Would love to see their PCCU and MAU once they stop doing giveaways, timed exclusives and $10 coupons.

HoSpanky wrote on Jun 21, 2020, 14:50:
I hope bigger publishers are watching this list, seeing the Index consistently on it. Maybe we'll get some good high-end games on Steam, instead of Facebook buying them all up. Happy to see the new Star Wars game is fully VR capable. Honestly, if your game takes place 99% in a cockpit, it should have VR support. It's the easiest VR conversion possible.

Steam's best-seller charts are based on revenue, not units sold, so it makes sense that the Index would be at the top given that it costs $1000. It's not really indicative of the potential market size for VR-only games.

I wouldn't call it trial and error. These games give you all the information you need. You just need to be patient and observant. These are basically stealth games except you're given way more information than most stealth games offer.

Hah, this is laughable. The entire point of spending millions on giveaways is to take sales from your competitors. Same as timed exclusivity. I'd love to see the data showing giveaways actually increasing sales of the same games on competing platforms.

I wonder when Epic expects EGS to start making money. With all the giveaways, timed exclusives, $10 coupons and reduced cut, they've most definitely not made any profit since launch.

Mr. Tact wrote on Apr 20, 2020, 22:24:
I suspect it is the curmudgeon in me... but I don't get it. Why did anyone think this was a good idea? What am I gaining by playing games off cloud servers? I guess if I traveled a lot it might be okay. But overall the cons seem to out weigh the pros so heavily...

Streaming makes sense for people who don't want to invest in hardware. These people don't care that much about image quality, performance or input lag so the technical downsides of streaming are less relevant to them.

MxxCon wrote on Apr 20, 2020, 22:15:
Fucking greedy publishers.
How is this different from me running my games on a different computer at somebody else's house?!

The difference is that Nvidia makes money from this service and pubs/devs all want a cut, even if they haven't done anything to earn it.

Given Kalypso's track record, I'm a bit skeptical about this. However, the genre can use any support it can get so I'm hoping for the best.

Retired wrote on Apr 2, 2020, 14:48:
I thought I was going to be all in on FO76, but I didn't buy it. After reading a bunch, watching videos, streamers, etc.....I don't feel like I missed anything.

Can someone who is playing and enjoying give some info as to if and why I should jump in?

Thanks.

/edit: Thanks Horrorscope.

Did you enjoy FO4's core gameplay loop? Are you content with exploring, killing, scavenging and crafting? Is interesting lore enough story for you? If so, you'll probably like FO76.

However, if you're looking for a single-player RPG, FO76 is not that. It's a multiplayer game, along with all the restrictions on player agency that come with it.

Beamer wrote on Mar 30, 2020, 07:51:
Epic is curated as a bug. They don't have the ability to add everything, only what they think will sell. That's a nice side effect that will go away. Discoverability still sucks, and one is always better off researching off storefronts than on it.

Nah, it's not even about what's going to sell. Look at their actual selection. Did they really think Omen of Sorrow was going to sell well? Rune II? Bee Simulator? Any of the random, obscure indie games that they've given away for free?

Again, getting on EGS comes down to three things:
1) Timed exclusivity.
2) Giveaways.
3) Highly-anticipated games.

If you aren't doing one of those, you aren't getting on EGS.

Slick wrote on Mar 26, 2020, 19:57:
It's kind of nice to have an actual curated list of high-quality content, as opposed to the Alibaba Warehouse that is Steam.

Ah, yes, high quality content like Omen of Sorrow (64 MC), Sinking City (71 MC), Bee Simulator (58 MC), Mechwarrior 5 (74 MC), Shenmue III (69 MC) and Rune II (47 MC)...

EGS' selection has nothing to do with curation. If you want to get onto EGS, you need to do one of three things:

1) Accept a timed exclusivity deal.
2) Allow your game to be one of the weekly giveaways.
3) Be a highly-anticipated, high-profile AAA game like Cyberpunk or Death Stranding.

Slick wrote on Mar 26, 2020, 19:57:
I like how it's assumed that given the choice, game developers wouldn't want their game on a store that takes 12% instead of 30%. Weather it's exclusive to that store or not, shouldn't they want their games be available to the world and not have to throw stacks of paper at Valve for the privilege?

Not a single publisher or developer has chosen to be EGS-exclusive because of the 88% cut. Those deals are entirely the result of Epic giving them significant lump sum payments. That's why every single EGS exclusive ends up on Steam and other platforms within a year. The larger cut doesn't mean shit when you're selling significantly fewer units.

