They were betting on Fortnite's popularity, which when they released the store was at its peak. It was the best times to launch it. Even in this unfinished state.
"Achievements are for little kids... " *Spends 8hrs+ grinding for magic sword*
Every time I see these types of posts on MMORPG I understand a bit more how outside got the way it has. Sheesh.
What function does an achievement have? Is it is quest? Does it have tangible value? Does it do something? No. A magic sword would have an impact on my play, and the main focus of the games I play is trying to get more powerful. Would I grind for 8 hours to get one? Probably not. Any game that required me to kill trash mobs for 8 hours to get something means it probably has no content worth doing, and replaced content with childish nonsense like achievements to please low brows who would rather watch a video of someone else grind trash mobs for eight hours to get a sword instead of play an actual game with actual content themselves like a sane person.
But for me personally better pricing is what will lure me to use their store. The only reason I logon samsung galaxy store is because they give better pricing. I could care less how their storefront is.
That's cool. I don't disagree. But a majority of people want a good shopping experience. Steam gives many that experience and EGS could have.
I'm like you, though. I go where my money does me the most good
PS: PCGamer doesn't like my ad blocker so I could not read the article.
My take is weather they open the store early or postpone it, they could always improve it. The real problem to me is the store have been open for 9 month but it haven't improve all that much.
"Achievements are for little kids... " *Spends 8hrs+ grinding for magic sword*
Every time I see these types of posts on MMORPG I understand a bit more how outside got the way it has. Sheesh.
What function does an achievement have? Is it is quest? Does it have tangible value? Does it do something? No. A magic sword would have an impact on my play, and the main focus of the games I play is trying to get more powerful. Would I grind for 8 hours to get one? Probably not. Any game that required me to kill trash mobs for 8 hours to get something means it probably has no content worth doing, and replaced content with childish nonsense like achievements to please low brows who would rather watch a video of someone else grind trash mobs for eight hours to get a sword instead of play an actual game with actual content themselves like a sane person.
Still going?
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
"Achievements are for little kids... " *Spends 8hrs+ grinding for magic sword*
Every time I see these types of posts on MMORPG I understand a bit more how outside got the way it has. Sheesh.
What function does an achievement have? Is it is quest? Does it have tangible value? Does it do something? No. A magic sword would have an impact on my play, and the main focus of the games I play is trying to get more powerful. Would I grind for 8 hours to get one? Probably not. Any game that required me to kill trash mobs for 8 hours to get something means it probably has no content worth doing, and replaced content with childish nonsense like achievements to please low brows who would rather watch a video of someone else grind trash mobs for eight hours to get a sword instead of play an actual game with actual content themselves like a sane person.
Still going?
Great retort. Well articulated with tons of great points. I see why you are such a fan of great content like achievements.
Exclusives: They reel you in put you in shackles and tell you you can only get this game from us. I support competition. However, I do not support being told who I can buy from.
While I agree with this, i've noticed that a lot of people only say this when a game is not on Steam, but they seem to be OK with exclusivity when the game is ONLY playable on Steam.
The hate on Epic Game Store exclusivity should also apply to exclusivity on Steam, BNET, UPLAY, etc.
If the game is not first party (IP owned by store/platform/publisher) or fully funded by them, then it shouldn't be exclusive to any store IMO.
"Achievements are for little kids... " *Spends 8hrs+ grinding for magic sword*
Every time I see these types of posts on MMORPG I understand a bit more how outside got the way it has. Sheesh.
What function does an achievement have? Is it is quest? Does it have tangible value? Does it do something? No. A magic sword would have an impact on my play, and the main focus of the games I play is trying to get more powerful. Would I grind for 8 hours to get one? Probably not. Any game that required me to kill trash mobs for 8 hours to get something means it probably has no content worth doing, and replaced content with childish nonsense like achievements to please low brows who would rather watch a video of someone else grind trash mobs for eight hours to get a sword instead of play an actual game with actual content themselves like a sane person.
Still going?
Great retort. Well articulated with tons of great points. I see why you are such a fan of great content like achievements.
Some games attach in game rewards to achievements, there is nothing wrong with achievements in themselves as often they are 'milestones' in terms of progress, however, when achievements are for meaningless things, or have a low bar to acquire, then they become pointless, which is when the bar is so low that everyone can get them with little effort required, they should be a sign of significant effort and not something everyone is able to acquire.
