Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by DooKey, Apr 8, 2019.
Golden man this is golden.
Borderlands 3 is up for pre-purchase at GMG:
Looks like it uses an Epic key as well.
Lets see if they run promos on it like they do with the rest of their games.
I've mentioned this in the past. Long term I think it will go up. They'll still try and compete with Valve somehow, and vice versa. I can see them upping it to a flat 20% and waive UE4 fees possibly. I can see Valve making a proper successor to Source and mimicking Epic's model.
Well all know how that plays out. Most people will buy regardless and gaming protests are always weak.
The whole point of that last post was to mention how Valve/Epic are pro-developer which doesn't necessarily translate to pro-gamer.
What incentives (for gamers) could they have offered?
You can't please both parties. Pick one - game makers or game buyers. There are shades of gray and advantages that come as a by product of either approach, but you have to pick one and focus on it.
Valve & Epic are in the business of making money and gaining supporters (developers/publishers) to help them make money has always been their priority.
If I can walk into a Walmart and buy an EGS game how would that make sense? You can still buy it from another store.
Again, client and store aren't the same thing.
And we're back to these arguments again? Really?
You've read my last few posts and quoted them thoroughly, looked at the rough math, saw that the potential profit margins are big enough to sway many 3rd party developers on their own accord. Why double down on this argument? You (and others) couldn't even provide proof of up front unconditional money being given to developers to sell only on EGS.
Lets say a developer stands to make around $8 million USD more by selling on EGS. Then halve it because they loose 50% of sales due to not being on Steam, which isn't realistic, but for arguments sake we'll use it.
A developer stands to make $4 million more by selling on EGS instead of Steam. They're in the business of making money. The choice is plain as day.
Epic doesn't have to do anything else. They have the developers at "you'll make $4 million more".
As long as the current status quo continues we'll see this play out more. Offering a more attractive deal doesn't = "buying out".
Sure they could still the game for $72 or whatever on Steam to get equal margins but you'll still complain due to price as would everyone else. The headlines will change to "Epic is extorting Valve!" and we'd be back to square one. You can re-read previous posts of mine to see why they are avoiding this.
Put yourself into the shoes of a game developer making money for 5 minutes and you'll see why events are unfolding the way they are and why you don't have to be "paid off" to come to these conclusions.
Going back to the point of the sentences you quoted, Valve is pro-developer as is Epic. Only an idiot would argue that they aren't. Consumer choice is of little importance to them. Valve forcing Steam onto their buyers with no alternative is an example of this.
You're hopeless. Doubling down on the same talking points not 2 seconds after you were repeatedly told they are false. Is that the same reddit that has a no jokes policy ,because jokes are offensive? That would explain a lot if you were socialized there.
It's not an argument it is the problem itself. LOL, you act as if I'm in the wrong for calling you out for equating one first party exclusive with multiple high profile 3rd party exclusives?
Exactly, 3rd party developers would sell their games on epic store anyway. So there is no need for the exclusive deals. But they aren't content with making a bit more, they want all the money at once. And I say fuck the greedy bastards if they are not content with natural migration of gamers to the new store. The trick is if you say I can do something, and it helps developers because they get a bigger revenue share I might do it and feel good about it. But if you tell me I have to do it, that's where the conversation ends.
As for not proving the money deals, WTF? It was substantiated by multiple sources, going back to that retroactively and claiming it wasn't is a real low move. Essentially forcing me to go back and find the proof again? And if I don't do it you'll claim I'm lying is that it?
How the hell did you come by those numbers? You pulled those from thin air, didn't you? I don't even know what are you going on about. They make 8 million but they loose half but they still make 4 million more? So they would make zero money if they were not exclusive to the epic store? LOL.
They are offering guaranteed payouts if they only sell on their store, what is that if not a buyout? Why are you regressing back to arguing about things that are clearly established facts?