As you said, publishers and developers should want their games to be as broadly available as possible. That means not being exclusive to EGS.

Slick wrote on Mar 26, 2020, 19:57:
A game which doesn't use Steamworks or SteamVR doesn't need to be on Steam.

A game that doesn't use Steam APIs doesn't need to be exclusive to Steam. Games should be available on as many distribution platforms as possible. Steam, GOG, EGS, Uplay, Origin, Game Pass, Itch.io, etc. However, exclusivity deals (like the ones Epic does) prevent that from happening.

eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 26, 2020, 11:31:
Betting it will include restrictions on which platform you can release

No doubt all of these games will be permanent EGS exclusives on PC but also available on consoles despite their tyrannical 30% store "tax."

I'm guessing Epic realized that timed exclusives aren't really working out because people just wait until they're on Steam.

Slick wrote on Mar 23, 2020, 00:27:
I'm thinking all guns, infinite ammo, no hud, use monitor's crosshair and I'll be set.

Might as well turn on god mode while you're at it...

MT Silver wrote on Mar 23, 2020, 01:05:
I really don't care what they called it. The 2017 Prey was excellent and I would love a sequel.

This. I enjoyed the original Prey but wouldn't call it a classic by any means. It's an 8/10 game. Prey 2017 was pretty great, though. Some really excellent level design and thoughtful enemy design too. I really liked how most of their mechanics were tied to the environment. I thought the player's abilities were really fun too.

The Mooncrash DLC was excellent too. It forced you try different playstyles and use more of the tools available to you, giving you a greater appreciation of the game's depth.

I don't think Doom 64 has any preload. It still shows "Coming March 20, 2020" in my library.

Slick wrote on Mar 18, 2020, 00:09:
I find it funny that this is "news".

Glad so many are content to keep handing 30% over to a company that hasn't had an original game idea since the original Half-Life.

I mean, why would anyone want to use the storefront of the people who actually employ 10,000 game designers? Fuck those guys! I'd rather give billions to Gabe with the 30% tax so that he can reinvest that money properly, in his own private yacht collection. The rich get richer.

When will people see that Steam is a cancer on the gaming industry, not a saviour. You're willingly supporting a platform that diverts money AWAY from game developers. I have a lot of love for the people who sacrifice and have to put up with so much grind, hardship, and competition just to get the chance to work in gaming. I want them to get my money.

Fuck GabeN.

This might be the dumbest thing I've read this year.

1) Customers give money to Steam because Steam is, by far, the best digital distribution service. It has the best feature set, the biggest selection, the biggest sales and the most flexible currency and payment method support.
2) Developers give money to Steam in return for exposure to a huge audience (like China), useful APIs (achievements, leaderboards, cloud saves, matchmaking, invites, etc), great metrics tools, great community tools, etc.

I understand being salty about Valve because they haven't made a sequel to your favorite game. However, that has no bearing on the quality of Steam or its value to both customers and developers. Get a grip.

LurkerLito wrote on Mar 2, 2020, 16:26:
That ruling will also apply here. Nvidia will be considered violating copyright law because they have a single copy of a game installed being shared by a bunch of users playing the same copy. To really get around this particular technicality, Nvidia would have to make a cloud drive for every user then make the user install the game in their own cloud space for each game. Then run that copy of the binaries that the user installed to their own cloud space.

I don't think that's actually the case. When you buy a game on Steam, you are essentially buying a license to play that game on your Steam account. GFN doesn't change that. You're still logging in to your Steam account to use the game license you purchased. You aren't making copies of that license.

Nvidia isn't catering to these revocation demands out of legal obligation. They're doing it because they want to maintain good relations with publishers and developers. Publishers and developers aren't demanding their games be pulled for any legal reason either. They simply see this as another monetization opportunity and don't want to miss out on potential revenue, even if they've done nothing to earn said revenue.

Why are they pulling their games? GeForce Now only lets you stream games you already own. The publishers were already compensated when the games were originally purchased.

Acleacius wrote on Feb 16, 2020, 11:57:
No idea where your getting that info because epic pays each pub/dev differently.

While they are obviously two different styles of games, Remedy's Control seems to disprove your info. Additionally Control is reported to be much more creative and have amazing gameplay.
Despite critical success from the media, sales were hampered. Also means a massive loss of PR dollars. All wasted because it couldn't reach a diverse audience.

Control didn't sell well on consoles either, not just PC. That likely wouldn't have changed even if the game launched on Steam. It would have sold better on Steam than it did on EGS but probably not enough to offset Epic's bribe money.