Exclusives: They reel you in put you in shackles and tell you you can only get this game from us. I support competition. However, I do not support being told who I can buy from.
While I agree with this, i've noticed that a lot of people only say this when a game is not on Steam, but they seem to be OK with exclusivity when the game is ONLY playable on Steam.
The hate on Epic Game Store exclusivity should also apply to exclusivity on Steam, BNET, UPLAY, etc.
If the game is not first party (IP owned by store/platform/publisher) or fully funded by them, then it shouldn't be exclusive to any store IMO.
Why? Why are you against people selling their games wherever they want? After all in every other field it is always up to the producer of the product and the owners of the stores to decide where a product is being sold. The customer has a choice to buy a product only from the venues the product is made available on and not from any store he likes. It is only natural that the seller would prefer stores that offer him the best conditions possible and would exclude stores that have little to offer him. A store's exclusivity is just a byproduct of a certain store offering the best conditions possible for a product. Steam exclusive products bank on the increasing-with-sales revenue split and the superior market popularity of the store. Epic exclusives depend on the innately better revenue split, the better visibility of the product on that store and the monetary guarantees that Epic is making. Of course it is possible to forego exclusivity and the advantages it offers on both platforms and go for costlier multiple store integrations in order to theoretically increase the visibility of your product on the multiple storefronts. Still it seems like a no-brainer that in the current market almost everybody is using almost every store available and the products are actually more important than the storefronts they are offered on so it is only natural to take the advantage of some kind of exclusivity agreement because exposure is not really that much of a problem anymore.
Exclusives: They reel you in put you in shackles and tell you you can only get this game from us. I support competition. However, I do not support being told who I can buy from.
While I agree with this, i've noticed that a lot of people only say this when a game is not on Steam, but they seem to be OK with exclusivity when the game is ONLY playable on Steam.
The hate on Epic Game Store exclusivity should also apply to exclusivity on Steam, BNET, UPLAY, etc.
If the game is not first party (IP owned by store/platform/publisher) or fully funded by them, then it shouldn't be exclusive to any store IMO.
Why? Why are you against people selling their games wherever they want? After all in every other field it is always up to the producer of the product and the owners of the stores to decide where a product is being sold. The customer has a choice to buy a product only from the venues the product is made available on and not from any store he likes. It is only natural that the seller would prefer stores that offer him the best conditions possible and would exclude stores that have little to offer him. A store's exclusivity is just a byproduct of a certain store offering the best conditions possible for a product. Steam exclusive products bank on the increasing-with-sales revenue split and the superior market popularity of the store. Epic exclusives depend on the innately better revenue split, the better visibility of the product on that store and the monetary guarantees that Epic is making. Of course it is possible to forego exclusivity and the advantages it offers on both platforms and go for costlier multiple store integrations in order to theoretically increase the visibility of your product on the multiple storefronts. Still it seems like a no-brainer that in the current market almost everybody is using almost every store available and the products are actually more important than the storefronts they are offered on so it is only natural to take the advantage of some kind of exclusivity agreement because exposure is not really that much of a problem anymore.
I'm not against people selling wherever they want. I'm saying people seem to be OK with Steam exclusivity but not with other store's exclusivity. Third party games are by nature multiplatform (pc, console, etc), making them exclusive to a single store on PC while the game is actually multiplatform is stupid.
"Achievements are for little kids... " *Spends 8hrs+ grinding for magic sword*
Every time I see these types of posts on MMORPG I understand a bit more how outside got the way it has. Sheesh.
What function does an achievement have? Is it is quest? Does it have tangible value? Does it do something? No. A magic sword would have an impact on my play, and the main focus of the games I play is trying to get more powerful. Would I grind for 8 hours to get one? Probably not. Any game that required me to kill trash mobs for 8 hours to get something means it probably has no content worth doing, and replaced content with childish nonsense like achievements to please low brows who would rather watch a video of someone else grind trash mobs for eight hours to get a sword instead of play an actual game with actual content themselves like a sane person.
Still going?
Great retort. Well articulated with tons of great points. I see why you are such a fan of great content like achievements.
The only thing left to do is call you names and insult your intelligence and meme your hypocrisy. I didn't want to do it.
You're the one who brought up "tangible value", and is insulting people for being completionists and going after achievements. Because high scores in video games was never a thing. I mean what idiots did that? AMIRITE?
And just because someone pointed out the silliness of the stance, that vast theoretical machine you use to think did the whole "YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!"
