Then don’t play it. Don’t be a piece of shit thief just because your tinfoil hat won’t let you progress.
If you think being concerned about things that are actually happening means i wear a tinfoil hat, then i really don't know what to say to you, as for the rest, personally i blame Obsidian for creating the situation in the first place, simple cause and effect.
I wouldn't really blame Obsidian for wanting 88% of the revenue from their game. Right now the problem lies in two places, Epic for being anti competition, and Steam for not matching the revenue to stay competitive.
My thoughts.
If the all about the 88% then Discord store offer 90% a bit longer then Epic Store. One thing Discord is not doing that Epic is, the money giving to games to stay with Epic for a year.
That's not the complete picture though. If you are paying the 8% licensing fee for Unreal Engine (which many game developers use), the 8% Unreal fee counts toward the 12% Epic fee. Meaning that for these developers, the Epic store fee is actually 4%, which is an absolute steal. It is currently the best distribution deal in the industry for Unreal Engine games, minus self-publishing, which carries risks and infrastructure costs of its own.
True about the unreal engine fee not around with the epic store, but some of the games that went with Epic store not all base off the unreal engine it self. I'm not sure the real numbers if they are selling much being Epic store only if the -fee and cut is worth it with out Epic dropping money on the games. Then there been some reports games are selling well on Epic store but the way thats been reported can look like really good news but is more to avoid the real truth.
"Avoid the real truth?"
You do realize that information is spun to meet the agenda of the person distributing it. The same Youtubers saying that the company is spinning vague sales data to obfuscate lower sales are themselves spinning that vague sales data to present their desired message of lower sales. Fact is, we don't typically know sales projections, exact sales figures, or sales figures by platform (say Epic sales vs. Uplay sales for The Division 2).
Typically, any youtube video on sales projections has a influencing (and often directly stated) bias by the youtuber themselves. Yongyea isn't going to present sales data in a way that contradicts his pro-Steam narrative. That doesn't necessarily make him a bad source of information (he's actually one of my preferred youtubers because he isn't a perpetually angry fuckwit like Upper Echelon Gamers or HeelsvBabyface). But using him as an information source requires one to see and acknowledge where his biases lie, as with any information source.
Not a big fan of exclusives. Kinda wish they’d just sell it wherever people prefer to purchase. It’s not like I’m asking for a Whopper at McDonalds or some shit.
On that same idea though, it's not really an exclusive. We're talking about a store.. not even much of a platform change.
This is asking for a whopper at mcdonalds. If you want a whopper, you just go there and get it.
In my case, both restaurants are about the same distance. I go where the item is that i want, and in this case, people are splitting hairs.
They aren't asking you to buy a new console, they aren't asking you to pay a monthly fee or subscribe to a service.
From day 1 as a gamer, which started decades ago, my simple philosophy was to play the games I want to play no matter where they are. That meant playing zelda on the NES and it meant going to the arcade to play Children of the Atom, or buying a sega dreamcast because I loved Power Stone.
I feel bad that people (not you pale) would prefer not to play something that interests them because it's on a different platform (or a different STORE in this case)
I understand what you are saying. Maybe a better analogy would be asking for a taco at Mcdonalds. If I want a burger, I have several different choices. Imagine if Burger King was the ONLY place to get one? I don’t have anything against the Epic store or launcher. I just prefer Steam and I am not convinced exclusives are very customer friendly.
I know Steam takes a bigger cut, so I don’t necessarily blame the publishers, but I am surprised they would not try to sell the product in as many places as possible to facilitate more sales and more overall profit. I can’t help but feel jerked around a bit. I feel the same way when I buy a cd for a game and then have to download it on steam. Like wtf, I payed for a disc so I wouldnt have to dl the game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Not a big fan of exclusives. Kinda wish they’d just sell it wherever people prefer to purchase. It’s not like I’m asking for a Whopper at McDonalds or some shit.
On that same idea though, it's not really an exclusive. We're talking about a store.. not even much of a platform change.
This is asking for a whopper at mcdonalds. If you want a whopper, you just go there and get it.
In my case, both restaurants are about the same distance. I go where the item is that i want, and in this case, people are splitting hairs.
They aren't asking you to buy a new console, they aren't asking you to pay a monthly fee or subscribe to a service.
