Anybody calling a 70/30 split "selfish and greedy" needs to go sit TF down and grow up. So what? 10% difference is your ethical threshold for a publisher that built it's own platform, AND user base... without a game that generated billions of dollars? I seriously hope you children don't listen to ANY streaming music from your smartphones while talking that sh!#. Every developer had the option to do whatever they wanted. IT'S PC GAMING. There's no hardware owner hindering any process. Companies like Gearbox could have simply coded a store tab right into their own website and hooked in additional features into their games. 100% profit.
I'm not saying there isn't room to maneuver around on splits but to make it like it's some battle between the Empire and Rebellion is childish and naive as f#$%. Especially when the perceived "Rebellion" is actually the Empire, and Tom Palpatine Sweeney has revealed himself.
If EPIC wanted to get some wings and halos, why didn't they and other companies form a consortium to build an open source licensed storefront/launcher API for all developers to use and benefit from across the board?
Exactly...
You start off with a very hostile tone as if Gaben paid you himself to say that. Then kill your own hostile rant with the first line of your second paragraph before going all comedy. Then come up with a third paragraph that assumes i am defending Epic for some reason.
I made the comment about "selfish and greedy" so your hostility clearly is towards my post. If not being a blind sheep puts me in need of growing up then i don't know what to tell you.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
That's the spirit! Be proud of your self-entitlement!
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
One free game every two weeks, just for downloading the store, is one thing that's "in it" for you. And not a "play it free for a weekend," you download it and it's yours permanently. Games such as What Remains of Edith Finch and Subnautica.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
errr. 12% revenue loss instead of 33% actually IS a developer gain.
quite frankly, the only thing i care about as user is this "forced" launcher startup shit, and steam actually started this idea. blizzard ofc totaly overkilled it again (by not even being able to launch the games from links anymore).
so. i say if you wanna be pro users, be a store, no forced launcher.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
They were and continue to be the top for years with no competition yet still developed new systems and make advances in other markets no one else cares about (linux). So my question to you is what isn't in it for you? Epic is just trying to be a bully without actual substance. Great they got exclusives, but how about develop a platform with some meaningful features and make advancements towards the greater good of gamers. They won't though because as they already made clear, they just want Steam to cut profits and narrow the split down and then they will bring their own library in. It's laughable really.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
1) As far I read last time, Epic has no friend list. As such, games that rely on friend list to use it's very own features had those features cut, like leaderboards in certain racing games.
And there are people defending this... I just can't believe it.
Nobody would complain about those exclusives if the store/client had the minimal expected features.
When I checked - rather than going off stuff being perpetuated - not only does the Epic Store have a friends list you can link it to Steam and - if your friends agree - import your Steam friends list.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
They were and continue to be the top for years with no competition yet still developed new systems and make advances in other markets no one else cares about (linux). So my question to you is what isn't in it for you? Epic is just trying to be a bully without actual substance. Great they got exclusives, but how about develop a platform with some meaningful features and make advancements towards the greater good of gamers. They won't though because as they already made clear, they just want Steam to cut profits and narrow the split down and then they will bring their own library in. It's laughable really.
They were and continue to be the top for years with no competition yet still developed new systems and make advances in other markets no one else cares about (linux). So my question to you is what isn't in it for you? Epic is just trying to be a bully without actual substance. Great they got exclusives, but how about develop a platform with some meaningful features and make advancements towards the greater good of gamers. They won't though because as they already made clear, they just want Steam to cut profits and narrow the split down and then they will bring their own library in. It's laughable really.
From the Gamingonlinux site:
Thanks to some effort from the team behind Lutris (and Wine of course), you can now run the Epic Store quite easily on Linux.
The official Lutris Twitter account posted this yesterday:
What's interesting is that Tim Sweeney, the founder of Epic Games, directly replied to their Twitter post to say "Great work!" but even more interestingly they also sent another Tweet with this:
So while the Epic Store doesn't have a Linux version currently on their roadmap, it seems they are at least willing in some way to support a community effort of getting it running on Linux. Not ideal of course but better than nothing? Considering all the free games the Epic Store are giving out and likely plenty of them will work fine in Wine, this might be quite interesting for some of our readers.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
They were and continue to be the top for years with no competition yet still developed new systems and make advances in other markets no one else cares about (linux). So my question to you is what isn't in it for you? Epic is just trying to be a bully without actual substance. Great they got exclusives, but how about develop a platform with some meaningful features and make advancements towards the greater good of gamers. They won't though because as they already made clear, they just want Steam to cut profits and narrow the split down and then they will bring their own library in. It's laughable really.
Steam didn't launch with all those features. It took Valve many years to add them. If Epic wants to stay relevant they will have to add a lot of features as well, which they already showed a roadmap. I'm not trying to replace Steam with Epic on my PC, but i'm not going to white knight Steam either. I have hundreds of games on Steam but i haven't bought them anything for about a year now iirc. I haven't bought anything on Epic either. They both have DRM which i don't fully support.
What's in it for me? the same that's in it for all of us. Competition improves services and offer better value for the customer. And hey, if developers get a bigger cut out of it i'm not against that either. Maybe the more money they make off each game the less interest they could have in adding microtransactions? i don't know.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
They were and continue to be the top for years with no competition yet still developed new systems and make advances in other markets no one else cares about (linux). So my question to you is what isn't in it for you? Epic is just trying to be a bully without actual substance. Great they got exclusives, but how about develop a platform with some meaningful features and make advancements towards the greater good of gamers. They won't though because as they already made clear, they just want Steam to cut profits and narrow the split down and then they will bring their own library in. It's laughable really.
In short THEY SAVED AND FIXED THE PC GAMING MARKET THAT WAS GOING DOWN THE FUCKIN TUBE. They deserve everything
.... Yea. Certainly a great example of measured, rational response.
Great so they are developing everything Steam already has, thanks for proving my point.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
They were and continue to be the top for years with no competition yet still developed new systems and make advances in other markets no one else cares about (linux). So my question to you is what isn't in it for you? Epic is just trying to be a bully without actual substance. Great they got exclusives, but how about develop a platform with some meaningful features and make advancements towards the greater good of gamers. They won't though because as they already made clear, they just want Steam to cut profits and narrow the split down and then they will bring their own library in. It's laughable really.
Steam didn't launch with all those features. It took Valve many years to add them. If Epic wants to stay relevant they will have to add a lot of features as well, which they already showed a roadmap. I'm not trying to replace Steam with Epic on my PC, but i'm not going to white knight Steam either. I have hundreds of games on Steam but i haven't bought them anything for about a year now iirc. I haven't bought anything on Epic either. They both have DRM which i don't fully support.
What's in it for me? the same that's in it for all of us. Competition improves services and offer better value for the customer. And hey, if developers get a bigger cut out of it i'm not against that either. Maybe the more money they make off each game the less interest they could have in adding microtransactions? i don't know.
Absolutely it took a lot of time, but what I meant by it is Steam didn't just sit and do nothing while it reaped all the money in. They were on top and kept developing, they could have just sat there and laughed.
Steam's customer service however is absolute abysmal, that needs a lot of work.
I said what isn't in it for you. You benefit from any competitor it's not the consumer we are worried about here. Some developers want the change, they feel it cuts too much into their profits, some stick on Steam because of the features it provides.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
He is not wrong. Developers take the epic store seriously due to the fact Valve still takes a 30% cut, while Epic (and Discord) goes for the 10-12% range. Game making is risky these days, big publishers can take the risk but they are also incentivized into coming up with scummy business practices, and the little guys (indie devs) get hurt the most by Steam's 30% cut.
