I support it because I understand why it's happening.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
I wasn't aware that you had to give Epic money to access their store.
well you belive in a roadmap, you are defending epic for free and lost all arguments with this
yes, if anything you already give money at least once to then, or will do so for a game, trying to nitpick what he said in a general concept to fit your argument is weak
No I have not lost all of the arguments with this and you have neither the influence, authority, nor credibility to decide that. I certainly do not credit you enough to respect your declaration of that.
Your argument fundamentally does not work because Epic isn't looking to make one sale to each user. They are looking to make as many sales as possible for as long as possible, and they have zero means of forcing you to spend money when you browse their store, exclusives or not.
When a new restaurant opens, would you be offended if they introduced new menu items over time?
When a free to play game launches, do you get offended if they announce a roadmap of upcoming content? Because that is what this is. A free service with optional purchases that Epic wants to sell you.
I support it because I understand why it's happening.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
I wasn't aware that you had to give Epic money to access their store.
well you belive in a roadmap, you are defending epic for free and lost all arguments with this
yes, if anything you already give money at least once to then, or will do so for a game, trying to nitpick what he said in a general concept to fit your argument is weak
No I have not lost all of the arguments with this and you have neither the influence, authority, nor credibility to decide that. I certainly do not credit you enough to respect your declaration of that.
Your argument fundamentally does not work because Epic isn't looking to make one sale to each user. They are looking to make as many sales as possible for as long as possible, and they have zero means of forcing you to spend money when you browse their store, exclusives or not.
When a new restaurant opens, would you be offended if they introduced new menu items over time?
When a free to play game launches, do you get offended if they announce a roadmap of upcoming content? Because that is what this is. A free service with optional purchases that Epic wants to sell you.
offended? you use that word a lot, i'm never offended, that would mean other people opnion matters. i'm alwyas about freedom, you are free to do whatever, but in doing so you will get responsable for it.
but would annoy me if a new restaurant put new things on menu? no, would annoy me for this new restaurant pay others so they don't deliver meat to other restaurants? yes that is annoying.
or you think meat is too much? ok lets settle it for a unique product, lets say this new restaurant now will be the only one permited to sell pepsi, all other for a year can't sell it would that be nice?
one thing is if you produce such thing, and sell it on your own, EA doing this and ubsoft, it ok, I don't play neither ea or ubsoft games, because they are lacking and shallow, so they selling in other places don't affect me, but i'm sure to some it did, but is not much you can do, same for epic, but in the end of the day epic is just pushing, paying his way to force people on they side, and you are ok with it, even more you defend such thing and act like no one can say otherwise.
you state they don't want to sell to every possible user, are you a epic speak person? can you in right mind tells me what they want and don't?
and saying about if I have or not influence and authority, I could say the same about you
I support it because I understand why it's happening.
Also, Epic is already working on improving the store to better compete in terms of user and dev features. I already linked you their 2019 roadmap.
A "roadmap" is just the PR way of saying "we aren't giving you a completed product now, but if you wait we PROMISE to make it better later, please believe us (of course once we have your money, all bets are off)".
I wasn't aware that you had to give Epic money to access their store.
well you belive in a roadmap, you are defending epic for free and lost all arguments with this
yes, if anything you already give money at least once to then, or will do so for a game, trying to nitpick what he said in a general concept to fit your argument is weak
No I have not lost all of the arguments with this and you have neither the influence, authority, nor credibility to decide that. I certainly do not credit you enough to respect your declaration of that.
Your argument fundamentally does not work because Epic isn't looking to make one sale to each user. They are looking to make as many sales as possible for as long as possible, and they have zero means of forcing you to spend money when you browse their store, exclusives or not.
When a new restaurant opens, would you be offended if they introduced new menu items over time?
When a free to play game launches, do you get offended if they announce a roadmap of upcoming content? Because that is what this is. A free service with optional purchases that Epic wants to sell you.
offended? you use that word a lot, i'm never offended, that would mean other people opnion matters. i'm alwyas about freedom, you are free to do whatever, but in doing so you will get responsable for it.
but would annoy me if a new restaurant put new things on menu? no, would annoy me for this new restaurant pay others so they don't deliver meat to other restaurants? yes that is annoying.
or you think meat is too much? ok lets settle it for a unique product, lets say this new restaurant now will be the only one permited to sell pepsi, all other for a year can't sell it would that be nice?
one thing is if you produce such thing, and sell it on your own, EA doing this and ubsoft, it ok, I don't play neither ea or ubsoft games, because they are lacking and shallow, so they selling in other places don't affect me, but i'm sure to some it did, but is not much you can do, same for epic, but in the end of the day epic is just pushing, paying his way to force people on they side, and you are ok with it, even more you defend such thing and act like no one can say otherwise.
you state they don't want to sell to every possible user, are you a epic speak person? can you in right mind tells me what they want and don't?
and saying about if I have or not influence and authority, I could say the same about you
Firstly, I have the right to say that because you made a claim. That being "I lose the argument." I have not made such a claim regarding you.