From day 1 as a gamer, which started decades ago, my simple philosophy was to play the games I want to play no matter where they are. That meant playing zelda on the NES and it meant going to the arcade to play Children of the Atom, or buying a sega dreamcast because I loved Power Stone.
I feel bad that people (not you pale) would prefer not to play something that interests them because it's on a different platform (or a different STORE in this case)
I understand what you are saying. Maybe a better analogy would be asking for a taco at Mcdonalds. If I want a burger, I have several different choices. Imagine if Burger King was the ONLY place to get one? I don’t have anything against the Epic store or launcher. I just prefer Steam and I am not convinced exclusives are very customer friendly.
I know Steam takes a bigger cut, so I don’t necessarily blame the publishers, but I am surprised they would not try to sell the product in as many places as possible to facilitate more sales and more overall profit. I can’t help but feel jerked around a bit. I feel the same way when I buy a cd for a game and then have to download it on steam. Like wtf, I payed for a disc so I wouldnt have to dl the game.
The difference being you're enduring a substantial cost in terms of time and bandwidth that you wanted to avoid specifically by purchasing the CD (since data transfer rates from reading a disc are much higher than receiving packets over the web).
The argument so many of us make in response is that the Epic store is more analogous two having to disc drives, and a game's disc requiring you to use your bottom mounted disc drive instead of the top mounted one. Sure, it'd be cool to be able to use either... But does it really cost you anything of value to use the bottom mounted as opposed to the top?
Not a big fan of exclusives. Kinda wish they’d just sell it wherever people prefer to purchase. It’s not like I’m asking for a Whopper at McDonalds or some shit.
On that same idea though, it's not really an exclusive. We're talking about a store.. not even much of a platform change.
This is asking for a whopper at mcdonalds. If you want a whopper, you just go there and get it.
In my case, both restaurants are about the same distance. I go where the item is that i want, and in this case, people are splitting hairs.
They aren't asking you to buy a new console, they aren't asking you to pay a monthly fee or subscribe to a service.
From day 1 as a gamer, which started decades ago, my simple philosophy was to play the games I want to play no matter where they are. That meant playing zelda on the NES and it meant going to the arcade to play Children of the Atom, or buying a sega dreamcast because I loved Power Stone.
I feel bad that people (not you pale) would prefer not to play something that interests them because it's on a different platform (or a different STORE in this case)
I understand what you are saying. Maybe a better analogy would be asking for a taco at Mcdonalds. If I want a burger, I have several different choices. Imagine if Burger King was the ONLY place to get one? I don’t have anything against the Epic store or launcher. I just prefer Steam and I am not convinced exclusives are very customer friendly.
I know Steam takes a bigger cut, so I don’t necessarily blame the publishers, but I am surprised they would not try to sell the product in as many places as possible to facilitate more sales and more overall profit. I can’t help but feel jerked around a bit. I feel the same way when I buy a cd for a game and then have to download it on steam. Like wtf, I payed for a disc so I wouldnt have to dl the game.
It really depends on the amount of influence an exclusivity deal has on the creation of that or a future game.
A lot of the time, console exclusivity allows new and exciting games of a higher quality to exist. It can also save certain franchises (like Bayonetta) from cancellation.
We haven't seen this in effect on PC yet because platform exclusivity is a new concept. Valve squanders their potential for high quality platform exclusives because, due to their lack of substantial competition, they've allowed all of their first party IPs to rot. It remains to be seen whether EPIC does the same.
Perhaps we will see Valve and EPIC commission new and exciting games that would otherwise not exist or would exist in inferior states. The exclusivity itself wouldn't be the selling point and might initially irk customers, but the quality of these ventures would be great for PC gamers. The quality of Sony exclusives like God of War, Spiderman, Persona 5, etc. speak for themselves. Fire Emblem speaks for itself as a strategy series. Mario is the king of platformers for a reason. Zelda is the iconic adventure series for a reason.
The difference being you're enduring a substantial cost in terms of time and bandwidth that you wanted to avoid specifically by purchasing the CD (since data transfer rates from reading a disc are much higher than receiving packets over the web).