Valve simply has to compete by taking the same cut Epic/discord are taking. Furthermore, Valve has gotten lazy over the years. They don't even develop games as a source of revenue anymore, its all just easy "distribution" money (that 30% cut). Maybe them taking less will encourage them to finally give us Half Life 3.
i cant see the big issue with 30% sounds reasonable to me half the games on steam are mediocre at best whether you like steam or not they sell a huge amount of games i cant see how the indie devs get hurt by them ,without steam how many sales will they get ? if you buy an item from a shop the mark up will be more than 30% most of the time .steam also lets you return a game within 2 hours playtime they may not be perfect but they do provide a good service
They were and continue to be the top for years with no competition yet still developed new systems and make advances in other markets no one else cares about (linux). So my question to you is what isn't in it for you? Epic is just trying to be a bully without actual substance. Great they got exclusives, but how about develop a platform with some meaningful features and make advancements towards the greater good of gamers. They won't though because as they already made clear, they just want Steam to cut profits and narrow the split down and then they will bring their own library in. It's laughable really.
From the Gamingonlinux site:
Thanks to some effort from the team behind Lutris (and Wine of course), you can now run the Epic Store quite easily on Linux.
The official Lutris Twitter account posted this yesterday:
What's interesting is that Tim Sweeney, the founder of Epic Games, directly replied to their Twitter post to say "Great work!" but even more interestingly they also sent another Tweet with this:
So while the Epic Store doesn't have a Linux version currently on their roadmap, it seems they are at least willing in some way to support a community effort of getting it running on Linux. Not ideal of course but better than nothing? Considering all the free games the Epic Store are giving out and likely plenty of them will work fine in Wine, this might be quite interesting for some of our readers.
I mean that's awesome you can play it on Linux but it wasn't done by Epic it was done by a community, total opposite. Specially when Steam created SteamOS a linux based gaming operating system.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
Offering developers a better cut is nice and all but it doesn't really do anything for us, the customers. We're not seeing any of the savings in the form of cheaper games, were not even seeing the same quality of life features in the storefront that Steam has.
The whole exclusivity thing has soured me on the Epic Store, I don't mind waiting for them to be moved to Steam (although being a year old I certainly wouldn't pay a full $60 for them) or simply getting a different game entirely. I have enough games in my Steam backlog to tide me over in the meantime.
Exclusives are, and always have been, bad for the consumer. It's nice to see someone else trying to compete, but doing it through hard cash for exclusivity only shows how weak their position is. They are trying to penetrate, but to me at least, it looks like they are garnering bad will, not good.
They were and continue to be the top for years with no competition yet still developed new systems and make advances in other markets no one else cares about (linux). So my question to you is what isn't in it for you? Epic is just trying to be a bully without actual substance. Great they got exclusives, but how about develop a platform with some meaningful features and make advancements towards the greater good of gamers. They won't though because as they already made clear, they just want Steam to cut profits and narrow the split down and then they will bring their own library in. It's laughable really.
From the Gamingonlinux site:
Thanks to some effort from the team behind Lutris (and Wine of course), you can now run the Epic Store quite easily on Linux.
The official Lutris Twitter account posted this yesterday:
What's interesting is that Tim Sweeney, the founder of Epic Games, directly replied to their Twitter post to say "Great work!" but even more interestingly they also sent another Tweet with this:
So while the Epic Store doesn't have a Linux version currently on their roadmap, it seems they are at least willing in some way to support a community effort of getting it running on Linux. Not ideal of course but better than nothing? Considering all the free games the Epic Store are giving out and likely plenty of them will work fine in Wine, this might be quite interesting for some of our readers.
I mean that's awesome you can play it on Linux but it wasn't done by Epic it was done by a community, total opposite. Specially when Steam created SteamOS a linux based gaming operating system.
The Linus community has always been at the forefront of Linux. The reason Valve created SteamOS - based on Debian - was because they wanted to sell Steam Machines.
1) As far I read last time, Epic has no friend list. As such, games that rely on friend list to use it's very own features had those features cut, like leaderboards in certain racing games.
And there are people defending this... I just can't believe it.
Are they defending this or do they just not care?
Because I absolutely don't care.
My minimum feature is buying the game and downloading it.
I don't care about friend's lists, curated lists, those stupid little things I get in my steam e-mail that I never open.
Maybe others don't care either?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
1) As far I read last time, Epic has no friend list. As such, games that rely on friend list to use it's very own features had those features cut, like leaderboards in certain racing games.
And there are people defending this... I just can't believe it.
Nobody would complain about those exclusives if the store/client had the minimal expected features.
When I checked - rather than going off stuff being perpetuated - not only does the Epic Store have a friends list you can link it to Steam and - if your friends agree - import your Steam friends list.
When the game I'm talking about went on Epic it did not have such feature. Again, watch the Bellular video.
I don't use, nor I'll ever will, Epic Store. I don't know it's current list of features.
And, if serves as a point to this false dichotomy people are pushing here, I'm not into Steam that much either - I always buy on GOG first.
So, for me, the exclusivity is not hurting Steam, is hurting other store fronts like GOG, which I absolutely love, and lesser known key sellers sites that are very popular in Europe.
Epic Store has had a friends list pretty much since launch or shortly after. And the friends list is also cross platform with consoles. I played Paragon(when it was alive) and fortnite from PS4 with my PC friends and the way to invite was from the cross platform friends list. When i switched to PC myself it logged in with my Epic ID (instead of PSN ID) and still also showed friends from both platforms on the friends list.
Maybe the game you mentioned didn't support friends list on the Epic Store for some reason? no idea.
Steam supports hundreds if not thousands of Indie games (mainly through EA), it basically has an encyclopedia of games from AAA to Indie, and it grows exponentially, that's their strength. If AAA developers decides to move to other platforms, it's their loss. Bethesda tried that, but they seemed to have changed their mind adding even more games to the Steam library than they previously had (only Fallout and TES).
Unless all AAA developers boycott Steam in unison, Steam will always be the number one digital distributor for PC games. I don't see that happening frankly. Sure 30% is a high price to pay, but Steam provides games a visibility that can only be achieved by spending millions in marketing.
Steam is the Amazon of PC gaming whether we like it or not.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
It's buyers who believe that Steam has no competition and refuse to buy games elsewhere that give Steam its huge market shares. If you never bought games on GOG, Itch, Microsoft Store, Uplay, Epic, Origin, etc you are why Steam is at the top (technically, buying from GreenGamingMan isn't a Steam sale either, even if you get a Steam key).
This isn't a lack of competition problem, it's the lack of customers caring about the competition problem.
Instead of promising benefits to the players, Epic would rather promise those benefits to the developers and try to change their own competitor's business model. What's in it for us, Epic?
I would also like to ask the same question to Valve. If valve stays alone at the top, what's in it for us? with no competition they will care even less about us. Origin and Uplay are just there, clearly Steam has had no real competition for too long, until Epic started throwing fortnite money everywhere.
It's buyers who believe that Steam has no competition and refuse to buy games elsewhere that give Steam its huge market shares. If you never bought games on GOG, Itch, Microsoft Store, Uplay, Epic, Origin, etc you are why Steam is at the top (technically, buying from GreenGamingMan isn't a Steam sale either, even if you get a Steam key).
This isn't a lack of competition problem, it's the lack of customers caring about the competition problem.
When i buy games on PC from Ubisoft i go directly to Uplay to kill the redundancy of using uplay inside steam. I use origin as well. The last 4 games i bought on PC were 3 from GoG, and battlefield 5 on origin. I did get oxenfree for free on Epic store and transistor was(or still is) free there too. I've used GMG too for various games.
Exclusives are, and always have been, bad for the consumer. It's nice to see someone else trying to compete, but doing it through hard cash for exclusivity only shows how weak their position is. They are trying to penetrate, but to me at least, it looks like they are garnering bad will, not good.
I understand your sentiment, but Epic wasn't ever going to realistically compete with Valve by merely mimicking their store. It won't happen.
Epic had to give them a reason to make the jump. That's just the reality of the situation. And there's no better way to drive an install base than to have great games you can't get elsewhere. That's something that the console wars should've made obvious to everyone. However, the key difference, and why so many of us see the flailing about by folks on the forums as overblown, is that unlike consoles, these storefronts cost free-ninety-free.
1) As far I read last time, Epic has no friend list. As such, games that rely on friend list to use it's very own features had those features cut, like leaderboards in certain racing games.
And there are people defending this... I just can't believe it.
Are they defending this or do they just not care?
Because I absolutely don't care.
My minimum feature is buying the game and downloading it.
I don't care about friend's lists, curated lists, those stupid little things I get in my steam e-mail that I never open.
Maybe others don't care either?
Bingo. I use a storefront to get games. Pretty much everything Steam does otherwise are extras that aren't my primary concern, nor are they usually some feature that cannot be mimicked elsewhere (case in point, we're discussing this on the MMORPG.com forums, and not Steam discussion boards).
Comments
/thread
quite frankly, the only thing i care about as user is this "forced" launcher startup shit, and steam actually started this idea.
blizzard ofc totaly overkilled it again (by not even being able to launch the games from links anymore).
so. i say if you wanna be pro users, be a store, no forced launcher.
"I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"
And just in case anyone is wondering whether they should take you serious in any discussion involving Steam:
From the Gamingonlinux site:
Thanks to some effort from the team behind Lutris (and Wine of course), you can now run the Epic Store quite easily on Linux.
The official Lutris Twitter account posted this yesterday:
What's interesting is that Tim Sweeney, the founder of Epic Games, directly replied to their Twitter post to say "Great work!" but even more interestingly they also sent another Tweet with this:
So while the Epic Store doesn't have a Linux version currently on their roadmap, it seems they are at least willing in some way to support a community effort of getting it running on Linux. Not ideal of course but better than nothing? Considering all the free games the Epic Store are giving out and likely plenty of them will work fine in Wine, this might be quite interesting for some of our readers.
Steam's customer service however is absolute abysmal, that needs a lot of work.
I said what isn't in it for you. You benefit from any competitor it's not the consumer we are worried about here. Some developers want the change, they feel it cuts too much into their profits, some stick on Steam because of the features it provides.
The whole exclusivity thing has soured me on the Epic Store, I don't mind waiting for them to be moved to Steam (although being a year old I certainly wouldn't pay a full $60 for them) or simply getting a different game entirely. I have enough games in my Steam backlog to tide me over in the meantime.
Because I absolutely don't care.
My minimum feature is buying the game and downloading it.
I don't care about friend's lists, curated lists, those stupid little things I get in my steam e-mail that I never open.
Maybe others don't care either?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Aloha Mr Hand !
If AAA developers decides to move to other platforms, it's their loss.
Bethesda tried that, but they seemed to have changed their mind adding even more games to the Steam library than they previously had (only Fallout and TES).
Unless all AAA developers boycott Steam in unison, Steam will always be the number one digital distributor for PC games.
I don't see that happening frankly.
Sure 30% is a high price to pay, but Steam provides games a visibility that can only be achieved by spending millions in marketing.
Steam is the Amazon of PC gaming whether we like it or not.
Epic had to give them a reason to make the jump. That's just the reality of the situation. And there's no better way to drive an install base than to have great games you can't get elsewhere. That's something that the console wars should've made obvious to everyone. However, the key difference, and why so many of us see the flailing about by folks on the forums as overblown, is that unlike consoles, these storefronts cost free-ninety-free.
Bingo. I use a storefront to get games. Pretty much everything Steam does otherwise are extras that aren't my primary concern, nor are they usually some feature that cannot be mimicked elsewhere (case in point, we're discussing this on the MMORPG.com forums, and not Steam discussion boards).