Of course Epic wants to sell games to as many users as possible. What they do not want is to sell one game (and only one game) to every user. No storefront in their right mind would want that. Meaning that there is a direct incentive for them to step up their game and improve their service.
Conversely, an EPIC store user could theoretically never make a purchase. They could only play Fortnite or other F2P games. They could receive free games in perpetuity from Epic's monthly free games. These are offerings unique to the Epic store. Conversely, a Steam user could play only DotA2 and Team Fortress 2 forever without spending a dime.
Restaurants have exclusive items. Sometimes it is something that any restaurant could easily make. Is a taco shell made out of Doritos a complicated concept? Not really. But try opening a Mexican restaurant selling Doritos Locos tacos and tell me how that works out. Or a simpler concept - sauce. Big Mac Sauce would be easy to recreate, but there is a reason we don't see it at Wendy's.
Or, perhaps, a less obvious but more practical example. Restaurants, especially locally owned ones, can form agreements with local farms for exclusive supplying or favorable prices. Is this mutually beneficial agreement morally wrong? I go to a local Indian restaurant that sources all of its ingredients from local farms. And. It. Is. Delicious.
Anyway, I digress. Restaurants are indeed a faulty analogy to begin with.
It's like expecting every product on the planet to be sold at every store. It's not how it's done in "the real world" so why should it be done on the virtual one?
I can't even... It is like every major release game is sold at every store that sells games. That IS how it's done in the real world...
Maybe SBford lives outside the US? I dunno how it works outside the US
At least here in the US. I can go to walmart, bestbuy, gamestop, target or many other retailers and find the latest game to buy at the store. That doesn't of course include all the indie games that get put on steam, but for major releases can go to any store pretty much to find games. Obviously not grocery stores cause thats just dumb if someone expects to find video games at a grocery store lol, but all the general retailer stores you can find electronics and games.
But if person lives in europe or some place else, maybe it works differently for them.
Pretty condescending of you.
And why shouldn't all indie games be sold by all stores ...... unless that is how it works. A big title is a big title simply because its sold at more stores. A middling title something in between.
Reasons vary.
Sometimes its down to the fact that a store has to buy the game from the seller - and there are only so many hours in a day.
Sometimes its a physical thing if its a physical product - applies to bricks and mortar and online.
Sometimes a store may have a policy: Steam used to "select" titles - these days its cut costs and seems to just list everything.
Sometimes a supplier may limit the number of outlets -this is not always obvious but a lot of products are "semi-exclusive" in so far as they may only be available from 6 or 20 or whatever outlets. And they do this so that they a) deal with fewer stores - see only so many hours in a day, companies and stores haggle over prices b) support select stores - they want the stores they deal with to stay in business otherwise they have to spend time coming to terms with other stores. Its all about the Total Supply Chain. Its a major cost so people look for savings all the time.
And having lived and worked in multiple countries - including the US - and having been involved in this stuff I do know how it works. Supply chain distribution is a major cost factor.
"Epic is earning money from Fortnite's main competitor, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, developed by South Korea's Bluehole using the Unreal Engine. The company has some arrangements with game studios who may pay a custom fee rather than the royalty agreement, though Epic declined to name studios with which it has custom deals."
"Epic's $1.25 billion funding round in October added to funding already provided by Chinese internet giant Tencent, which took a 48 percent stake in Epic for $330 million in 2012. The company is now valued at almost $15 billion."
Valve is valued at 4-10 billion while Epic is valued at 15 billion.
Both analogies suck. Though I'm sure mine isn't that great, but it gets the point across
It be more like
A sushi place has been open for decades, but then another restaurant opens next door and pays the delivery guy to only deliver to them instead of the original sushi place
Which is pretty much what Epic did with companies selling games on steam, and then removing them but leaving their advertisements still up on steam
Epic didn't put the ads on Steam or force the developers that pulled their games from Steam to do so.
The developers made the decision that offered the most business sense to them.
The devs are what the competition is really over here. And 6% think Steam has been earning its keep. That doesn't sound like a lot of goodwill built up, more a forced situation. Devs are making choices for their livelihood. We're whining because we have to use another launcher.
The fact that the article states that 55% of devs who do sell their game on Steam reported that 75% or more of their sales were from Steam suggests that these Epic agreements are not being made lightly or without some serious reservations. They will give up being on the largest distribution channel for their product launch. Steam, and their take, is just that bad for them.
Between the data breaches, the being reactionary on everything, and the EULA change that ruled out class action suits that they responded that they would disable your account with no way to re-enable and all your games and access to them would be lost forever should you not agree to it, Steam isn't really all that good for this side either.