The argument so many of us make in response is that the Epic store is more analogous two having to disc drives, and a game's disc requiring you to use your bottom mounted disc drive instead of the top mounted one. Sure, it'd be cool to be able to use either... But does it really cost you anything of value to use the bottom mounted as opposed to the top?
Would you buy anything from an inferior platform like Origin if you weren't strong-armed by EA to get their games from there? So yea, I am strong armed to use an inferior platform if I want to play certain games at launch.
Which is why game piracy has started spiking again. If the platform offers nothing of substance to the customer compared to the completely free option, people will be enticed by the free option. Which will bring us to the funny aspect of Epic blaming PC gamers for fostering piracy, when it is them that are making piracy enticing again.
The difference being you're enduring a substantial cost in terms of time and bandwidth that you wanted to avoid specifically by purchasing the CD (since data transfer rates from reading a disc are much higher than receiving packets over the web).
The argument so many of us make in response is that the Epic store is more analogous two having to disc drives, and a game's disc requiring you to use your bottom mounted disc drive instead of the top mounted one. Sure, it'd be cool to be able to use either... But does it really cost you anything of value to use the bottom mounted as opposed to the top?
Would you buy anything from an inferior platform like Origin if you weren't strong-armed by EA to get their games from there? So yea, I am strong armed to use an inferior platform if I want to play certain games at launch.
Which is why game piracy has started spiking again. If the platform offers nothing of substance to the customer compared to the completely free option, people will be enticed by the free option. Which will bring us to the funny aspect of Epic blaming PC gamers for fostering piracy, when it is them that are making piracy enticing again.
Inferior? My enjoyment of Anthem while playing has absolutely zero to do with the platform. Once I completed my download, IDGAF what platform I had to use.
"But Steam's 2-hour refund policy!!!!1!1!11!one one!one" You mean the reactive action taken by Steam to stem the tide of consumer backlash regarding their hypocritical and recklessly negligent curation of their store? What, you thought that was an altruistic action taken by Valve because they love you? Color me unimpressed, and I don't know of a single contractual restriction that EA or Epic has included forbidding devs from being able to offer demos of their games. If there is one, I'd advocate for a change there with EA and Epic. Erego, devs could offer a two hour slice of their game to entice gamers if they want. Don't put all that blame on Epic or EA though before we know if they restrict such a thing, because doing so in the absence of more information regarding their contractual agreement is an emotional argument, not a rational one.
Right now the problem isn't epic game store competing with steam, its that steam insists on 30% of revenue like they were apple and that shit doesn't fly anymore. More and more developers will abandon steam because they would rather pay $7.20 instead of $18 per game distributed.
Releasing your game on epic store right now also means a lot of free press due to steam users being sore losers.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Epic creates and licenses the Unreal Engine... and they've had several hit games in the past. Yes fortnite is popular now (one of the top 10 grossing games in the WORLD across all platforms respectively) but they don't appear to be hurting for money. They have enough momentum that they won't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for a long time.
But everyone is pitting this as an Epic vs. Valve thing.. but this game "exclusive" will also be on the Microsoft Store. I think people should be asking why valve is scaring away developers.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
Because your comment wasn't just expressing your counter opinion it was a snide attempt to pass judgement and discount anyone who holds a differing opinion.
Because they aren't just holding that opinion- we have folks literally planning to break the law they're so butthurt. I won't apologize for calling that silly or implying such extreme responses to this are wayyyy out of proportion with what's actually happened.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
Because your comment wasn't just expressing your counter opinion it was a snide attempt to pass judgement and discount anyone who holds a differing opinion.
Because they aren't just holding that opinion- we have folks literally planning to break the law they're so butthurt. I won't apologize for calling that silly or implying such extreme responses to this are wayyyy out of proportion with what's actually happened.
I agree. The nature of verbiage being used here is out of line with the situation. On the extreme end, we have literal encouragement of theft. But even short of that, the tone taken by some posters here is disproportionate with the controversy itself.
This isn't the 2016 election. The rhetoric needs to cool down a bit.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Epic creates and licenses the Unreal Engine... and they've had several hit games in the past. Yes fortnite is popular now (one of the top 10 grossing games in the WORLD across all platforms respectively) but they don't appear to be hurting for money. They have enough momentum that they won't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for a long time.
