Support NeoGAF

[Mister Wolf]

That's a smart move.

 

[AGRacing]

No their not lmao. I'm not gonna do your homework but look at the numbers, they are bad, like REALLY REALLY bad. And you didn't addressed my point.
I have no issue with Ubi, Microsoft Store or Blizzard. Guess the difference with Epic.

They aren't a threat with a fortnite user base and 6 months exclusivity on games ? Wake up.
I read and understand why you hate them. That doesn't change that Valve is operating in a vacuum.

 

[Kataploom]

This so much. I would like valve to do the same. Fund more and more aaa games in the current climate where its more risky than ever.

Problem with valve is that they give their employees freedom to work on whatever they want instead of forcing them, there was a point where they saw some protect I think it was Steam itself, needing some stuff and they had to revoke that policy, IDK if that was it actually but kinda at least. So if devs inside valve don't want to work on a project it probably won't be done, that's my vague understanding.

 

[Fabieter]

Problem with valve is that they give their employees freedom to work on whatever they want instead of forcing them, there was a point where they saw some protect I think it was Steam itself, needing some stuff and they had to revoke that policy, IDK if that was it actually but kinda at least. So if devs inside valve don't want to work on a project it probably won't be done, that's my vague understanding.

I know that but it would be awesome if valve would go to an indie dev and said here is 100m build a game with us. Just do it like epic with Alan wake 2.

 

[K2D]

You'll still be paying out the front and rear end for unreal engine 5!

 

[Kataploom]

I know that but it would be awesome if valve would go to an indie dev and said here is 100m build a game with us. Just do it like epic with Alan wake 2.

They don't need it, but yeah instead of Indies they should at least find some projects like AW2 from reputable devs looking for funds. They at least let indie devs use their brands to release mods, remakes etc. So definitely not against games being done or whatever

 

[Fabieter]

They don't need it, but yeah instead of Indies they should at least find some projects like AW2 from reputable devs looking for funds. They at least let indie devs use their brands to release mods, remakes etc. So definitely not against games being done or whatever

Ofc they don't need it if they would need more games they would do more 100%, but I prefer games over features any day of the week. Imagine valve help making a new soul reaver or something. Bring back stuff, help make something new. I know it's more risky but they make so much money they can do some games.

 

[Bojanglez]

I understand that people like to buy their games on Steam, but this is a positive move for developers, giving them an options and creating competition. I know Epic is not being completely altruistic by doing this, but generally speaking healthy competition should be good for devs and gamers.

 

[wipeout364]

I honestly don’t get the hate for the epic launcher. I use steam all the time but someday someone is going to buy Valve and some competition may be a good thing. Not sure why people want Steam to have a monopoly.

 

[onnextflix5]

No thanks.
Already annoyed at them for making Alan Wake remastered exclusive.

Erm they funded the whole project,
They have every right to make it exclusive.

 

[Gamezone]

Probably won't help that much. EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft, Valve, Rockstar and Activision all have their own launchers with 100% revenue by their own rules, yet they all release their games on Steam. This might help out a few indie developers.

 

[Gamezone]

I honestly don’t get the hate for the epic launcher. I use steam all the time but someday someone is going to buy Valve and some competition may be a good thing. Not sure why people want Steam to have a monopoly.

Steam isn't, and has never been a monopoly. It's the best launcher with most features. Can't blame people for wanting the best. Epic should improve their launcher instead of going for more exclusivity.

 

[Red5]

I understand that people like to buy their games on Steam, but this is a positive move for developers, giving them an options and creating competition. I know Epic is not being completely altruistic by doing this, but generally speaking healthy competition should be good for devs and gamers.

What does this competition benefit me? Games on EGS cost just as much as they do on Steam or any other platform.

 

[Holammer]

Imagine if Valve stopped acting like a hippie collective and went bare-knuckles on EGS, behaving like the rest of the industry?
Sweeney would be crying about it on Twitter:

 

[Fuz]

I have no issue with Ubi, Microsoft Store or Blizzard.

You should, though.

 

[Mr Moose]

That's pretty good, as long as they sell well enough.

 

[KyoZz]

You should, though.

I mean of course I do, but none of the issue I have concern the exclusivity on those platform.

 

[FalconPunch]

Someone should file a lawsuit allowing valve to run steam inside the epic store. This would solve all exclusivity problems..../s

 

[brian0057]

This is amazing.
Epic is literally giving money away and everyone is still going to Steam.
Talk about desperate moves.

 

[Shadowstar39]

I wish they would put as much effort into making EGS a great place for consumers to go to. It's great for devs I'm sure but it means nothing to me as a consumer.

They don't like gamers, its all about devs and pubs and resetera types who hate steam due to uncensored reviews and chat. Its why there is no mod tools, no discussions, no user reviews. Its catered to mainstream not individuals. They Steam is the exact opposite. I may no like that valve has ditched game development, but they made steam and their steam hardware top notch for user options.

Every steam game has dedicated forums, user reviews, chat, guides, community art, modding workshops, etc... It feels like a community based platform and open. EGS is the opposite. It's like microsoft windows store only with a few free games.

If devs want to go where the most gamers are, they have to take a small cut to steam, oh well. EGS is annoying. I also don't respect them fools for killing Unreal tornament when it was started due to fortnite. They started the whole gas bs trend.

 

[Shadowstar39]

I like steam but I never had a problem buying from other stores. In fact I would rather have old valve back so I can have more games from them and less features. They are doing great to make the platform better but imo they lost the focus whats the most important thing --> games.

I'd agree with you , but there is one problem there. Valve doesn't want to create games that I like so I don't care. They gave up on single player FPS games ie Half-life (unless its in vr), in favor of multiplayer esport stuff. Why, minimal work and greed. Its way easier for them to keep supporting TF2 and counter strike with 1000s of hats for minimal effort, over actually making a good sequel. I still hold hope though. If Larian could make an amazing sequel to a 20+ year old Baldur's gate, then Valve can make Half-life fing 3!!

 

[Kataploom]

Ofc they don't need it if they would need more games they would do more 100%, but I prefer games over features any day of the week. Imagine valve help making a new soul reaver or something. Bring back stuff, help make something new. I know it's more risky but they make so much money they can do some games.

I'd rather get both but if Valve doesn't improve the storefront to the point it's unreachable to any new competitor, nobody will so something has te be given.

Hope they can balance out tho, they seemed too focused on VR which flopped hard, if they focused on Source ala Epic it would be amazing since not only UE would have a competitor on AAA space (Unity is amazing and capable enough but most AAA devs are used to UE) but also they'd have a reason to make more games.

 

[Bojanglez]

What does this competition benefit me? Games on EGS cost just as much as they do on Steam or any other platform.

Didn't steam change their 30% because of competition from rivals? So even if the RRP remains the same, more money goes into dev studios pockets rather than the storefront and this can either go back into development investment for future titles or may help mitigate the need to increase the RRP.

 

[StereoVsn]

This could be money saving endeavor. Basically instead of paying devs upfront Epic is trying to lure them with full revenue.

Since 3rd party sales are shit anyways on Epic store (in general), it's a much better deal for Epic to offer full revenue vs up front payment.

 

[Fabieter]

I'd rather get both but if Valve doesn't improve the storefront to the point it's unreachable to any new competitor, nobody will so something has te be given.

Hope they can balance out tho, they seemed too focused on VR which flopped hard, if they focused on Source ala Epic it would be amazing since not only UE would have a competitor on AAA space (Unity is amazing and capable enough but most AAA devs are used to UE) but also they'd have a reason to make more games.

Well I would take both as well but seemingly they are unable to do both.

It's pretty hard work to keep up an engine like epic is doing. This is nothing short of amazing.

Well maybe one day valve will get a structure that's allows them to be effective again and maybe they going to be a publisher to help devs make their dream game.

 

[Pejo]

Usually I have rational reasons why I dislike something, and I'm sure I could find them in this situation too if I read through everything, but let me just let it suffice at "fuck you Tim Sweeney and your incessant hypocritical whining, and introducing this kind of bullshit exclusivity to the PC market". God damn I don't even dislike Fortnite or its players but I can't wait for it to decline so this fucker loses one major arm of his revenue to prevent him from being able to do this kind of horseshit. Unreal engine would keep them afloat just on its revenue, but he wouldn't have "let's piss everybody off" kind of money with just that.

