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.

Beamer wrote on Jan 15, 2020, 08:52:
It's not that it doesn't align with my thinking. I don't use EGS. I enjoy that Steam is getting a kick in the butt to do more, though if this is what we have to blame the new UI on, ugh.

jacobvandy wrote on Jan 15, 2020, 03:35:

Jerykk wrote on Jan 15, 2020, 00:31:
EDIT: Huh, the numbers are actually way worse than I initially thought. I was thinking that the $251 million figure was Epic's cut but that was actually the entirety of the third-party game revenue. 12% of $251 million is only $30 million. They spent $23 million on discounts alone and the giveaways + exclusivity deals definitely cost more than $7 million so EGS was pure loss in 2019. There is zero chance of them doing that if they weren't aiming to be the market leader.

The math is a bit more complex than that, since those $10 coupons would have to factor into the split for each transaction they were a part of. The $251 million is what people actually paid for games, when the gross was +$10 as far as the third party is concerned on each of those 2.3 million purchases. It's impossible to figure out the specifics with so many unknown variables, but you're right, they definitely took a bath.

Beamer wrote on Jan 14, 2020, 22:28:

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 14, 2020, 20:45:

Kxmode wrote on Jan 14, 2020, 20:42:

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 14, 2020, 18:59:

Kxmode wrote on Jan 14, 2020, 18:25:
Epic is never going to defeat the established platforms.

That was never their plan.
All they want is a tiny piece of the pie and by the looks of it they’ve been very successful.

If that was the case, Epic could have jumped into selling PC games any time after Steam reached its dominant position in the late 2000s. Before Epic had Fortnite, they were bringing in over a billion from Unreal engine fees, not to mention whatever they made from game sales. But that's not what Tim Sweeney wants. He wouldn't try and disrupt Steam's position for a measly 2nd place. No, they're going for broke to try and overtake Valve.

Do you work for them? How would you know this?

As with all of this, he's talking out of his inexperienced ass because it makes him feel more right in his hatred. He says I'm projecting, but I've never seen a man so blinded by emotion.

He's walking confirmation bias.

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 14, 2020, 12:33:

Simon Says wrote on Jan 14, 2020, 12:25:
Giving away free stuff to hook people isn't competition...

It’s no different than when Steam, GOG, Humble Bundle or other stores give away games.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 14, 2020, 12:05:
Valve makes around ~3.5 billion per year. From Borderlands 3 and Detroit Become Human to Metro Exodus and more, Epic's store has or had a lot of in-demand third-party exclusives last year, almost guaranteeing they would see at least a billion in revenue. Half a billion is laughable for the effort they put forth. If Epic were a publicly-traded company, their stock would be in a free-fall with this announcement. Also, posting total customer accounts is a joke. Steam has over a BILLION. I know many of you want to move on and sing kumbaya, but it isn't going to happen as long as Epic continues to engage in anti-consumer and anti-developer (remember the Darq developer being denied simship because his game isn't as big like Cyberpunk 2077 or Jedi Fallen Order) antics.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 18:56:
I'll address the rest, but most of your competitors aren't true competitors. Most offer a very limited selection, rather than being everything stores. Most have smaller ambitions. Even with them, Steam has what, 85% of the market, if not more?

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On one hand, it's impossible to release something that competes directly with Steam in features. Steam has a multi-billion dollar, decade-and-a-half head start. EA and Ubisoft did not launch something even remotely comparable, and neither did EGS. To expect this is, frankly, lunacy. It's just not realistic, and if you feel that the industry is better off with a Steam competitor, you have to accept warts and growing pains.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On the other hand, people probably would accept this, had they not been forced to use it for some games (though I'd wager most of the people complaining never would have purchased any of these games.) It's easier to accept growing pains and warts from something you're choosing to use, rather than something you're forced to use.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
On to some third hand, but no one would use it. It's frankly stupid to use something inferior for "political" reasons, which is why the handful of rabid AMD fanboys we have here baffle me (it doesn't feel like any Intel fanboys remain, but AMD ones do. They're winning right now, though, because man, are those new chips something else.) EGS would just die if it didn't have a reason for people to use it, and building a reason is costly, risky, and time consuming. A better way to get your user count up is by offering something so compelling that developers come over exclusively. Often, this is done without being announced as such. EGS probably made a mistake by using the term so loudly.