But everyone is pitting this as an Epic vs. Valve thing.. but this game "exclusive" will also be on the Microsoft Store. I think people should be asking why valve is scaring away developers.
I don't think Valve is scaring away developers. Merely Epic is buying the development cost regardless of actual game copies eventually sold, so as to attempt and become the monopoly youtube has become in video distribution. For now and as long as the Epic money last it's a win win for both parties involved, but eventually that bubble will burst, simply because it's not sustainable.
If anything, with all that money it should be feasible to improve Epic store, but they don't. It's not even some sort of priority. This seem like a good deal for developers now, but it has all the signs of a development graveyard of one hit wonders.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Epic creates and licenses the Unreal Engine... and they've had several hit games in the past. Yes fortnite is popular now (one of the top 10 grossing games in the WORLD across all platforms respectively) but they don't appear to be hurting for money. They have enough momentum that they won't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for a long time.
But everyone is pitting this as an Epic vs. Valve thing.. but this game "exclusive" will also be on the Microsoft Store. I think people should be asking why valve is scaring away developers.
I don't think Valve is scaring away developers. Merely Epic is buying the development cost regardless of actual game copies eventually sold, so as to attempt and become the monopoly youtube has become in video distribution. For now and as long as the Epic money last it's a win win for both parties involved, but eventually that bubble will burst, simply because it's not sustainable.
If anything, with all that money it should be feasible to improve Epic store, but they don't. It's not even some sort of priority. This seem like a good deal for developers now, but it has all the signs of a development graveyard of one hit wonders.
What people aren't considering is that these types of heavy handed exclusivity deals may be necessary in order to provide competition.
Existing platforms can't be competed with, much less dethroned, easily. We see it with game genres where the first to the table (like League of Legends for MOBAs) cannot be overtaken even when a much better game (caugh, Dawngate, caugh) comes to the scene. The champ has time to step in, produce years of content, and engage the sunk cost fallacy. Some say loyalty, others say Stockholm Syndrome.
This last minute exclusivity thing is a temporary arrangement. It will increase Epic's ability to capture a strong market segment, and from there, we will either see the status quo in regards to exclusivity, or, (in my opinion a much better arrangement) we'll see Valve and Epic fund incredible exclusives from scratch.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Epic creates and licenses the Unreal Engine... and they've had several hit games in the past. Yes fortnite is popular now (one of the top 10 grossing games in the WORLD across all platforms respectively) but they don't appear to be hurting for money. They have enough momentum that they won't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for a long time.
But everyone is pitting this as an Epic vs. Valve thing.. but this game "exclusive" will also be on the Microsoft Store. I think people should be asking why valve is scaring away developers.
I don't think Valve is scaring away developers. Merely Epic is buying the development cost regardless of actual game copies eventually sold, so as to attempt and become the monopoly youtube has become in video distribution. For now and as long as the Epic money last it's a win win for both parties involved, but eventually that bubble will burst, simply because it's not sustainable.
If anything, with all that money it should be feasible to improve Epic store, but they don't. It's not even some sort of priority. This seem like a good deal for developers now, but it has all the signs of a development graveyard of one hit wonders.
But it's not an epic store exclusive is what I'm getting at. It's on two other stores, just not on steam. If it was only on Epics store that might make sense... but what good is an "exclusive" if it's not exclusive.
I don't think Epic is attempting to corner the market with this one, or outbid valve, or work harder against steam.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
What we can say is that it didn't destroy the developer's launch success. It was a successful launch by objective measure.
The article also mentions Subnautica being downloaded over 4.5 million times during its two-week free timeframe. That's an indie title that had already been exposed to the market (via Steam, no less) prior to coming to Epic Store. If you're Epic, that's a good flag to wave at other developers concerned about how many eyeballs are potentially on the Epic Store.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
Witcher 3 sold better than Witcher 2. I see parallels with Metro Exodus. Bigger market + bigger marketing = more sales. They would have had even more sales if they gave the consumer the option to buy on Steam. They chose not to after saying they would sell on Steam. Yes, I want good competition for Steam but that doesn't mean I can't have qualifications for what "good competition" is.