Any developer that takes this deal is permanently on my blacklist. I'm watching you, Square-Enix.

 

[ArtHands]

From the publisher perspective this is a worse deal than getting a bag of cash upfront for exclusivity. Seems Epic has run out of cash for exclusivity deals so they are trading for full 100% revenue instead

 

[VolticArchangel]

It's kind of funny that they think they're that important to the PC ecosystem to have these clauses in place.

They might lure in some uninformed Indies about how big the Steam presence is, but not the most of them. Indies thrive on upfront sales (first 2 months), whereas big 3rd parties can sustain longer legs.

They gauge user interest via pre-orders/wishlists on Steam and have their agents contact the publisher directly to strike deals.

So, say for example, you're a big 3rd party, and you're releasing FFXVI on EGS after the PS exclusivity period, you're gonna make the bulk of the sales on EGS upfront and some later on Steam (case in point FFVIIR-I). The average FF sales numbers on PC, or well reviewed console JRPG's in general, are around ~1 million+ mark.

If I'm Square, I'd negotiate for you (Epic) to buy 2 million copies of my game upfront, and on top of that get this program for full revenue on EGS, for a 6 month exclusivity window. The tradeoff is you getting exclusivity (timed) for the flagship JRPG face in videogames on your platform which brings you PR, while I get shafted by the customers who were waiting to buy my game on Steam, with negative reception and possibly hurt my future business prospects with those customers in the process.

Indies unfortunately don't have this kind of negotiating power from brand value, because their IP is new, but they can still pull off deals based off wishlist numbers.

Also, if you're sure about your game scoring somewhere in the mid-70's meta (hunch, gauging by player interest + influencer opinions + critic previews and roundups + general vibe online leading upto release) , and you get an offer from Epic that shoots above your wishlist numbers, take the fucking deal, eyes closed. It's a win-win situation, big pub or Indies.

 

[FoxMcChief]

Smart. I hope it works out.

 

[Mr.ODST]

This screams desperation, I doubt many people are using it as their main storefront when you have Steam

 

[SmokedMeat]

100% of no sales to die on EGS. Talk about desperation.

 

[STARSBarry]

The thing is with modern games having 6 months exclusivity before it hits steam is often a good thing.

Games release broken or lacking content, while when they eventually come to steam a year later, often at a discount with features finished and additional content.

It's still not going to make me use epic though.

 

[Holammer]

Didn't steam change their 30% because of competition from rivals? So even if the RRP remains the same, more money goes into dev studios pockets rather than the storefront and this can either go back into development investment for future titles or may help mitigate the need to increase the RRP.

There is a tiered revenue split, when a game earns above 10M it drops to 25% and 20% if it earns more than 50M.
Steam also allow devs/publishers to issue Steam keys for free. So they did the free shtick before it was cool.

 

[FearlessBelgian]

Fuck you epic.

 

[Fuz]

Any developer that takes this deal is permanently on my blacklist. I'm watching you, Square-Enix.

Uh, they already did.

 

[SmokedMeat]

What does this competition benefit me? Games on EGS cost just as much as they do on Steam or any other platform.

Epic offers nothing in the way of features, and haven’t bothered to innovate with their store.
On top of that those developers people care so much for pocket that extra percentage instead of passing any savings along.

 

[Wastelander92]

100% of 0 is still 0

 

[ArtHands]

They had to do something I guess. Even with their publisher tools going public publishers didn't give a shit about their store.

They are turning into a cesspool with AI games, crypto games etc






Now the man’s even making excuse for why asset flips is on EGS

 

[JimboJones]

Didn't steam change their 30% because of competition from rivals? So even if the RRP remains the same, more money goes into dev studios pockets rather than the storefront and this can either go back into development investment for future titles or may help mitigate the need to increase the RRP.

I remember this line of thinking was popular when EGS was starting out, more money for dev = possibility of savings passed onto consumers. But then you get Square Enix, makes an exclusivity deal for FF7 Remake and charged £70.