Beamer wrote on Jan 3, 2020, 10:45:
And, on some Goro-esque 4th hand, this does lock people in, but it's a necessary evil. And as such, I just don't get why people so happily refer to it as evil, as in, some kind of Omen-esque scheme for putting people into involuntary servitude. To the point that you see outright lies, like "if you don't go exclusive, they won't sell you!" But that roadmap needs to move faster.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 18:54:
So extrapolating on that, we can find two pieces of data. First, based on the 32,583 total scores on Steam, 97% would put the number of units sold on Steam around 8-9 million. When you consider Steam's entire active monthly of over 100 million, 8-9 million for new Rockstar games is likely a reasonable estimate. However, I've noticed the Steam community tends to be more active contributors to ratings and reviews, so, for the sake of realism, it might be more accurate to adjust the totals to between 4-6 million units.

Epic Games Store = 400K (December)
Steam = 4-6 million (December)

So the conclusion is when people had a real choice between Steam or Epic Games Store, they went Steam. Based on that, it is probably safe to extrapolate that had people had an opportunity between Steam or EGS for Borderlands 3 and Metro Exodus, the simship numbers reveal most would have picked Steam.

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 20:45:
I keep saying this on r/pcgaming and for some reason I get downvoted to hell. Why is that?

Talisorn wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 22:33:
EGS has barely been out for a year. There's some hope for them yet, eh?

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 08:49:
People seem to conveniently forget what an absolute shitshow Steam was when it first launched.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 13:32:
People expect products and services to be on parity with the industry standard. Given how much money they spent on exclusives and freebies, Epic HAD so much money from their Unreal engine licensing and Fortnite that to launch their store in its current condition is the equivalent of Google's new Pixel phone with features missing.

Oh, sure, if you offer something for free and make the Epic Games Store the only place in town to buy something, people will likely come and get it. However, that's because they were forced to or couldn't pass up a deal. That's astroturfing brand loyalty. Ultimately, it doesn't work because the platform is trash. In an apples-to-apples comparison, every other platform offers something better and something unique.

Kxmode wrote on Jan 1, 2020, 22:12:
I find it interesting that Disco Elysium (a fantastic RPG by the way) didn't win a single award and yet they won four at TGA, more than any other game. It makes you wonder if there's a disconnect between the critics and the people.

wrlwnd wrote on Jan 2, 2020, 00:54:
So, what's the business plan here.

Give away a bunch of free games.
Then...profit?

I don't see it. I have no reason to give them my credit card info, and giving me a bunch of free games doesn't change that one iota.

I'm sure they're getting more publicity, but that's dwarfed by the publicity they already got from Fortnite.

CJ_Parker wrote on Dec 28, 2019, 23:56:

Creston wrote on Dec 28, 2019, 22:56:
So does Epic really pay full price when they give away a game for free? Even with their money, that seems highly unlikely? Today's game is a $40 game, if 5 million people grab it (which seems low, considering their reported total userbase) that's 200 million dollars (minus their 12%.) Ka-ching. Even the Fortnite gravy train can't keep that kind of money drain going.

So I have my doubts that devs/pubs get paid, or at least get paid full asking price.

Shadow Tactics is one of those games that seems to be almost always on sale. It's €9.99 currently (Steam sale). Charging $40 as a baseline per copy would be obscene and insane.

I'm sure that Epic does not have to pay per gifted copy. My guess is they arrange a lump sum, say $100K for a game like this (probably less for the more obscure titles the last few days), and roll with it. The games are only free for 24 hours and it's good advertising for the publishers/devs, too.

eRe4s3r wrote on Oct 20, 2019, 21:20:
Every dialogue is basically combat. Rolls and death included. The way this game works really reminds me how I do NOT want my RPG's to be in the year 2019 though.. but to each their own tastes

I would rather play 50 Divinity 2 clones over Disco Elysium. But then I just refunded. There is really no grey area with this game, you either love it, or you DETEST it and everything it stands for. It's at the core "skill-checks the game" and that rubbed me so extremely wrong because when you give me a quick-save and a skill-check I am gonna brute-force that MF and not back down. And that's not how you should approach this game at all apparently.

In fact I just realized after barely an hour that skills don't matter, it's 70% luck and 30% what you skill. And that's fine, but that's also super boring to me. Eh, anyway, I refunded it, no need for me to review it since it was clearly not a game for me on a base level. I am fine with that

Cutter wrote on Aug 14, 2019, 21:01:
So now it's a different story and he has yet to offer up any evidence at all that any keys being sold now are fraudulent. Dumb move.

necrosis wrote on Aug 4, 2019, 00:27:
Anyone else weirded out by the 'look streight at the person you are talking to who is centered perfectly on the screen always at the same zoom level'?

It is one of the many aspects that screams indie dev... but it is not.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jul 28, 2019, 14:26:

Maybe Bethesda should take the hint and stop spewing money on MMOs and stick the the SPRPGs that people like to buy from them.