I'm sorry that I'm not a greedy heartless bastard who tramps all over his customers for a few dollars more. I'm the kind who treats their customers with respect and not as a doormat.
Uhh, never? I've never subscribed to cable in my entire life.....
So you're making up nonsense to support your points now? That is pretty low.
Again, you're making the claim that Epic is paying money up front to pull games from Steam and other stores. Where is your proof?
The term is called "confirmation bias". You started believing a narrative and no amount of reasoning could change your pre-existing position.
What it comes down to is you want to pay less for games and Epic is a temporary hindrance for that so you've adopted the awkward "Epic is paying developers off, they bad!" argument. Similar argument to the "principled pirates". I don't personally have a problem with either opinions if stated bluntly, but the charade and falsehoods just don't sit well with me.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong point sadly. You're arguing your own points that have little relevance and make little sense. You're not "calling out" anyone; you're running off a tangent.
Points to take away:
- Valve & Epic are mainly pro-developer. That is who they cater to first and foremost.
- You're confusing clients with stores.
- Neither Valve or Epic give you a choice of using a client. They both give you one choice.
- Both allow you to buy games at other stores.
- 3rd parties can choose what clients they want.
Should be clear enough for you.
This is the huge disconnect with your preconceived stance. The game publishers/developers are doing this on their own accord. Why? Because they make more money. They'll exclude themselves from Steam to get that sweet 12% selling fee. Why give choice when you can get more profits? You can't be this dense can you?!
Lost sales? Sure, they'll loose some but the lower fee amounts will outweigh it especially if you're using UE4. And that is why they put it on Steam at a later date, to recoup lost sales for those with a hard line stance. When the games are new and sell for full MSRP you get that sweet 12% fee. The holdouts will wait, and that is how you get (most) of the sales from that demographic. Chances are, a portion of the hold outs will give in within the year of not selling it on Steam.
Of course! Obsidian, Gearbox - they're in the business of making money. What we're seeing here is a short period of exceptionally low fees. It probably won't be this low forever. Developers will exploit this while they can. Buy low (12% fee), sell high ($60, because fuck customers).
How many governments run purely on donations? Right, zero.
How many people will care about what a developers cut is? Practically zero. Gearbox gives me a choice of Steam or EGS and charges me $60 regardless - guess where I am shopping? Steam. I care more about my experience than I do some developers paycheck. That "might" will only resonate with a handful of buyers, a few percent at best. The best way to shift the vast majority of their buyers to EGS for those lower selling fees is to... not sell on Steam.
If you can't provide a source you can't provide a source. Up front money, no obligations. I've yet to see a source. Everything I've seen so far was guaranteed sales and similar. Not once have I seen anything about Epic paving unconditional money up front. Feel free to enlighten me if I'm wrong.
No, its widely available information. You even acknowledged the fee differences yourself in a few prior posts... lol.
Steam has a tiered fee level. 30/25/20%. EGS is a flat 12%. Epic waives UE4 fees which are 4%. Majority of initial sales will be at 29% vs 12% for a game like BL3 (the game series this thread is about). At $60 USD, to break into the 24% threshold BL3 would have to sell around 833,300 copies.
$14,549,520 for the first 833,300 copies of Borderlands 3 sold if selling on Steam. $5,999,760 on EGS.
Difference is $8,549,760 more to sell on Steam.
Cut that number by around 5-10% for those that decide to hold out on Steam if you're generous. Then account for lower price regions (South America, the retarded parts of Europe, parts of Asia) and those places that charge over $60 USD (Germany, Australia, Norway ect.) - the average is likely somewhere around $60 USD. Lets humor ourselves and pretend Africans, South Americans and former countries behind the iron curtain account for half of all sales (LOL) and the average selling price of a game is much lower and therefor the extra profit margins are going to be much thinner than $8.5 million.
For arguments sake we'll be unrealistic and cut it by 50%, the selling fees are still $4.2 million less on EGS. If you want a more detailed breakdown, look on previous pages to see it and note the issues with the rough numbers I mentioned.