It just rubs me the wrong way when this revenue split stuff is reported as benefiting the average consumer, or making it seem like we should care, the only thing I care about is a launcher with decent features, gets out of my way and good prices. I do not give a shit about how developers finance their games.
The EGS isn't terrible but it would be nice if they should announce some things that actually matter to the average PC user, they have been way to focused on the developer / publisher side of things, the store is still extremely bare bones and missing basic features.

 

[bender]

Best deal in gaming.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Meanwhile you can get 100% of the revenue in Itch.io, forever, no exclusivity required.

 

[BWJinxing]

I honestly don’t get the hate for the epic launcher. I use steam all the time but someday someone is going to buy Valve and some competition may be a good thing. Not sure why people want Steam to have a monopoly.

At the end of the day, Steam is a superior product.

Valve is a private company and has no reason to sale.

Epic has all that forgiven investment and has a shit launcher. They aren't trying to compete through a better platform.

If you got an issue with a game, you'll do a Google search, chances are a steam forum result shows up.

You got some stupid collectable item, I made money to buy a AAA game on steam selling the most worthless of shite.

The steam workshop has a great mod community, who mods will be up till the end of time. Mod sites came and went, but valve got the cash to support these games.

Epic Games Store, is utter garbage. They haven't proved they want to build a gaming community. They have been around YEARS. EGS is not some upstart launcher.

If a game honestly came out, at the same price, on epic or steam, are you honestly going to get the epic version?

I have only purchased 1 game on EGS at great discount. Every EGS game I otherwise own is a promo giveaway.

Epic is literally trying to be the monopoly but you get shit value in return

 

[UniformDeliverance]

Exclusives sell platforms. Why do people get a PlayStation? For the exclusives.

Why will people subscribe to gamepass this month? For starfield.

Epic is doing the one thing necessary to increase adoption into their platform, incentivizing exclusives. If a game like.. Silksong for example went exclusive to Epic, I bet, man I bet so hard that people would flock to the platform to play that game. Not all of ya, some real steam ride or die folks here, but that fanbase will by in large go to where ever they need to go to play that game.

This is a smart play. They just need some heavy hitting games to take the bait.

 

[Dream-Knife]

Any game that does that is an automatic buy for under $20 in a few years during the Steam summer or winter fests.

 

[DGrayson]

Did they ever implement those promised features in their launcher? I wouldn't know I never even downloaded free stuff from them.

 

[crackajack]

Just imagine Epic would have used that Fortnite money to become just some big publisher and financed a ton of new games instead of trying to fight head on an established platform. Not even older publishers trying their luck with stores were able to get much traction. Valve not doing much development or publishing at all, should be the non competitive platform of dreams for anyone, having an overlord that is not interfering with any of your own efforts.
But as with Netflix and Spotify disrupting those markets, all the acquisitions and market share fighting in gaming may have some unwanted consequences down the road.

 

[X-Wing]

I don't get the hate for Epic. I enjoy the store quite a bit and have gotten many great games for free thanks to them.
It's just an extra store, not an extra platform.

 

[MMaRsu]

I don't get the hate for Epic. I enjoy the store quite a bit and have gotten many great games for free thanks to them.
It's just an extra store, not an extra platform.

Stay ignorant boss

 

[Astray]

On top of that, participants can’t sell their titles on other platforms like Steam or Microsoft Store during the six-month exclusivity period.

Yeah this basically says that they can't have PC Gamepass deals either.

This initiative has a lot of obstacles in its way from the get-go.

 

[Topher]

I don't hate Epic. I've had a steam account since it was forced on me when I bought Half Life 2 at launch. This was very controversial at the time... and it is the foundation on which the entire steam platform has been built. You can go back and see this quite easily.

Epic has also "forced" their platform on Fortnite players in the exact same way.... but to their credit they have continuously offer free games (some of them quite well liked and high quality ) to grow a library on the platform.

If a developer takes this deal and you dont like it... your problem is with the developer.

Nah....the problem is with both sides of any exclusivity deal, imo. But there really is no comparing Epic and Valve when it comes to this stuff. If we gotta go all the way back to a Valve made Half-life 2 to find cause to throw shade at Valve then we are really desperate for examples.