So yeah, just leave it be.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Exclusives: They reel you in put you in shackles and tell you you can only get this game from us. I support competition. However, I do not support being told who I can buy from.
While I agree with this, i've noticed that a lot of people only say this when a game is not on Steam, but they seem to be OK with exclusivity when the game is ONLY playable on Steam.
The hate on Epic Game Store exclusivity should also apply to exclusivity on Steam, BNET, UPLAY, etc.
If the game is not first party (IP owned by store/platform/publisher) or fully funded by them, then it shouldn't be exclusive to any store IMO.
Why? Why are you against people selling their games wherever they want? After all in every other field it is always up to the producer of the product and the owners of the stores to decide where a product is being sold. The customer has a choice to buy a product only from the venues the product is made available on and not from any store he likes. It is only natural that the seller would prefer stores that offer him the best conditions possible and would exclude stores that have little to offer him. A store's exclusivity is just a byproduct of a certain store offering the best conditions possible for a product. Steam exclusive products bank on the increasing-with-sales revenue split and the superior market popularity of the store. Epic exclusives depend on the innately better revenue split, the better visibility of the product on that store and the monetary guarantees that Epic is making. Of course it is possible to forego exclusivity and the advantages it offers on both platforms and go for costlier multiple store integrations in order to theoretically increase the visibility of your product on the multiple storefronts. Still it seems like a no-brainer that in the current market almost everybody is using almost every store available and the products are actually more important than the storefronts they are offered on so it is only natural to take the advantage of some kind of exclusivity agreement because exposure is not really that much of a problem anymore.
I'm not against people selling wherever they want. I'm saying people seem to be OK with Steam exclusivity but not with other store's exclusivity. Third party games are by nature multiplatform (pc, console, etc), making them exclusive to a single store on PC while the game is actually multiplatform is stupid.
Steam games aren't exclusive in any way. And certainly not in the way recent games are exclusive on the Epic store.
Steam is incredible for consumer use. Controller support (PS4, XBOX, even Switch) and now the upcoming Local to online multiplayer feature, to name a few. Just to name an example; I was seriously having a look at that new (exclusive) Rebel Galaxy game on the epic store. Everyone that played it said it really needed to be played with a controller. At that time, it only really supported XBOX controllers. Any other brand would mean I would have to start using controller emulation software again (which I loathe). If the game was on steam, I could plug in my PS4 dualshock or my Switch Pro controllers without even blinking. THAT is why Steam is considered a must when it comes to selling your game.
It would take Epic years to get their version of library software on par with Steam. I guess that's why they're doing things this way.
As it is right now, I'm not buying epic exclusive games. Games that I would have bought if they were on Steam. And by the time the exclusivity is over and they emerge on the Steam store, I will probably buy them for a lot cheaper than now.
But I do wonder: Does the extra cut developers get make up for sales they are missing from people that refuse to use the epic storefront? I doubt there are real numbers about that out there, but I wonder...
Exclusives are bad. Now if they had the game for $30 on epic and $40 on steam, sure -- one can pay for convenience if one wants to or go with the launcher the dev wants and save money, but one specific launcher or else isn't nice.
I would like to point out that developers aren’t allowed to price their games lower on other store fronts than the price they have put on their game on steam.
And they also have to have a similar doscount on their game within a reasonable time frame (whatever that means) from having discount on a different storefront.
Some here are talking about wanting price competition, though in reality its not that simple, when as a developer you have to conform to the rules which will keep your game price range at odda with any other storefront you might have it on.
Cab’t speak for other storefronts as I do not know the rules which apply to have your game on those.
But I do wonder: Does the extra cut developers get make up for sales they are missing from people that refuse to use the epic storefront? I doubt there are real numbers about that out there, but I wonder...
As you say no numbers since a game can't be only on Epic (or Steam) whilst being on both.
Its a choice the developers have to make though but the answer to your question may be "no" and they still opt to go with Epic.
The developers will have to consider: - selling what might be a "smaller number" of copies on Epic via the prospect of selling "more copies" on Steam. No guarantee of course but lets assume they will sell more on Steam atm - Steam's bigger cut - that higher sales on Steam may only result if the game has x% off in a Steam sale; which means that not only does the developer stand to get a lower % but also a lower base price as well.
And then its a simple how many copies x profit per copy "guesstimate". A guess because they can't "know" but they might try and run "sensitivity analysis" stuff to give them a warm feeling. (Consider different price points and sales numbers.)
Reasons for going with Epic: - higher profit per copy and they will have more confidence in selling a small number of copies.
Reasons for going with Steam: - they might - eventually - sell more copies and - eventually - might make more money.
Other factor: - any exclusivity with Epic will end which will give them the opportunity to get those extra - lower margin - sales later.
So question for you. Would you buy the game today at full price if it was released on Steam. If yes they have lost a "today" sale; if no then they will get the money from your sale at a later date and going with Epic is the best choice.
Exclusives: They reel you in put you in shackles and tell you you can only get this game from us. I support competition. However, I do not support being told who I can buy from.
While I agree with this, i've noticed that a lot of people only say this when a game is not on Steam, but they seem to be OK with exclusivity when the game is ONLY playable on Steam.
The hate on Epic Game Store exclusivity should also apply to exclusivity on Steam, BNET, UPLAY, etc.
If the game is not first party (IP owned by store/platform/publisher) or fully funded by them, then it shouldn't be exclusive to any store IMO.
Why? Why are you against people selling their games wherever they want? After all in every other field it is always up to the producer of the product and the owners of the stores to decide where a product is being sold. The customer has a choice to buy a product only from the venues the product is made available on and not from any store he likes. It is only natural that the seller would prefer stores that offer him the best conditions possible and would exclude stores that have little to offer him. A store's exclusivity is just a byproduct of a certain store offering the best conditions possible for a product. Steam exclusive products bank on the increasing-with-sales revenue split and the superior market popularity of the store. Epic exclusives depend on the innately better revenue split, the better visibility of the product on that store and the monetary guarantees that Epic is making. Of course it is possible to forego exclusivity and the advantages it offers on both platforms and go for costlier multiple store integrations in order to theoretically increase the visibility of your product on the multiple storefronts. Still it seems like a no-brainer that in the current market almost everybody is using almost every store available and the products are actually more important than the storefronts they are offered on so it is only natural to take the advantage of some kind of exclusivity agreement because exposure is not really that much of a problem anymore.
I'm not against people selling wherever they want. I'm saying people seem to be OK with Steam exclusivity but not with other store's exclusivity. Third party games are by nature multiplatform (pc, console, etc), making them exclusive to a single store on PC while the game is actually multiplatform is stupid.
I was referring to the last part of your previous post "If the game is not first party (IP owned by store/platform/publisher) or fully funded by them, then it shouldn't be exclusive to any store IMO." - Why? If the company producing the game is given sufficient motivation they should have the choice to go for a single store exclusivity without anyone caring. You are arguing that a game shouldn't be exclusive no matter what the store and I'm arguing that a game should be exclusive no matter what the store if that is the most beneficial thing to do. Also platform exclusivity is obviously a lot different than store exclusivity - hardware exclusivity requires a relatively high monetary investment in order to obtain the said platform while store exclusivity does not have such an investment and as such is much less limiting when it comes to playerbase.
Exclusives: They reel you in put you in shackles and tell you you can only get this game from us. I support competition. However, I do not support being told who I can buy from.
While I agree with this, i've noticed that a lot of people only say this when a game is not on Steam, but they seem to be OK with exclusivity when the game is ONLY playable on Steam.
The hate on Epic Game Store exclusivity should also apply to exclusivity on Steam, BNET, UPLAY, etc.
If the game is not first party (IP owned by store/platform/publisher) or fully funded by them, then it shouldn't be exclusive to any store IMO.
Why? Why are you against people selling their games wherever they want? After all in every other field it is always up to the producer of the product and the owners of the stores to decide where a product is being sold. The customer has a choice to buy a product only from the venues the product is made available on and not from any store he likes. It is only natural that the seller would prefer stores that offer him the best conditions possible and would exclude stores that have little to offer him. A store's exclusivity is just a byproduct of a certain store offering the best conditions possible for a product. Steam exclusive products bank on the increasing-with-sales revenue split and the superior market popularity of the store. Epic exclusives depend on the innately better revenue split, the better visibility of the product on that store and the monetary guarantees that Epic is making. Of course it is possible to forego exclusivity and the advantages it offers on both platforms and go for costlier multiple store integrations in order to theoretically increase the visibility of your product on the multiple storefronts. Still it seems like a no-brainer that in the current market almost everybody is using almost every store available and the products are actually more important than the storefronts they are offered on so it is only natural to take the advantage of some kind of exclusivity agreement because exposure is not really that much of a problem anymore.
I'm not against people selling wherever they want. I'm saying people seem to be OK with Steam exclusivity but not with other store's exclusivity. Third party games are by nature multiplatform (pc, console, etc), making them exclusive to a single store on PC while the game is actually multiplatform is stupid.
Steam games aren't exclusive in any way. And certainly not in the way recent games are exclusive on the Epic store.
Steam is incredible for consumer use. Controller support (PS4, XBOX, even Switch) and now the upcoming Local to online multiplayer feature, to name a few. Just to name an example; I was seriously having a look at that new (exclusive) Rebel Galaxy game on the epic store. Everyone that played it said it really needed to be played with a controller. At that time, it only really supported XBOX controllers. Any other brand would mean I would have to start using controller emulation software again (which I loathe). If the game was on steam, I could plug in my PS4 dualshock or my Switch Pro controllers without even blinking. THAT is why Steam is considered a must when it comes to selling your game.
It would take Epic years to get their version of library software on par with Steam. I guess that's why they're doing things this way.
As it is right now, I'm not buying epic exclusive games. Games that I would have bought if they were on Steam. And by the time the exclusivity is over and they emerge on the Steam store, I will probably buy them for a lot cheaper than now.
But I do wonder: Does the extra cut developers get make up for sales they are missing from people that refuse to use the epic storefront? I doubt there are real numbers about that out there, but I wonder...
Exclusivity is exclusivity no matter if it is enforced by a clause in a contract like it is with Epic or just secured by the benefits of such exclusivity in the conditions of said contract like it is with Steam. But that is not really why I am replying to you.
The mouse and keyboard controls for Rebel Galaxy Outlaw are actually a bit better now than in the initial release. Also the game is DRM-free on Epic so it is pretty easy to add it to your Steam library and use the Steam overlay to play with a controller of your choice. Basically you Add a non-steam game to the library, choose the RebelGalaxyEGS.exe in the Rebel Galaxy Outlaw install directory and then modify the shortcut and add -EpicPortal at the end of the target path.
Some games attach in game rewards to achievements, there is nothing wrong with achievements in themselves as often they are 'milestones' in terms of progress, however, when achievements are for meaningless things, or have a low bar to acquire, then they become pointless, which is when the bar is so low that everyone can get them with little effort required, they should be a sign of significant effort and not something everyone is able to acquire.
I can't disagree, but do you know what is a better milestone of progress? Having a character build well enough, and equipped with good enough gear, to clear and overcome actual scripted content like quests or a boss.
Achievements seem to be the poor mans alternative to actual content for games that do not have actual content. The biggest sin is this bleeding into real games for actual gamers as a replacement to actual content, or a way to make the games even more dumbed down, streamlined, and scaled so there is no challenges to overcome because the game is just easy filler nonsense, and the only way to judge your competency is by nonsense like achievements.
And this isn't even considering the fact that most achievements just track repetitive grind filler nonsense and not anything someone can be proud of or actually count as an achievement or a challenge overcome.
Exclusives: They reel you in put you in shackles and tell you you can only get this game from us. I support competition. However, I do not support being told who I can buy from.
While I agree with this, i've noticed that a lot of people only say this when a game is not on Steam, but they seem to be OK with exclusivity when the game is ONLY playable on Steam.
The hate on Epic Game Store exclusivity should also apply to exclusivity on Steam, BNET, UPLAY, etc.
If the game is not first party (IP owned by store/platform/publisher) or fully funded by them, then it shouldn't be exclusive to any store IMO.
No one complains about this in any other market. No one complained that The Boys is only on Prime, GoT was only on HBO, Star Trek is only on CBS all access, Stranger Things is only on Netflix, etc. They only complain when a game is not on Steam and that game isn't a Bioware, Blizzard, et al, game.
Without a consistent narrative this argument is truly nonsensicle. As best as I can tell it relies on the begging the question fallacy, where you assume their conclusion (exlcusives) is bad and only Epic is doing it. You have to ignore the millions of other instances where it isn;t bad or does not completely fill them with butthurt, or when they financially support it.
So if the real issue isn't some games not being on Steam for only one year, what is the real issue? Most likely it is they like steam and only want steam and do not want any companies to compete with steam and grow their market in the only viable way.
The only thing left to do is call you names and insult your intelligence and meme your hypocrisy. I didn't want to do it.
You're the one who brought up "tangible value", and is insulting people for being completionists and going after achievements. Because high scores in video games was never a thing. I mean what idiots did that? AMIRITE?
And just because someone pointed out the silliness of the stance, that vast theoretical machine you use to think did the whole "YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!"
So yeah, just leave it be.
See, making
points and presenting an actual argument helps further a discussion. Good
job! I'm proud of you!
Games used to have high scores when they had
no content. Then they evolved into actual games with content to do and
the goal of getting a high score was replaced by beating the game.
Gmaes have now devolved into removing content
and pandering to lowbrows that don't like thinking or trying.
If even 25% of the achievements tracked an
activity of note, or something you could be proud you achieved, I could not
only see but agree with your point. I'd say 95% of achievements are feel
good gimmes, or just track repetitive activities and grinding. That 100%
goes against achieving anything, and is completely opposite than something like
a high score in Pacman.
Beating a game on the highest difficulty in
ironman could be worthy of an achievement, getting 2700 rating in the 2v2 arena
certainly would be, but think of 95% of the Achaemenes you get - now thing
about the reason those achievements are added to a game and the audience they
are aimed at and created for - and then tell me am I wrong. And ig you
still think I am wrong we have completely disparate ideas of what the reason of
video games are, and what the goal of a video game is, and what kind of content
we want in our respective games.
Exclusives are bad. Now if they had the game for $30 on epic and $40 on steam, sure -- one can pay for convenience if one wants to or go with the launcher the dev wants and save money, but one specific launcher or else isn't nice.
I would like to point out that developers aren’t allowed to price their games lower on other store fronts than the price they have put on their game on steam.
And they also have to have a similar doscount on their game within a reasonable time frame (whatever that means) from having discount on a different storefront.
Some here are talking about wanting price competition, though in reality its not that simple, when as a developer you have to conform to the rules which will keep your game price range at odda with any other storefront you might have it on.
Cab’t speak for other storefronts as I do not know the rules which apply to have your game on those.
If this is the case then rather than calling the games epic exclusive -- they could float on this rule -- Developer X is willing to put their popular game for $40 on steam so long as they can keep it at $30 on epic. Somehow I don't think steam will say ... no ... we'd rather not have it. If they disallow it then they can instead say ... well steam didn't want the game.
And I would like to see where it explicitly says it is against the rules -- I did a bunch of googling and while some people say this others say it isn't. I didn't manage to find anything other that one line where it encourages people to not give a worse deal on steam than other places, but that isn't a rule.
Exclusives are bad. Now if they had the game for $30 on epic and $40 on steam, sure -- one can pay for convenience if one wants to or go with the launcher the dev wants and save money, but one specific launcher or else isn't nice.
I would like to point out that developers aren’t allowed to price their games lower on other store fronts than the price they have put on their game on steam.
And they also have to have a similar doscount on their game within a reasonable time frame (whatever that means) from having discount on a different storefront.
Some here are talking about wanting price competition, though in reality its not that simple, when as a developer you have to conform to the rules which will keep your game price range at odda with any other storefront you might have it on.
Cab’t speak for other storefronts as I do not know the rules which apply to have your game on those.
If this is the case then rather than calling the games epic exclusive -- they could float on this rule -- Developer X is willing to put their popular game for $40 on steam so long as they can keep it at $30 on epic. Somehow I don't think steam will say ... no ... we'd rather not have it. If they disallow it then they can instead say ... well steam didn't want the game.
And I would like to see where it explicitly says it is against the rules -- I did a bunch of googling and while some people say this others say it isn't. I didn't manage to find anything other that one line where it encourages people to not give a worse deal on steam than other places, but that isn't a rule.
Unsure if its actually part of the public to see said rules and guidelines but - otherwise go have a look at the steamworks.
It does explicitly say that its important that you don't give steam customers a worse deal. I would screenshot it, but its in danish >_>
Also to add to this, its under steam keys - so whether or not its explicitly for steam keys and steam keys only idk - It's relatively vague on that
The reason why the Epic Store has me using it is because they give away free games. I am using it in spite of the fact that I strongly dislike exclusivity deals and generally think they are overall bad for consumers (not to mention that in the long run, I think companies that partner up this way likely lose potential customers in the long run).
For those arguing that they NEED exclusivity deals to be competitive, I disagree with position. I think that Steam got huge for a few reasons. In my case, seeing all of the great deals and holiday specials drew me in from the start. Another thing I liked was the review system. Even though the review system is abused at times, it really does help me decide on what I want to purchase.
In my specific case with the Epic Store, the free games/discounted games drew me in as well. It's a good start to draw people in.
People are making this about Epic vs Steam. But when Epic buys up exclusivity rights to a game, it doesn't just hurt the sales on Steam. No other competition gets to have it on their store front either. My hope is that some kind of exclusivity war doesn't start up where Steam feels like they need to protect their interests and Epic feels they have to protect theirs, thus making it far more difficult for any competition besides these two mega stores.
But I do wonder: Does the extra cut developers get make up for sales they are missing from people that refuse to use the epic storefront? I doubt there are real numbers about that out there, but I wonder...
I thought Epic pays money out of their own pocket for exclusive. Else I dont' see why developers would make exclusive for the extra small cut.
Comments
*Spends 8hrs+ grinding for magic sword*
Every time I see these types of posts on MMORPG I understand a bit more how outside got the way it has. Sheesh.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A store's exclusivity is just a byproduct of a certain store offering the best conditions possible for a product. Steam exclusive products bank on the increasing-with-sales revenue split and the superior market popularity of the store. Epic exclusives depend on the innately better revenue split, the better visibility of the product on that store and the monetary guarantees that Epic is making. Of course it is possible to forego exclusivity and the advantages it offers on both platforms and go for costlier multiple store integrations in order to theoretically increase the visibility of your product on the multiple storefronts. Still it seems like a no-brainer that in the current market almost everybody is using almost every store available and the products are actually more important than the storefronts they are offered on so it is only natural to take the advantage of some kind of exclusivity agreement because exposure is not really that much of a problem anymore.
You're the one who brought up "tangible value", and is insulting people for being completionists and going after achievements. Because high scores in video games was never a thing. I mean what idiots did that? AMIRITE?
And just because someone pointed out the silliness of the stance, that vast theoretical machine you use to think did the whole "YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!"
So yeah, just leave it be.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Steam is incredible for consumer use. Controller support (PS4, XBOX, even Switch) and now the upcoming Local to online multiplayer feature, to name a few. Just to name an example; I was seriously having a look at that new (exclusive) Rebel Galaxy game on the epic store. Everyone that played it said it really needed to be played with a controller. At that time, it only really supported XBOX controllers. Any other brand would mean I would have to start using controller emulation software again (which I loathe). If the game was on steam, I could plug in my PS4 dualshock or my Switch Pro controllers without even blinking. THAT is why Steam is considered a must when it comes to selling your game.
It would take Epic years to get their version of library software on par with Steam. I guess that's why they're doing things this way.
As it is right now, I'm not buying epic exclusive games. Games that I would have bought if they were on Steam. And by the time the exclusivity is over and they emerge on the Steam store, I will probably buy them for a lot cheaper than now.
But I do wonder: Does the extra cut developers get make up for sales they are missing from people that refuse to use the epic storefront? I doubt there are real numbers about that out there, but I wonder...
And they also have to have a similar doscount on their game within a reasonable time frame (whatever that means) from having discount on a different storefront.
Some here are talking about wanting price competition, though in reality its not that simple, when as a developer you have to conform to the rules which will keep your game price range at odda with any other storefront you might have it on.
Cab’t speak for other storefronts as I do not know the rules which apply to have your game on those.
Its a choice the developers have to make though but the answer to your question may be "no" and they still opt to go with Epic.
The developers will have to consider:
- selling what might be a "smaller number" of copies on Epic via the prospect of selling "more copies" on Steam. No guarantee of course but lets assume they will sell more on Steam atm
- Steam's bigger cut
- that higher sales on Steam may only result if the game has x% off in a Steam sale; which means that not only does the developer stand to get a lower % but also a lower base price as well.
And then its a simple how many copies x profit per copy "guesstimate". A guess because they can't "know" but they might try and run "sensitivity analysis" stuff to give them a warm feeling. (Consider different price points and sales numbers.)
Reasons for going with Epic:
- higher profit per copy and they will have more confidence in selling a small number of copies.
Reasons for going with Steam:
- they might - eventually - sell more copies and - eventually - might make more money.
Other factor:
- any exclusivity with Epic will end which will give them the opportunity to get those extra - lower margin - sales later.
So question for you. Would you buy the game today at full price if it was released on Steam. If yes they have lost a "today" sale; if no then they will get the money from your sale at a later date and going with Epic is the best choice.
Store exclusivity is not the same as platform exclusivity.
This is all quite petty.
First world problems.. sheesh.
The mouse and keyboard controls for Rebel Galaxy Outlaw are actually a bit better now than in the initial release. Also the game is DRM-free on Epic so it is pretty easy to add it to your Steam library and use the Steam overlay to play with a controller of your choice. Basically you Add a non-steam game to the library, choose the RebelGalaxyEGS.exe in the Rebel Galaxy Outlaw install directory and then modify the shortcut and add -EpicPortal at the end of the target path.
Achievements seem to be the poor mans alternative to actual content for games that do not have actual content. The biggest sin is this bleeding into real games for actual gamers as a replacement to actual content, or a way to make the games even more dumbed down, streamlined, and scaled so there is no challenges to overcome because the game is just easy filler nonsense, and the only way to judge your competency is by nonsense like achievements.
And this isn't even considering the fact that most achievements just track repetitive grind filler nonsense and not anything someone can be proud of or actually count as an achievement or a challenge overcome.
No one complains about this in any other market. No one complained that The Boys is only on Prime, GoT was only on HBO, Star Trek is only on CBS all access, Stranger Things is only on Netflix, etc. They only complain when a game is not on Steam and that game isn't a Bioware, Blizzard, et al, game.
Without a consistent narrative this argument is truly nonsensicle. As best as I can tell it relies on the begging the question fallacy, where you assume their conclusion (exlcusives) is bad and only Epic is doing it. You have to ignore the millions of other instances where it isn;t bad or does not completely fill them with butthurt, or when they financially support it.
So if the real issue isn't some games not being on Steam for only one year, what is the real issue? Most likely it is they like steam and only want steam and do not want any companies to compete with steam and grow their market in the only viable way.
See, making points and presenting an actual argument helps further a discussion. Good job! I'm proud of you!
Games used to have high scores when they had no content. Then they evolved into actual games with content to do and the goal of getting a high score was replaced by beating the game.
Gmaes have now devolved into removing content and pandering to lowbrows that don't like thinking or trying.
If even 25% of the achievements tracked an activity of note, or something you could be proud you achieved, I could not only see but agree with your point. I'd say 95% of achievements are feel good gimmes, or just track repetitive activities and grinding. That 100% goes against achieving anything, and is completely opposite than something like a high score in Pacman.
Beating a game on the highest difficulty in ironman could be worthy of an achievement, getting 2700 rating in the 2v2 arena certainly would be, but think of 95% of the Achaemenes you get - now thing about the reason those achievements are added to a game and the audience they are aimed at and created for - and then tell me am I wrong. And ig you still think I am wrong we have completely disparate ideas of what the reason of video games are, and what the goal of a video game is, and what kind of content we want in our respective games.
If this is the case then rather than calling the games epic exclusive -- they could float on this rule -- Developer X is willing to put their popular game for $40 on steam so long as they can keep it at $30 on epic. Somehow I don't think steam will say ... no ... we'd rather not have it. If they disallow it then they can instead say ... well steam didn't want the game.
And I would like to see where it explicitly says it is against the rules -- I did a bunch of googling and while some people say this others say it isn't. I didn't manage to find anything other that one line where it encourages people to not give a worse deal on steam than other places, but that isn't a rule.
It does explicitly say that its important that you don't give steam customers a worse deal.
I would screenshot it, but its in danish >_>
Also to add to this, its under steam keys - so whether or not its explicitly for steam keys and steam keys only idk - It's relatively vague on that
For those arguing that they NEED exclusivity deals to be competitive, I disagree with position. I think that Steam got huge for a few reasons. In my case, seeing all of the great deals and holiday specials drew me in from the start. Another thing I liked was the review system. Even though the review system is abused at times, it really does help me decide on what I want to purchase.
In my specific case with the Epic Store, the free games/discounted games drew me in as well. It's a good start to draw people in.
People are making this about Epic vs Steam. But when Epic buys up exclusivity rights to a game, it doesn't just hurt the sales on Steam. No other competition gets to have it on their store front either. My hope is that some kind of exclusivity war doesn't start up where Steam feels like they need to protect their interests and Epic feels they have to protect theirs, thus making it far more difficult for any competition besides these two mega stores.