This should be the moment you realize developers stand to make more money and they'll opt for this option each and every time.
Epic doesn't have to do anything else at this point. You have developers right here - they make more money.
LOL, no. They offered guaranteed money if the game didn't sell enough copies. If a game sells far below what they were expecting to by a massive margin, Epic will cover the difference. If they sell at the expected rate they get no money. That is vastly different from handing a studio unconditional money up front which is the narrative that is being pushed around.
EX) You have a product you want to sell. You'll make at least $100,000 by selling at any number of stores. You inquire about my store but are unsure because my store isn't as well established. I mention if for whatever reason I cannot move all your stock by 12 months, I'll purchase the remaining stock. So if I manage to sell 90,000, I eat the cost of the last 10,000 I have sitting on shelves.
This isn't exactly an unheard of in retail. Obviously, the projected numbers aren't pulled out of thin air but rather market research. The threshold is typically very low so the payout by the stores are very uncommon. The reason for such a policy in this case is to cover a developer in the event that selling on EGS results in too few sales, enough that they start to loose money. So far this hasn't been the case as the games that ended up not coming to Steam have sold at or above their expectations.
TLDR: This is an extra incentive to make a developer jump aboard if they're on the fence even if it is more of a placebo effect than anything.
Here is a direct quote from Epic:
Source. Again, this article reads the quotes but doesn't comprehend them though:
What does this mean?
And in this instance, the developers approached Epic. Shooting another hole in the "OMG Epic is stealing developerz" arguement:
Regarding Pheonix Point, the developers are scummy as hell to not offer Steam keys to those who kickstarted the game. That is an entirely different topic and that issue rests purely on them though.
Now, if you can provide proof of an instance where Epic gave money up front do let me know. I'd certainly be interested.
I'm not saying I inherently like this strategy (offering guaranteed sales in the event a developer flops), but I am merely pointing out what is actually happening isn't what the low effort gamers/gaming press is claiming.
That is cute, but really means fuckall because you're not running a video game studio. And if you were you probably wouldn't last very long. Good intentions and being the "good guy" won't keep your studio afloat. An extra few million dollars will. That is reality, and 4A, Gearbox (even if a scummy company) and a number of others realize this.
What did I make up? You said valve making HL2 a Steam exclusive is the same as epic's conduct today. You really are going off the deep end aren't you?
I'm not going to entertain your ridiculous demand of re-researching things that are established facts. Look it up yourself if you want, don't make me do the work for you. There was something about confirmation bias? Yes this is exactly it, you refusing to look at evidence that contradicts your established view.
Also mind you a buy-out doesn't necessarily mean an upfront cash payment. It was confirmed by phoneix point devs, that epic made a deal that grantees them getting the equivalent revenue of a certain number of copies sold (I don't remember the exact number) even if the game doesn't sell that many copies on the epic store.
Facts and reasons can change my mind, so far I've only seen assertions and extraordinary claims. (The kind that needs extraordinary evidence)
I want to pay less for games, why you want to pay more? Then why don't donate to the devs diretcly? And epic is paying off developers and it is bad. But nice try on making it sound ridiculous.
So you don't even accept the fact that this is a problem? No wonder you're completely hopeless to persuade.
You say A, I debunk A, then you say what you really meant was B, and call me out for reading comprehension. WTF
Which was the point I was making for months since the metro exclusive was announced, that they treat devs as their customers and gamers as their product. When it really should be the other way around as it is the gamers who pay all of their salaries.
I could see it looking that way to you when my points fly 20.000ft above your head.
How many times do I have to say that it is not about the client? I DON'T GIVE A RAT'S ASS ABOUT CLIENTS! And I have reading comprehension issues? Maybe the irony is flattening your head that's why you can't think straight.