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
This is being said a lot on almost every gaming site.. but we'll never know if it would have sold more if it was launched on Steam. Exodus is just more popular than the other Metro games.. and has a bigger marketing budget. It would have probably sold more than last light wherever it was sold.
OF course it would have sold more on Steam or it would have sold more if it came to both. However, the thing you have to look at is that the general population doesn't care where they have to go to buy games. They are going to do so anyway. Meaning we have been arguing for almost 24 hours for nothing.
There's a difference between not caring and having no other choice. The ultimatum is buy there or don't play it (legally).
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Who wants to borrow my sabre? You folks must be wearing your own out over this.
Seems a wee bit hypocritical coming from one of the most prolific arguers on this site. Just because this particular issue doesn't concern you doesn't mean that discussion should be verboten.
Of course it shouldn't be verboten, but I think you'd agree that I should also be able to express how silly I think the outrage is. Lord's knows I've been on the other end being told I'm chicken little with regards to things like microtransactions and lootboxes.
I don't think that these situations are comparable. Microtransactions and lootboxes have direct monetary costs and observably impact game quality. This, in comparison, is petty.
I tend to agree, I only used the example to make the point that I think this outrage is silly, much like others have claimed about other issues where I think such outrage is not.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
kinda hard say legitimate, when they are forcing and trying to undermine steam, and we know most of they money are comming from fortnite, with looks like is losing players so lets see how it goes. with could explain why they are forcing so hard now, trying to put a foothold as a selling plataform before the well dry up and they have to rise the prices, if anything I bet the devs are going for epic because on epic playes can't down vote crap rushed games
Epic creates and licenses the Unreal Engine... and they've had several hit games in the past. Yes fortnite is popular now (one of the top 10 grossing games in the WORLD across all platforms respectively) but they don't appear to be hurting for money. They have enough momentum that they won't be scraping the bottom of the barrel for a long time.
But everyone is pitting this as an Epic vs. Valve thing.. but this game "exclusive" will also be on the Microsoft Store. I think people should be asking why valve is scaring away developers.
I don't think Valve is scaring away developers. Merely Epic is buying the development cost regardless of actual game copies eventually sold, so as to attempt and become the monopoly youtube has become in video distribution. For now and as long as the Epic money last it's a win win for both parties involved, but eventually that bubble will burst, simply because it's not sustainable.
If anything, with all that money it should be feasible to improve Epic store, but they don't. It's not even some sort of priority. This seem like a good deal for developers now, but it has all the signs of a development graveyard of one hit wonders.
They are improving the store. That's just utter nonsense:
"Deep Silver's Metro Exodus sold 2.5 times as many copies on the Epic Games Store during its launch window than its predecessor, Metro: Last Light, managed on Steam."
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
I wrote about that on the last page in a long winded post by the time that i clicked submit two other people had also commented. Glad you brought it back up because I didn't want to seem like I was just posting the same shit over and over again
So Witcher 3 selling 2.5 more than Witcher 2 is some sort of accomplishment?
It's interesting that:
They don't release actual sales numbers.
They compare their newer game with the least popular version of their previous game.
Comments
You do realize that information is spun to meet the agenda of the person distributing it. The same Youtubers saying that the company is spinning vague sales data to obfuscate lower sales are themselves spinning that vague sales data to present their desired message of lower sales. Fact is, we don't typically know sales projections, exact sales figures, or sales figures by platform (say Epic sales vs. Uplay sales for The Division 2).
Typically, any youtube video on sales projections has a influencing (and often directly stated) bias by the youtuber themselves. Yongyea isn't going to present sales data in a way that contradicts his pro-Steam narrative. That doesn't necessarily make him a bad source of information (he's actually one of my preferred youtubers because he isn't a perpetually angry fuckwit like Upper Echelon Gamers or HeelsvBabyface). But using him as an information source requires one to see and acknowledge where his biases lie, as with any information source.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/I know Steam takes a bigger cut, so I don’t necessarily blame the publishers, but I am surprised they would not try to sell the product in as many places as possible to facilitate more sales and more overall profit. I can’t help but feel jerked around a bit. I feel the same way when I buy a cd for a game and then have to download it on steam. Like wtf, I payed for a disc so I wouldnt have to dl the game.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
The argument so many of us make in response is that the Epic store is more analogous two having to disc drives, and a game's disc requiring you to use your bottom mounted disc drive instead of the top mounted one. Sure, it'd be cool to be able to use either... But does it really cost you anything of value to use the bottom mounted as opposed to the top?