I don't care. I buy good games. I buy bad games, not intentionally. I have pirated games in the past. I have games on every launcher except Discord and that is only because I don't use Discord so it is out of sight out of mind. When they have an exclusive I want, I'll also have a Discord launcher. I bought an exclusive on Epic, not so much because I wanted it, but because I wanted to support the developer and the decision they made. It wasn't Metro or any game advertised on Steam. In the end, I still open Steam first. Habit because of years with little alternative. I'm more likely to play a shit game on Steam than I am to even remember I have an awesome game on another platform.
I'm just here because most of these arguments are silly, bordering on ridiculous. This is why we can't have nice things. This is why gamers are considered a bunch of man babies. In almost any other industry, this would be considered a positive thing. Everyone is hurt and mad about what amounts to nothing. Double clicking a different point on your desktop. Ooooh.
Anyway, my peace on the matter is simple. If you want Valve to make Half Life 3. If you want Epic to actually complete Unreal Tournament. If you want Portal 3 or Left for Dead 3.... This is how you get them.
As long as Valve is content to sit on its ass and rake in 30% of all sales on its platform while letting half-assed algorithyms do the job that paid human beings should be doing, this is all you're going to get.
Epic Store is a boot in Valve's ass. A much needed one. And while you may not like the means, the end result will be an even stronger PC market with Valve and Epic funding first and third party exclusives that PC players will be able to wear as shining jewels in their master race crowns. These will be on par with such icons as God of War and Breath of the Wild. And when this happens, be sure to give me a shout out, because I told you so.
You might get sales on titles you strong arm people into buying on your platform. But having a shitty reputation and forcing this on people, there will be a day of reckoning.
Instead of giving them options and making them want to buy, you tie up their hands. You might make a profit; I'm not saying that it won't make a lot of money or anything else that can't be backed up. In fact, enjoy the short term boosts. But know that this will be remembered when they do have options. Even if they do now have two launchers installed on their computer with games on both? Who do you think they will go to? One that treated them like shit and have had poor options and consumerist practices? That instigated a platform exclusivity war when PC has been relatively scott free of it? One that has accessed private files and scanned our computers for their own benefit and mostly without our knowledge? That gives the option of no reviews?
All I will say is: good luck with that. I'd rather keep my information -- both private and financial -- to myself after all of this.
The new Metro game is said to have sold 2 1/2 times more than the last. Honestly, much lower than my expectations given how PC gaming has grown since the last Metro and how popular the franchise has become since. Even steam sales made before their sudden exclusivity has almost 6,000 reviews. Almost all positive, mind you, despite the controversy. So I can't help but to think it could have sold twice or three times what it did for being such a superb game that even steam reviews are praising it.
So you're telling us that maybe Epic isn't buying all these exclusives after all? Maybe devs are going with the distribution model that makes the most sense for them?
or
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger
You might get sales on titles you strong arm people into buying on your platform. But having a shitty reputation and forcing this on people, there will be a day of reckoning.
Instead of giving them options and making them want to buy, you tie up their hands. You might make a profit; I'm not saying that it won't make a lot of money or anything else that can't be backed up. In fact, enjoy the short term boosts. But know that this will be remembered when they do have options. Even if they do now have two launchers installed on their computer with games on both? Who do you think they will go to? One that treated them like shit and have had poor options and consumerist practices? That instigated a platform exclusivity war when PC has been relatively scott free of it? One that has accessed private files and scanned our computers for their own benefit and mostly without our knowledge? That gives the option of no reviews?
All I will say is: good luck with that. I'd rather keep my information -- both private and financial -- to myself after all of this.
The new Metro game is said to have sold 2 1/2 times more than the last. Honestly, much lower than my expectations given how PC gaming has grown since the last Metro and how popular the franchise has become since. Even steam sales made before their sudden exclusivity has almost 6,000 reviews. Almost all positive, mind you, despite the controversy. So I can't help but to think it could have sold twice or three times what it did for being such a superb game that even steam reviews are praising it.
You're overblowing the consumer reaction. I highly doubt, in the end, many fans of the series skipped it due to it being available for exactly the same price, just not on Steam.
What breaking from Steam cost them, most likely, were the lookie-loos, the Discovery Queue surfers; folks that aren't fans of Metro, but might've purchased it based on positive reviews and cool videos/photos on the Steam page. Metro fans bought it on Epic, because in the end, it cost them exactly the same to purchase it there and they're fans.
Just like how Div2 pre-orders were higher than Div1, despite it skipping Steam and dealing with Epic. Just like how Div2 still jumped to the number 1 spot in the UK. Just like how Div2 jumped the new One Piece title on PS4 in Japan, despite that (native) series being very, very popular there (EDIT- I should say, Div2 also landing the number one sales spot there).
You might get sales on titles you strong arm people into buying on your platform. But having a shitty reputation and forcing this on people, there will be a day of reckoning.