Not according to the news articles that came out at the announcement of the second wave of exclusives. But if epic will really allow games to be sold at 3rd party stores, then I'll have zero issue with the epic store and withdraw all my complaints. So much for not willing to change my mind and blind hatred and other things people attribute to those who are against exclusives.
3rd party devs? Yes they can, but having a guranteed payment dangled in front of them makes them choose based on that and not on the merits of the client and the pros / cons for the customers.
Everything is perfectly clear for me, I don't even know why am I wasting my time on hopeless cases who don't even want to read what doesn't fit in their established view.
You honestly think that without epic's guaranteed payouts any of them would limit their games to the epic store? Exactly how dense can you be?
And we arrive at the point of using the customer as the doormat. I don't claim to know the exact numbers because nobody can which means you can't either. You claim they make more, but it is not clear cut. I demonstrated that if they shift 25% more copies by being on both they are already ahead. But if you want to allow guesswork as evidence then I can't do anything about it.
You think I don't understand? That's exactly why I complain. Because they care fuck all about the customer, they don't even consider them, and willingly choose backlash for a chance at a slightly bigger payday. If epic didn't give those guarantees no dev would sign away as exclusives I can bet you that.
How many youtube channels run on donations? Right all mid sized ones. People will pay voluntarily for good entertainment, and you have to be completely blind to claim otherwise, especially if it costs them zero extra.
How much do you hate gamers to claim they wouldn't care how much money goes to the devs? You act as a modern day games "journalist" who loath gamers and smear them all the time.
Only you equated "buyout" with "up front cash". That doesn't mean I haven't seen such claims but they were not substantiated, doesn't mean they don't do it, I'm just not convinced either way about that.
LOL? I'm not questioning the revenue share I'm questioning the completely bonkers numbers that made zero sense. 4 - 4 = 0, I don't know how math works at your end.
This demonstrates you're willing to make up your own facts. Only calculating with the initial sales where steam's revenue share is the worst, completely ignoring 3rd party sales where steam takes 0% commission. And assuming eastern european countries have regional pricing as we never did on steam (€60 for AAA games since steam started), and haven't had it in retail for at least a decade. And calling countries retarded? Nice.
They stand to make more money at the expense of public opinion, and disregarding what's best for the customer. They made their choice, and I make mine accordingly. There is only so far you can go before you start loosing customers. And they went too far this time for me and a bunch of other people it seems. If only half the people claiming on the net not to buy from the epic store does as they say, they stand to loose a lot more money than they stand to make.
That's your assertion, as they are clearly doing something else to secure the exclusivity deals.
Oh, you still peddling that strawman?
Interest in games is up across the board every game sells more copies than they did 5 years ago. So the fact that exodus sold more than last light is symptom of the upwards trend of game sales, not proof of epic exclusivity not costing them sales.
Good thing nobody ever claimed the devs making the deals were completely innocent in this.
Usually it is the junkie who approaches the dealer.
What are they claiming? Epic offers extra incentives for exclusivity deals. That is the claim afaik. Some do have bad takes, that doesn't mean exclusivity is a good thing, or should be taken lightly.
Of course there is incentive to be scummy, that doesn't mean I have to like it, or accept it. And I do neither. I have walked out on deals before because the other party was scum. I'm coming from a merchant family. I was socialized in the spirit of "The customer is always right"
I find it appalling that now companies can shit all over customers and some people even have the gall to say they are justified in doing so.
Might want to re-read.
And I've yet to see any evidence. You seem to indicate it is easy to find. As I mentioned if you have a good source or two feel free to link it.
You're putting fourth a statement - Epic is paying off game developers. I ask if you can provide a source for your claim. It is up to you to provide evidence to support your claim. So far you haven't. You don't make a claim then ask someone else to prove your point. That isn't how a discussion works.
What? I've asked you multiple times now (as well as others) if there is a good source for these claims. No one seems to have responded with one yet. Maybe if you actually provided a source or two I'd be inclined to believe your claims but you seem to be side stepping it at every turn. I've already asked you a few times and I'll do it again:
If you have a good source link it right here.
That isn't a buy out.
You're jumping around a lot with varying terms and claims and it isn't making sense, but are using them interchangeably. Just some examples:
So you've jumped around from buyouts to "paying off" which are two very different terms. You also mention Epic has done this for every major 3rd party game that is selling on EGS exclusively, or timed exclusively.
So let us put up a list of most if not all the major games so far:
- Borderlands 3
- Outer Worlds
- Metro Exodus
- The Division 2
- Anno 1800
- Detroit: Become Human
- Heavy Rain
- World War Z <-- Not sure if this counts as major
I assume what you mean to say is Epic is paying developers to keep games to their client only. We both know they aren't limiting it to their store only, so we'll toss that argument aside.
So Epic approaches a game developer and says they'll give them money to keep it only on Epic's client. And they did this with each and every game listed above. Your claim - "every major 3rd party game release". Can you prove that Epic is paying money for each of these developers/publishers to keep it off of Steam and other clients? You did mention every major 3rd party game.
I've already discussed this. This is not paying a developer up front cash. Therefore it is not paying off or "bribing" the developers. It is a sales guarantee - most if not all of those developers won't see that money.
Ironic because you seem to have proof that Epic has paid off developers/publishers to keep their games exclusive to Epics client but have been unwilling to show it to me.
I'd prefer to pay $0.01. What you want is irrelevant. The problem here is you're making up claims to knock another party for false reasons. "I want to pay less for games and Epic is making this inconvenient for me" - that is all you need to say rather than claim they're paying money to keep their games off client XYZ.
But nice try on making it sound ridiculous.
A good source or two would really help with that. I've only asked you what, three or four times?
You can keep repeating yourself but without any evidence I'm not going to be persuaded.
You might want to reread.... lol. You running off on a tangent isn't debunking anything.
Which is your disconnect here. They're in the business of making money. Their developers are their primary customers. "What should be" isn't reality and never will be.
Hardly. You're the one making very large claims but never seem to send me a few good sources and then wonder why I can't be persuaded.
You're illustrating this yet again. Your words:
This quote here has little relevance to my quote above. How can you not see that? My points:
- Epic (and Valve) have been good for developers
- They both have been pro-developer first
- Neither put emphasis on gamers first, as an example, tethering HL2 to Steam which was very unpopular back then
Your reply made practically no sense. Of course its a comparison - we have two situations were consumer choice was hindered. One of which is outright confirmed, the others which are still up in the air.
Probably the same low effort posts that can't interpret a few sentences correctly I take it.
This is a done deal, you even acknowledged it in the past. You already know that Humble Bundle will sell EGS keys. I already linked you to GMG selling Borderlands 3. Is that not enough proof for you?!
What about CD keys?
How about Metro Exodus on CD keys?
So what is the problem then?
I recall you brushing off Humble Bundle as an alternative store previously. I assume the goal post will be moved again?
Being offered a better deal one from service X makes them opt for it over service Y. Who would have thought.
As I've mentioned many times in the past, what is good for the gamers is of little concern. Back in the day Steam was fairly terrible and it would have been a nice option, but forcing it on everyone for certain games certainly didn't benefit gamers. This is nothing new and this is how the industry has been run since its inception. You're again jumping around here - Epic is paying off developers to sell games on their store & client exclusively. The value gamers get out of this is a separate topic.
Ironic because you won't post sources and you seemed to brush off evidence of games being sold on other stores twice (!).
I've already been through this. They want high margins, to sell high with low fees. You cannot do that if you offer Steam keys and the situation worsens if you use UE4.
Is the concept of maximizing margins entirely lost on you? Can you not see why raising the MSRP for being sold elsewhere with higher margins would be an epic shitstorm? You realize the game industry has been trying everything possible to squeeze money out of gamers without raising the MSRP of games right?
There is guessing and then there is educating guessing and approximation. Selling on both would result in very few sales at the high margins. Even though many people are fine with using EGS, the majority will opt for Steam. You're leaving money on the table.
Lets see - 88% vs 29-34% for the initial sales window. Yeah, little reason to opt for EGS. Only a few million dollars to be left out, no big deal.
The guaranteed sales projection is a safety net but it isn't the thing gets foots in the door. If your game flops hard and sells so poorly that Epic has to bail you out, you were better off using Steam. Epic will only ensure you meet the minimum amount of sales. If you can't even reach that you'll get very little revenue on top of the guaranteed amount due to a sales drop off. This is not a situation you want to be in. Most if not all publishers/developers will do in depth research beforehand as this is a calculated decision.
You come for the lower fees, but if it blows up in your face you have some basic coverage.
Youtube is free. Games are not. This comparable at all. Giving money to help someone providing you with free entertainment is entirely different from giving money to help someone make something to turn around and sell to you.
Invalid comparison. Gamers will prioritize their own experience first and foremost. I prefer Steam. Ask me for $60 for a Steam game vs an EGS game, I will buy on Steam any day. As such I am prioritizing my own experience over Billy Bob the artist. Our real world options are:
- More money to developers
- Better experience
Guess what gamers choose?
Hell, you even prefer buying games at discount sites yourself. Why not pay full American/German MSRP for a game? They'd get more money.
Paying off = paying with money up front. If they're not paying money up front then they're not "paying off" developers.
And this is why I said your reading comprehension was lacking. I accounted for the first two tiered levels. The part in bold shows that you didn't even bother fully reading my post. It would take around 833,000 sales to reach the 3rd level of 20 + 4%. For a single player PC game, that is most of the initial sales. Around 2.5 - 3 million copies moved in the initial sales window is about average for a AAA game, of which around 1/3 would be on PC.
The amount saved long term would only go higher. The difference would still be 24% for the example of BL3 (which this thread concerns) which is twice of what Epic would ask for. That means any sales outside of the main sales window will still product higher margins.
3rd party sales make up a minority of sales. And the majority of sales at 3rd party sites would come from poorer countries with less disposable income. Lets say, long term, you sell 1 million copies on Steam and 300,000 on 3rd party sites. Replace Steam with EGS; 1 million sold directly, 300,000 on 3rd party stores. The margins will still be higher by selling on EGS.
And as I mentioned it was never a fact, but rough numbers with some basic calculations. This why I keep saying your reading comprehension is poor. You're partially reading things and not thinking about what you're reading.
Regional pricing is a thing. But it is up to the developers/publishers. I know indie developers who took this into account on Steam and I know Battlefield 4 was $30 USD on Origin as an example in Mexico back when it was new.
Stupid people = poor economic policies = less purchasing power = lowering prices because they would be otherwise unable to purchase the products in question.
That must have been a typo but I am not seeing that anywhere in my posts. Care to point out where I wrote 4 - 4 = 0? If you can I'd happily clarify what I meant, but if you're trying to put words in my mouth it takes you down to a new low.
Fair enough. But why regurgitate falsehoods then?
Developers/publishers aren't stupid. If they knew they were going to make less money they wouldn't opt for this option. For every raging retard on reddit, there is a multitude of paying customers. Newsflash - most gamers don't hang around forums and social media. Vocal minority. Time and time again we've seen this play out. Gaming protests just don't work. If the game is good people will buy it.
Whatever the loss is the extra margins make up for it.
You have no idea how ironic that is.
Making more money is all they need to get on board.
I literally provided a quote from an Epic employee explaining the policy.
I suppose if they don't confirm your preconceived bias you disregard it.
And the game sold as expected. If it under performed then it would be a result of it costing them sales.
No, they are implying game developers are being paid with unconditional money.
Extra incentives is a given - lower fees or back in the early days not taking your IP was something Valve offered as mentioned in the TWI article.
Again that is nice, but developers will always take what gives them more money.