Developers and publishers know that their games will sell less on EGS than on Steam. That's why these exclusivity deals are timed and why Epic is paying out millions to get them.

Bhruic wrote on Feb 16, 2020, 09:52:
Wait, you start off by saying you can't say without actual sales data, and then make all sorts of conclusions about the financials of the situation without sales data. How do you know the "bribe money" more than covers potential losses? How do you know if developers/publishers care about how their games sell on EGS? If you're going to make lots of claims that rely on having good data, maybe don't start off by saying you don't actually have that data, because then all your claims look really stupid.

Developers and publishers aren't stupid. They base their budgets on estimated sales and as such, have expectations for many copies they can sell within the first year. They also know that their games aren't going to sell much on EGS compared to Steam, hence the timed exclusivity as opposed to permanent exclusivity. Permanent exclusivity would cost Epic a whole lot more than timed exclusivity because the potential losses would be far greater.

You don't need exact numbers to make logical deductions.

This comment was edited on Feb 16, 2020, 16:05.

jacobvandy wrote on Feb 15, 2020, 22:40:

Eirikrautha wrote on Feb 15, 2020, 21:35:

afka Rossini wrote on Feb 15, 2020, 18:18:

Eirikrautha wrote on Feb 15, 2020, 15:40:
Well, at least they weren't stupid enough to launch on Steam at full price (there's a 40% "discount" on this year-old game... how generous...). Though I notice that the full price is listed at $39.99 and I don't remember if that was the full price on release. Either way, I'm not paying anywhere near that much for Epic's sloppy seconds.

I find that exclusivity deals have just saved me money, because I really have no burning desire to play some of these games after waiting (and enough lets-plays and other material has come out to show me that I probably would have wasted my money if I had bought immediately... looking at you Phoenix Point & Julian Gollop). I'd have bought Mechwarrior 5 launch day full price if it had come out on Steam. Now, I'm honestly not sure if I'll even bother when it gets rereleased, there's just too much wrong with it based on the lets-plays I've watched. Oh well, hopefully that "exclusivity money" was enough to make up for my lost sale...

Since it's the first AAA title I'm aware of to have Epic exclusivity expire and I had any interest in, I picked it up on Steam today for $24 US. That's less than half the original price. If enough Steam buyers show up this week, maybe developers will re-think Epic exclusivity.

Nope. The exact opposite will be true. If people still buy even after the year, all that tells publishers is that they can take Epic's money first, then take our money later. The only way they'll rethink exclusivity is if the games that have it don't meet sales expectations, both during and after. Otherwise, you'll just teach them they can slap you around and you'll still come back for more...

No, if they're smart, it all depends on how the math works out. They definitely would have made calculations beforehand to estimate the sales breakdown with and without exclusivity in order to make their decision, and soon they'll be able to tell how accurate those were. Just as there was the possibility for EGS totals to disappoint, there is the possibility that Steam sales are exceedingly strong, and both would be reasons to not do the same thing next time.

It's hard to say without any actual sales data. Epic's bribe money more than covers any potential losses within the first year of sales and is guaranteed revenue before the game even launches. Developers/publishers don't really care how their games sell on EGS because they already got paid by Epic. For long-term revenue, they rely on Steam, hence the timed nature of all these exclusivity deals.

Bhruic wrote on Jan 15, 2020, 15:14:
Who cares if it's a weak/invalid comparison? Even if it were entirely apt, is there anyone who's actually happy about the fact that more and more online streaming services are popping up? The reason that people liked Netflix so much is that it centralized all of their watching in a single location. The only reason that I would give up the convenience of centralization is if it became too costly, but since the alternatives are all similarly priced, that's not an issue.

I'm not a fan of exclusivity but I can tolerate it if the content otherwise wouldn't exist. First-party exclusives are entirely funded by the platform owner. The platform owner is creating content to increase the value of their platform. As such, I can't get too angry about that content being exclusive to said platform.

Timed third-party exclusives, on the other hand, are pure shitbaggery. Their sole purpose is to reduce the value of competing platforms by depriving them of content. It's about as anti-competitive and anti-consumer as it gets.

People keep claiming that Steam is a monopoly but they don't seem to understand that being a monopoly requires you to perform monopolistic practices. Those practices include paying companies to remove their products from competitors, giving away products for free so consumers don't buy them from competitors and offering steep discounts that competitors can't match because they can't afford to lose that much revenue. Basically, everything Epic is doing would be considered monopolistic if they were the market leader.