Instead of giving them options and making them want to buy, you tie up their hands. You might make a profit; I'm not saying that it won't make a lot of money or anything else that can't be backed up. In fact, enjoy the short term boosts. But know that this will be remembered when they do have options. Even if they do now have two launchers installed on their computer with games on both? Who do you think they will go to? One that treated them like shit and have had poor options and consumerist practices? That instigated a platform exclusivity war when PC has been relatively scott free of it? One that has accessed private files and scanned our computers for their own benefit and mostly without our knowledge? That gives the option of no reviews?
All I will say is: good luck with that. I'd rather keep my information -- both private and financial -- to myself after all of this.
The new Metro game is said to have sold 2 1/2 times more than the last. Honestly, much lower than my expectations given how PC gaming has grown since the last Metro and how popular the franchise has become since. Even steam sales made before their sudden exclusivity has almost 6,000 reviews. Almost all positive, mind you, despite the controversy. So I can't help but to think it could have sold twice or three times what it did for being such a superb game that even steam reviews are praising it.
Gamers won't remember. There will be new nothings to cry over and review bomb within a year. Gamers won't remember. It's how WoW continues to sell every new expansion until people back get in for a while. Gamers won't remember. It's why people keep bring up the file scrape, yet not remembering Steam is the one that put that unencrypted file there to begin with and Steam is the one that has been breached numerous times and verified themselves that personal info, partial CC info, friends, purchases, and PayPal info was compromised. Gamers won't remember. It's why nobody brings up the asshole consumer policies Steam had until they were forced by governments and consumer pressure to change. Gamers won't remember.
Also, nobody is being strong armed here. We weren't treated like shit. We (gamers) are faced with a simple choice that we are completely overblowing.
The Steam reviews on Metro are most likely still positive because... outside of our little bubble, nobody really gives a shit. A good game is still good. Remove all the faux outrage from reddit randos and there are very few fucks given.
Nobody is battling for you or me or any gamer. They are battling for the rights to carry a product that might get us to open our wallet. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Steal it if that makes you feel edgy. Wait for it to be carried where you do want to buy it. The developers have already likely taken all of that into account when they made the choices they made.
There are better things to turn green about and remain credible...
You might get sales on titles you strong arm people into buying on your platform. But having a shitty reputation and forcing this on people, there will be a day of reckoning.
Instead of giving them options and making them want to buy, you tie up their hands. You might make a profit; I'm not saying that it won't make a lot of money or anything else that can't be backed up. In fact, enjoy the short term boosts. But know that this will be remembered when they do have options. Even if they do now have two launchers installed on their computer with games on both? Who do you think they will go to? One that treated them like shit and have had poor options and consumerist practices? That instigated a platform exclusivity war when PC has been relatively scott free of it? One that has accessed private files and scanned our computers for their own benefit and mostly without our knowledge? That gives the option of no reviews?
All I will say is: good luck with that. I'd rather keep my information -- both private and financial -- to myself after all of this.
The new Metro game is said to have sold 2 1/2 times more than the last. Honestly, much lower than my expectations given how PC gaming has grown since the last Metro and how popular the franchise has become since. Even steam sales made before their sudden exclusivity has almost 6,000 reviews. Almost all positive, mind you, despite the controversy. So I can't help but to think it could have sold twice or three times what it did for being such a superb game that even steam reviews are praising it.
Gamers won't remember. There will be new nothings to cry over and review bomb within a year. Gamers won't remember. It's how WoW continues to sell every new expansion until people back get in for a while. Gamers won't remember. It's why people keep bring up the file scrape, yet not remembering Steam is the one that put that unencrypted file there to begin with and Steam is the one that has been breached numerous times and verified themselves that personal info, partial CC info, friends, purchases, and PayPal info was compromised. Gamers won't remember. It's why nobody brings up the asshole consumer policies Steam had until they were forced by governments and consumer pressure to change. Gamers won't remember.
Also, nobody is being strong armed here. We weren't treated like shit. We (gamers) are faced with a simple choice that we are completely overblowing.
The Steam reviews on Metro are most likely still positive because... outside of our little bubble, nobody really gives a shit. A good game is still good. Remove all the faux outrage from reddit randos and there are very few fucks given.
Nobody is battling for you or me or any gamer. They are battling for the rights to carry a product that might get us to open our wallet. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Steal it if that makes you feel edgy. Wait for it to be carried where you do want to buy it. The developers have already likely taken all of that into account when they made the choices they made.
There are better things to turn green about and remain credible...
This is really just a result of gamers identifying themselves with their experiences more than fans of any other medium. And to a degree it's understandable. We do, after all, directly control and participate in our medium. Star Wars fans are infamous enough as is. Imagine how much worse they would be if they had a direct say in the events in the movies the way we do.
This is really just a result of gamers identifying themselves with their experiences more than fans of any other medium. And to a degree it's understandable. We do, after all, directly control and participate in our medium. Star Wars fans are infamous enough as is. Imagine how much worse they would be if they had a direct say in the events in the movies the way we do.
Oh, I know. I just find it extremely laughable overall.
The impression we, as a group, are giving is that where we can buy the product is more important than the product itself. Then we, as a group, bitch about the lack of innovation or catering to our whims. Why should developers care? We don't want competition that could lead to improvement in our hobby. We think we do, but we don't.
It wasn't that long ago that the unruly masses were whining that if games were being distributed digitally, without the cost of stocking and CD/material production, then why is my cost still the same and not going lower?
Well, 30% is why. Now there is this subset, of which I am positive a large number were in that group, that is all: No, no, please don't break up the mob, I enjoy the extortion.
On a more positive, if not a side statement, I like the new libraries look for Steam that were shown today
I would post a picture but I have not been able to upload pics to the site for days now
I'm curious how well the new look will work, particularly with large libraries. I like it overall and think definitely looks fresher. Just not sure how the extra events and activities and such that used to be on separate tabs/headers will affect simply getting to games.
As I had said previously. The last minute exclusives are an early market aggression meant to secure competition. It will eventually shift to funding exclusives first party or funding third party games from scratch.
Been looking into it further and it looks like this "12% vs 30%" fee battle may be just a smokescreen for us peasants to squabble over.
This is all my opinion of course..
These exclusive deals could be a way of pandering to Fredo(Epic) to get a chair at the table with Don Vito(Microsoft, Tencent). Both Microsoft and Tencent when you look at the history of game company purchases over the past few years are the ones doing it. These developer's agreeing to exclusives are put closer to the big boys(MS, Tencent) by agreeing to low % terms with the company Tencent owns 48.4% in. I'd go as far as saying that even MS wanted a seat at the table cause Tencent is going to be a leader in 5G AND they are pros at buying companies and increasing productivity. No one can deny that Tencent isn't good at what they do when it comes to gaming and I'm sure MS wants to learn a thing or two if/when they can.
Tencent has bought or invested sizable amounts of money in game companies and it would be in the best interest of companies with the intention of being bought out to do everything they can to get in good with them, even if it means offering the game at 0% fee. All of the studios offering exclusives have much more to gain from an investment or buyout than they could ever accomplish by selling games the old fashioned way. Even Detroit:Become Human developer's recently received an investment from Netease which is China's 2nd largest game publisher and they are planning to create games together. Gotta give these big companies credit for being proactive actually going out trying to find opportunity. I wish Amazon or someone else local would do the same with titles like Pantheon, CU & Crowfall but guess not...
In the end what I take away from all of this is that a few companies are looking to get bought out by other companies and are doing what they can to accomplish that goal.
Been looking into it further and it looks like this "12% vs 30%" fee battle may be just a smokescreen for us peasants to squabble over.
This is all my opinion of course..
These exclusive deals could be a way of pandering to Fredo(Epic) to get a chair at the table with Don Vito(Microsoft, Tencent). Both Microsoft and Tencent when you look at the history of game company purchases over the past few years are the ones doing it. These developer's agreeing to exclusives are put closer to the big boys(MS, Tencent) by agreeing to low % terms with the company Tencent owns 48.4% in. I'd go as far as saying that even MS wanted a seat at the table cause Tencent is going to be a leader in 5G AND they are pros at buying companies and increasing productivity. No one can deny that Tencent isn't good at what they do when it comes to gaming and I'm sure MS wants to learn a thing or two if/when they can.
Tencent has bought or invested sizable amounts of money in game companies and it would be in the best interest of companies with the intention of being bought out to do everything they can to get in good with them, even if it means offering the game at 0% fee. All of the studios offering exclusives have much more to gain from an investment or buyout than they could ever accomplish by selling games the old fashioned way. Even Detroit:Become Human developer's recently received an investment from Netease which is China's 2nd largest game publisher and they are planning to create games together. Gotta give these big companies credit for being proactive actually going out trying to find opportunity. I wish Amazon or someone else local would do the same with titles like Pantheon, CU & Crowfall but guess not...
In the end what I take away from all of this is that a few companies are looking to get bought out by other companies and are doing what they can to accomplish that goal.
The End.
Zoinks! I think you nailed it! It was right under our noses this whole time.
Certainly couldn't be that devs are taking the route that allows them to retain more of the fruits of their labors so that they can remain operational. And independent. Couldn't be that they are finally offered a more attractive partnership and taking it instead. And doing it in spite of the fact that they are foregoing releasing on the largest game distribution system in the world, including China. No, those would require illogical stretches of credulity, unlike this totally sound and well thought out theory you have presented based on the mob extortion comment.
Microsoft does have an awesome track record with obtaining dev studios and leaving them to their own devices though. It's natural. Mythica and Fable Legends are some of my favorite MS games. What are yours? They did a bang up job with publishing Vanguard too...
You have me doubting Tencent is simply investing non-controlling stakes in gaming companies in advance of China lifting restrictions on new games entering their market to have a jump on their competitors too. Probably something far more sinister than that. I bet China just got licenses to fish off the Somali coast so they could Luca Brasi Steam...
Well played, sir. Can you deduce where we might find Carmen Sandiego now as well? I'm betting China...
Been looking into it further and it looks like this "12% vs 30%" fee battle may be just a smokescreen for us peasants to squabble over.
This is all my opinion of course..
These exclusive deals could be a way of pandering to Fredo(Epic) to get a chair at the table with Don Vito(Microsoft, Tencent). Both Microsoft and Tencent when you look at the history of game company purchases over the past few years are the ones doing it. These developer's agreeing to exclusives are put closer to the big boys(MS, Tencent) by agreeing to low % terms with the company Tencent owns 48.4% in. I'd go as far as saying that even MS wanted a seat at the table cause Tencent is going to be a leader in 5G AND they are pros at buying companies and increasing productivity. No one can deny that Tencent isn't good at what they do when it comes to gaming and I'm sure MS wants to learn a thing or two if/when they can.
Tencent has bought or invested sizable amounts of money in game companies and it would be in the best interest of companies with the intention of being bought out to do everything they can to get in good with them, even if it means offering the game at 0% fee. All of the studios offering exclusives have much more to gain from an investment or buyout than they could ever accomplish by selling games the old fashioned way. Even Detroit:Become Human developer's recently received an investment from Netease which is China's 2nd largest game publisher and they are planning to create games together. Gotta give these big companies credit for being proactive actually going out trying to find opportunity. I wish Amazon or someone else local would do the same with titles like Pantheon, CU & Crowfall but guess not...
In the end what I take away from all of this is that a few companies are looking to get bought out by other companies and are doing what they can to accomplish that goal.
The End.
I would have found this all more believable if you would have posted links that I could jump over to. Not links to reddit threads either but to actual known publications. Instead you state that you have been looking into it and that it is just an opinion. So you really have a tinfoil hat on right now.
Step 1. Open Google
Step 2. Search
3. I have never posted links to Reddit.
4. I did say at the start of my post that it was "my opinion".
Been looking into it further and it looks like this "12% vs 30%" fee battle may be just a smokescreen for us peasants to squabble over.
This is all my opinion of course..
These exclusive deals could be a way of pandering to Fredo(Epic) to get a chair at the table with Don Vito(Microsoft, Tencent). Both Microsoft and Tencent when you look at the history of game company purchases over the past few years are the ones doing it. These developer's agreeing to exclusives are put closer to the big boys(MS, Tencent) by agreeing to low % terms with the company Tencent owns 48.4% in. I'd go as far as saying that even MS wanted a seat at the table cause Tencent is going to be a leader in 5G AND they are pros at buying companies and increasing productivity. No one can deny that Tencent isn't good at what they do when it comes to gaming and I'm sure MS wants to learn a thing or two if/when they can.
Tencent has bought or invested sizable amounts of money in game companies and it would be in the best interest of companies with the intention of being bought out to do everything they can to get in good with them, even if it means offering the game at 0% fee. All of the studios offering exclusives have much more to gain from an investment or buyout than they could ever accomplish by selling games the old fashioned way. Even Detroit:Become Human developer's recently received an investment from Netease which is China's 2nd largest game publisher and they are planning to create games together. Gotta give these big companies credit for being proactive actually going out trying to find opportunity. I wish Amazon or someone else local would do the same with titles like Pantheon, CU & Crowfall but guess not...
In the end what I take away from all of this is that a few companies are looking to get bought out by other companies and are doing what they can to accomplish that goal.
The End.
Zoinks! I think you nailed it! It was right under our noses this whole time.
Certainly couldn't be that devs are taking the route that allows them to retain more of the fruits of their labors so that they can remain operational. And independent. Couldn't be that they are finally offered a more attractive partnership and taking it instead. And doing it in spite of the fact that they are foregoing releasing on the largest game distribution system in the world, including China. No, those would require illogical stretches of credulity, unlike this totally sound and well thought out theory you have presented based on the mob extortion comment.
Microsoft does have an awesome track record with obtaining dev studios and leaving them to their own devices though. It's natural. Mythica and Fable Legends are some of my favorite MS games. What are yours? They did a bang up job with publishing Vanguard too...
You have me doubting Tencent is simply investing non-controlling stakes in gaming companies in advance of China lifting restrictions on new games entering their market to have a jump on their competitors too. Probably something far more sinister than that. I bet China just got licenses to fish off the Somali coast so they could Luca Brasi Steam...
Well played, sir. Can you deduce where we might find Carmen Sandiego now as well? I'm betting China...
You won.
What's with all the hostility masked in cheeky humor? Nothing in what I wrote is meant to be taken as negative and I'm sorry if you perceived it that way.
The Godfather reference in case you didn't see the movies is from the Las Vegas scenes were people try to butter up Fredo only because he is a Corleone. As it relates to what's going on now, this recent opportunity of having your game on Epic's launcher is a possible way to get noticed by Tencent or MS because they are all working together. Rather than "mob extortion" like you said I view it as more of a networking opportunity and there is nothing "sinister" about that.
Here is a link to the growing "partnership" between game companies with Tencent leading the charge.
Comments
Your argument fundamentally does not work because Epic isn't looking to make one sale to each user. They are looking to make as many sales as possible for as long as possible, and they have zero means of forcing you to spend money when you browse their store, exclusives or not.
When a new restaurant opens, would you be offended if they introduced new menu items over time?
When a free to play game launches, do you get offended if they announce a roadmap of upcoming content? Because that is what this is. A free service with optional purchases that Epic wants to sell you.
Of course Epic wants to sell games to as many users as possible. What they do not want is to sell one game (and only one game) to every user. No storefront in their right mind would want that. Meaning that there is a direct incentive for them to step up their game and improve their service.
Conversely, an EPIC store user could theoretically never make a purchase. They could only play Fortnite or other F2P games. They could receive free games in perpetuity from Epic's monthly free games. These are offerings unique to the Epic store. Conversely, a Steam user could play only DotA2 and Team Fortress 2 forever without spending a dime.
Restaurants have exclusive items. Sometimes it is something that any restaurant could easily make. Is a taco shell made out of Doritos a complicated concept? Not really. But try opening a Mexican restaurant selling Doritos Locos tacos and tell me how that works out. Or a simpler concept - sauce. Big Mac Sauce would be easy to recreate, but there is a reason we don't see it at Wendy's.
Or, perhaps, a less obvious but more practical example. Restaurants, especially locally owned ones, can form agreements with local farms for exclusive supplying or favorable prices. Is this mutually beneficial agreement morally wrong? I go to a local Indian restaurant that sources all of its ingredients from local farms. And. It. Is. Delicious.
Anyway, I digress. Restaurants are indeed a faulty analogy to begin with.
And why shouldn't all indie games be sold by all stores ...... unless that is how it works. A big title is a big title simply because its sold at more stores. A middling title something in between.
Reasons vary.
Sometimes its down to the fact that a store has to buy the game from the seller - and there are only so many hours in a day.
Sometimes its a physical thing if its a physical product - applies to bricks and mortar and online.
Sometimes a store may have a policy: Steam used to "select" titles - these days its cut costs and seems to just list everything.
Sometimes a supplier may limit the number of outlets -this is not always obvious but a lot of products are "semi-exclusive" in so far as they may only be available from 6 or 20 or whatever outlets. And they do this so that they a) deal with fewer stores - see only so many hours in a day, companies and stores haggle over prices b) support select stores - they want the stores they deal with to stay in business otherwise they have to spend time coming to terms with other stores. Its all about the Total Supply Chain. Its a major cost so people look for savings all the time.
And having lived and worked in multiple countries - including the US - and having been involved in this stuff I do know how it works. Supply chain distribution is a major cost factor.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/14/the-reason-epic-landed-a-15-billion-valuation-is-not-fortnite-success.html
Notable segments from the article above
"Epic is earning money from Fortnite's main competitor, PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds, developed by South Korea's Bluehole using the Unreal Engine. The company has some arrangements with game studios who may pay a custom fee rather than the royalty agreement, though Epic declined to name studios with which it has custom deals."
"Epic's $1.25 billion funding round in October added to funding already provided by Chinese internet giant Tencent, which took a 48 percent stake in Epic for $330 million in 2012. The company is now valued at almost $15 billion."
http://fortune.com/2015/03/03/epic-games-unreal-tech-free/
"Epic Games, which received a $330 million investment from China’s Tencent in June 2012 in exchange for 48.4 percent of the company"
and here is the reason for the Division 2 Ubisoft Steam shut out.
https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/29/17172326/tencent-ubisoft-explained
One last thing..
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/06/tencent-edges-out-china-mobile-to-become-asias-most-valuable-company.html
The developers made the decision that offered the most business sense to them.
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-01-24-just-6-percent-of-devs-say-steam-earns-its-30-percent-cut-survey
The devs are what the competition is really over here. And 6% think Steam has been earning its keep. That doesn't sound like a lot of goodwill built up, more a forced situation. Devs are making choices for their livelihood. We're whining because we have to use another launcher.
The fact that the article states that 55% of devs who do sell their game on Steam reported that 75% or more of their sales were from Steam suggests that these Epic agreements are not being made lightly or without some serious reservations. They will give up being on the largest distribution channel for their product launch. Steam, and their take, is just that bad for them.
Between the data breaches, the being reactionary on everything, and the EULA change that ruled out class action suits that they responded that they would disable your account with no way to re-enable and all your games and access to them would be lost forever should you not agree to it, Steam isn't really all that good for this side either.
I don't care. I buy good games. I buy bad games, not intentionally. I have pirated games in the past. I have games on every launcher except Discord and that is only because I don't use Discord so it is out of sight out of mind. When they have an exclusive I want, I'll also have a Discord launcher. I bought an exclusive on Epic, not so much because I wanted it, but because I wanted to support the developer and the decision they made. It wasn't Metro or any game advertised on Steam. In the end, I still open Steam first. Habit because of years with little alternative. I'm more likely to play a shit game on Steam than I am to even remember I have an awesome game on another platform.
I'm just here because most of these arguments are silly, bordering on ridiculous. This is why we can't have nice things. This is why gamers are considered a bunch of man babies. In almost any other industry, this would be considered a positive thing. Everyone is hurt and mad about what amounts to nothing. Double clicking a different point on your desktop. Ooooh.
As long as Valve is content to sit on its ass and rake in 30% of all sales on its platform while letting half-assed algorithyms do the job that paid human beings should be doing, this is all you're going to get.
Epic Store is a boot in Valve's ass. A much needed one. And while you may not like the means, the end result will be an even stronger PC market with Valve and Epic funding first and third party exclusives that PC players will be able to wear as shining jewels in their master race crowns. These will be on par with such icons as God of War and Breath of the Wild. And when this happens, be sure to give me a shout out, because I told you so.
https://thenextweb.com/apps/2019/03/21/valve-steam-vulnerability-malware-steal/
or
Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for they are subtle and quick to anger
or
???
If there was a game i really wanted to play and it was only on Epic, then i would buy it.
Competition is usually always good for the consumer in most cases.
You can see my sci-fi/WW2 book recommendations.
What breaking from Steam cost them, most likely, were the lookie-loos, the Discovery Queue surfers; folks that aren't fans of Metro, but might've purchased it based on positive reviews and cool videos/photos on the Steam page. Metro fans bought it on Epic, because in the end, it cost them exactly the same to purchase it there and they're fans.
Just like how Div2 pre-orders were higher than Div1, despite it skipping Steam and dealing with Epic. Just like how Div2 still jumped to the number 1 spot in the UK. Just like how Div2 jumped the new One Piece title on PS4 in Japan, despite that (native) series being very, very popular there (EDIT- I should say, Div2 also landing the number one sales spot there).
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
There will be new nothings to cry over and review bomb within a year.
Gamers won't remember.
It's how WoW continues to sell every new expansion until people back get in for a while.
Gamers won't remember.
It's why people keep bring up the file scrape, yet not remembering Steam is the one that put that unencrypted file there to begin with and Steam is the one that has been breached numerous times and verified themselves that personal info, partial CC info, friends, purchases, and PayPal info was compromised.
Gamers won't remember.
It's why nobody brings up the asshole consumer policies Steam had until they were forced by governments and consumer pressure to change.
Gamers won't remember.
Also, nobody is being strong armed here. We weren't treated like shit. We (gamers) are faced with a simple choice that we are completely overblowing.
The Steam reviews on Metro are most likely still positive because... outside of our little bubble, nobody really gives a shit. A good game is still good. Remove all the faux outrage from reddit randos and there are very few fucks given.
Nobody is battling for you or me or any gamer. They are battling for the rights to carry a product that might get us to open our wallet. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Steal it if that makes you feel edgy. Wait for it to be carried where you do want to buy it. The developers have already likely taken all of that into account when they made the choices they made.
There are better things to turn green about and remain credible...
The impression we, as a group, are giving is that where we can buy the product is more important than the product itself. Then we, as a group, bitch about the lack of innovation or catering to our whims. Why should developers care? We don't want competition that could lead to improvement in our hobby. We think we do, but we don't.
It wasn't that long ago that the unruly masses were whining that if games were being distributed digitally, without the cost of stocking and CD/material production, then why is my cost still the same and not going lower?
Well, 30% is why. Now there is this subset, of which I am positive a large number were in that group, that is all: No, no, please don't break up the mob, I enjoy the extortion.
Competition does funny things sometimes...
https://www.pcgamer.com/epic-says-itll-eventually-stop-pushing-for-exclusives/
Certainly couldn't be that devs are taking the route that allows them to retain more of the fruits of their labors so that they can remain operational. And independent. Couldn't be that they are finally offered a more attractive partnership and taking it instead. And doing it in spite of the fact that they are foregoing releasing on the largest game distribution system in the world, including China. No, those would require illogical stretches of credulity, unlike this totally sound and well thought out theory you have presented based on the mob extortion comment.
Microsoft does have an awesome track record with obtaining dev studios and leaving them to their own devices though. It's natural. Mythica and Fable Legends are some of my favorite MS games. What are yours? They did a bang up job with publishing Vanguard too...
You have me doubting Tencent is simply investing non-controlling stakes in gaming companies in advance of China lifting restrictions on new games entering their market to have a jump on their competitors too. Probably something far more sinister than that. I bet China just got licenses to fish off the Somali coast so they could Luca Brasi Steam...
Well played, sir. Can you deduce where we might find Carmen Sandiego now as well? I'm betting China...
You won.