A lot of the time, console exclusivity allows new and exciting games of a higher quality to exist. It can also save certain franchises (like Bayonetta) from cancellation.
We haven't seen this in effect on PC yet because platform exclusivity is a new concept. Valve squanders their potential for high quality platform exclusives because, due to their lack of substantial competition, they've allowed all of their first party IPs to rot. It remains to be seen whether EPIC does the same.
Perhaps we will see Valve and EPIC commission new and exciting games that would otherwise not exist or would exist in inferior states. The exclusivity itself wouldn't be the selling point and might initially irk customers, but the quality of these ventures would be great for PC gamers. The quality of Sony exclusives like God of War, Spiderman, Persona 5, etc. speak for themselves. Fire Emblem speaks for itself as a strategy series. Mario is the king of platformers for a reason. Zelda is the iconic adventure series for a reason.
So yea, I am strong armed to use an inferior platform if I want to play certain games at launch.
Which is why game piracy has started spiking again. If the platform offers nothing of substance to the customer compared to the completely free option, people will be enticed by the free option.
Which will bring us to the funny aspect of Epic blaming PC gamers for fostering piracy, when it is them that are making piracy enticing again.
"But Steam's 2-hour refund policy!!!!1!1!11!one one!one" You mean the reactive action taken by Steam to stem the tide of consumer backlash regarding their hypocritical and recklessly negligent curation of their store? What, you thought that was an altruistic action taken by Valve because they love you? Color me unimpressed, and I don't know of a single contractual restriction that EA or Epic has included forbidding devs from being able to offer demos of their games. If there is one, I'd advocate for a change there with EA and Epic. Erego, devs could offer a two hour slice of their game to entice gamers if they want. Don't put all that blame on Epic or EA though before we know if they restrict such a thing, because doing so in the absence of more information regarding their contractual agreement is an emotional argument, not a rational one.
Releasing your game on epic store right now also means a lot of free press due to steam users being sore losers.
I could've been clearer in the post @MisterZebub quoted: I didn't mean to say that we shouldn't even be talking about competition for Steam, I meant I think it's silly to get so bent out of shape by the fact that there's now legitimate competition for Steam.
But everyone is pitting this as an Epic vs. Valve thing.. but this game "exclusive" will also be on the Microsoft Store. I think people should be asking why valve is scaring away developers.
This isn't the 2016 election. The rhetoric needs to cool down a bit.
If anything, with all that money it should be feasible to improve Epic store, but they don't. It's not even some sort of priority. This seem like a good deal for developers now, but it has all the signs of a development graveyard of one hit wonders.
Existing platforms can't be competed with, much less dethroned, easily. We see it with game genres where the first to the table (like League of Legends for MOBAs) cannot be overtaken even when a much better game (caugh, Dawngate, caugh) comes to the scene. The champ has time to step in, produce years of content, and engage the sunk cost fallacy. Some say loyalty, others say Stockholm Syndrome.
This last minute exclusivity thing is a temporary arrangement. It will increase Epic's ability to capture a strong market segment, and from there, we will either see the status quo in regards to exclusivity, or, (in my opinion a much better arrangement) we'll see Valve and Epic fund incredible exclusives from scratch.
I don't think Epic is attempting to corner the market with this one, or outbid valve, or work harder against steam.
They seem to be doing well, I welcome the competition.
Source of quote: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-03-21-metro-exodus-on-epic-store-outsells-its-predecessor-on-steam-but-what-does-that-tell-us
The article also mentions Subnautica being downloaded over 4.5 million times during its two-week free timeframe. That's an indie title that had already been exposed to the market (via Steam, no less) prior to coming to Epic Store. If you're Epic, that's a good flag to wave at other developers concerned about how many eyeballs are potentially on the Epic Store.
I'll use Epic Store when I absolutely have to, I'm not going ruin my fun over all this and miss out on some big titles. I still want the games on Steam though. I still care.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pcgamesn.com/epic-games-store-roadmap-2019?amp
It's interesting that: