. Valve and Epic deal with both developers and publishers. It has been years since all games needed to go through a publisher in order to get released. And yes devs are getting exclusive deals on EGS. This very topic is about a developer getting one such deal.
 
Developers can, and do, self publish on digital store fronts all the time. Valve and Epic deal with both developers and publishers. It has been years since all games needed to go through a publisher in order to get released. And yes devs are getting exclusive deals on EGS. This very topic is about a developer getting one such deal.

My point was that Epic is primarily handing out money to publishers and not developers for these exclusivity deals. Beside Phoenix Point, which at 2 million is hardly a small time project, what deals have gone to developers directly?
 
Forums like these tend to be giant circle jerks where we delude ourselves into thinking the shit we say applies to the general audience outside our little circle. It is FAR too early to make any kind of definitive statement on how Epic, or any 3rd parties, will do with these contracts. All you are doing is assuming the, mostly justified, hate thrown out by these small communities mean all gamers think the same way and will do the same thing. Ubisoft, ActiBlizz, and EA have spent over a decade pissing off customers and they're still stupidly rich companies.

Its even more simple than this, no matter the esrb rating or how elevated you think games have become, they are overwhelmingly played by little kids. They dont care about any of this because their parents buy the games. And the parents have no clue because they dont play the games. Its a perfect business model. All the hate is completely justified- it just doesn't matter. By the time you hit late teens and can grasp industry politics you are already expected to get a job and buy your own! Then come here, complain, and then 4 little kids take your place in epics revenue stream.
 
Beside Phoenix Point, which at 2 million is hardly a small time project, what deals have gone to developers directly?

$2 million certainly is small money. A typical AAA game would cost $40-60 million. High end ones like Ubisoft/EA can easily reach $80-100 million. $1 million would barely coverage the wages of 15 developers for a year. That would be under $75K each per person.
 
My point was that Epic is primarily handing out money to publishers and not developers for these exclusivity deals. Beside Phoenix Point, which at 2 million is hardly a small time project, what deals have gone to developers directly?

$2mil is very small, even for an indie game. Though the payout was likely a lot more than that. Regardless there has been Ashen, Hades, the Quantic Dreams games, Journey, Rebel Galaxy Outlaw, among others. I’m at work so I don’t have time to check every single game they have bought as an exclusive but they have focused a lot on indies.
 
Developers are typically paid per sold item. The money going to the publisher to entice them to a store which has every potential to sell fewer items ACTUALLY results in a lower cut to the developers...

Epic are not on the side of the developers
 
Developers are typically paid per sold item. The money going to the publisher to entice them to a store which has every potential to sell fewer items ACTUALLY results in a lower cut to the developers...

Epic are not on the side of the developers

Epic is on the side of Epic, Valve is on the side of Valve. Its foolish to think either of them really care about anything beyond their own bank accounts.
 
I don't really care who sells a game or what launcher it uses...the only thing that matters to me, other than the game being fun, is that it includes a dedicated server where I am the administrator. Lacking a dedicated server, it does not matter what game it is, they will not get a penny from me and I'll just keep on playing L4D2.

Edit: If you want to join me, look for the server "L4Demons [60-Tick CoOp Expert Orlando-FL]", which is generally only available while I'm playing.
 
Epic is on the side of Epic, Valve is on the side of Valve. Its foolish to think either of them really care about anything beyond their own bank accounts.

Actually Gabe does care about gaming personally. Even Sweeney does (but I doubt as much as Newell). But in general, the more developers thrive = the more Epic/Valve thrive. So yes it goes back through that general loop.

The problem with Newell is he is currently chasing passion projects which are more personal and not very well thought out although he has the money to burn so it isn't a big deal. As long as he is in charge Valve will remain good. He did try and kill modding as we know it with paid mods, but at least he backed off from that when modders told Valve how horrible of an idea it was. If this was EA they'd back off for six months and then be back at it.
 
Games were supposed to get cheaper when delivery went digital.
No more card board game boxes, no dvd/cd's, no shipping & handling fees, no refunds due to defective media, no.. ... ..

still waiting:confused:
GAmes are literally free now cant get any cheaper
 
Actually Gabe does care about gaming personally. Even Sweeney does (but I doubt as much as Newell). But in general, the more developers thrive = the more Epic/Valve thrive. So yes it goes back through that general loop.

The problem with Newell is he is currently chasing passion projects which are more personal and not very well thought out although he has the money to burn so it isn't a big deal. As long as he is in charge Valve will remain good. He did try and kill modding as we know it with paid mods, but at least he backed off from that when modders told Valve how horrible of an idea it was. If this was EA they'd back off for six months and then be back at it.


https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-modders-absolutely-need-to-be-paid/
 
https://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/11/04/valve-will-not-make-exclusive-games-for-steamos

Article, November, 2013:

Valve has confirmed that it will not be making games that are exclusive to SteamOS or Steam Machines.

Speaking to IGN, Valve’s Greg Comer said, “you won’t see an exclusive killer app for SteamOS from us. We’re not going to be doing that kind of thing.”

This will also apply to third-party titles, Valve’s Anna Sweet told us. “Whenever we talk to third-party partners, we encourage them to put their games in as many places as possible, including not on our platforms," she said. "Because we think that customers are everywhere, and they want to put their games wherever customers are. That would go against our whole philosophy, to launch something that’s exclusive to SteamOS or Steam machines.”

“Or to drive customers there artificially,” Coomer continued. “Because if it can run in both places, we don’t like to create those artificial barriers to accessing content. We believe that, in maybe five years from now, folks will find it a quite antiquated notion that you should assume that when you change devices or platforms, that you lose all of your other games and friends. We’re hoping to unify, to get Steam to be as platform- and context-agnostic as possible. You shouldn’t have to shed that every generation, or even slightly shed it.”

Coomer added that “it would be pretty silly” if a third-party developer wanted “to limit their game to a certain platform.” He did note that small, independent studios who only have the resources to focus on one platform may inevitably make games that only run on SteamOS, “but that’s a very different thing.”
 
I don't know about that. When games are paid-exclusives to EGS, but appear on both Steam and EGS, and maybe other places, then what guides a person's purchasing decision? I think it would then be price, features, and service. EGS' prices are no cheaper than Steam's (The Metro Exodus $10 cheaper thing is only for North America and it's a paid-for promotion), and in many cases are more expensive than Steam because EGS doesn't do regional pricing. When it comes to features and service, well... Steam wins hands-down.
I expect to be mocked for this post but here goes ;/) I have a friend that is collecting all of the free games on the Epic store. He is constantly telling me what the new free game is but without Steam achievements I'm not interested :)
 
Games were supposed to get cheaper when delivery went digital.
No more card board game boxes, no dvd/cd's, no shipping & handling fees, no refunds due to defective media, no.. ... ..

still waiting:confused:
If you factor in inflation they have. As game prices stay the same other entertainment (like movies) have gone way up.
 
Off topic, but if Newell tries paid mods again I'd be very disappointed. The day that happens is the day Newell cares more about lining his pockets than he does the PC gaming community. Hope it never happens.

The idea of allowing modders a good space to charge their work isn't bad, but the implementation was horrible and Valve would need to completely abandon their usual "hands off" policy in order to make it even remotely viable.
 
Back
Top