And no one in this thread would justify that. But nice strawman.
As for your personal concerns, they seem to have been at least partially addressed. But I'll assume that GMG, Humble bundle and CD keys are not good enough for some reason. The field is running out of grass for that goal post though!
But they are paying for the the exclusives, Sweeney even admits they might not make any profit from doing this in 2019 because of how much they are spending to get the games, in the above article.
It's uncertain if the strategy is paying off for Epic, although Sweeney noted that the cash outlay was "significant" and that his company might not turn a profit from exclusives in 2019.
^ The mile long, multi-quote, arguing just to argue posts are getting a little batshit, no offense.
Bottom line, the companies striking Faustian deals with Sweeney are in for a rude awakening when their games are boycotted and don't sell - even if Epic has effectively "bought" the first hundred thousand copies or whatever with their Fortnite bribe money, the publishers are going to realize they're devaluing their IP and will never make up the lost sales when they go crawling back to Steam. The chilling effect will be real. I can't blame the publishers for taking the money though.
You seem awfully confident that's going to happen, but so far the sales have proven otherwise.
Completely serious question: When has a boycott of a good game ever worked? In other words, people thought the game was good, but it was packaged with some anti-consumer tactic or something else customers didn't like, so they boycotted it in such volumes that it hurt the company?
Steam are hypocrites. Apparently it's not review bombing when it's positive.
Ever heard of the Windows 10 Store?
I wasn't referring to a single game boycott, but more a chilling effect that can happen when a company is polarizing, and they create a critical mass of people that will outright ignore a product, store or entire company's consumer offerings.
Microsoft so arrogantly thought that people would have no choice but buy 10 Store exclusive games because the store was built right into the OS -- it couldn't fail. Unfortunately it failed spectacularly.
EGS isn't the W10 Store, but the latter is a cautionary tale of what can happen when you're arrogant and piss enough people off.
Yeah it's my favorite game.
If you were a programmer implementing the review bomb solution and it had always been articulated as "negative reviews" maybe you wouldn't implement an Math.abs() call for evaluating outliers but only check for negatives.
It failed as an app store, which makes sense since it primarily targeted desktop users. As far as I know, it's still successful as a games store. That's why I asked about games. MS has had Quantum Break, Gears of War 4, Forza Horizon 4 as exclusives and I believe they all did quite well on PC as far as sales. I literally don't know of one case where a good game didn't pay off for a distributor, no matter what anti-consumer tactics were bundled with it.
The Rise of the Tomb Raider developers would like a word. They admitted that the Windows 10 Store exclusivity was a catastrophe.
Dunno that MS has ever actually released sales figures for their GoW4 and Forza but maybe you've seen some.
Its financial suicide for any game to go exclusive to windows 10 store which is why none do. Same thing will happen with EGS once the investors get tired of Sweeney lighting money on fire while sales are abysmal.
I don't know the details on that one. I tried doing a search and the first thing I saw was this post of a bunch of people saying it wasn't an exclusive and you could pre-order it on Steam. Have a link that shows it was an exclusive (prior to April 11th, 2018) and for how long?
I don't know what the OP was talking about in that thread, because as far as I can remember it was released simultaneously on both the Windows Store and Steam.
Timed exclusivity on the Xbox One was a disaster, only selling about 400,000 copies within the exclusivity window, as far as I know.
Rise of the Tomb Raider was a timed exclusive on Xbox One. Your link is for Shadow of the Tomb Raider. I don't believe either game had Windows Store exclusivity.
Ja, Shadow was a simultaneous release on all platforms.
Didn't the Windows Store version of Rise have an exclusive fullscreen version tied to it for awhile?
No. The Windows Store version lacks a frontend launcher and the option for exclusive fullscreen. The Steam version had both from day 1.
I think you're referring to limitations of the Windows Store that I think have been addressed (I could be wrong). I think they addressed the fullscreen issue. I think other limitations are still present. This article touches on some of those limitations.