Cracks me up that you guys all accuse Redeye of being a shill just because he doesn’t actively hate the EGS. OH NO I must be a shill too because I bought a game on their store! Also, while their store absolutely IS the barest of barebones currently, it has enough features to cover what I need it to do.

They had to strike while the iron was hot, and so they shoved the store out when it wasn’t quite ready. Fortnite will eventually fade away, and they needed to put their store out when they had the most eyes looking at.

Anyway, Redeye, I guess we should collect our EGS checks that they’ll apparently be sending us for not outright hating them for daring to exist.

This seems plenty transparent and honest to me. I’m not sure what you expect. To come out and say they haven’t yet come close to stream and they suck? People who want to stay employed don’t make those kind of announcements. I don’t even think think Epic does suck really. They have to balance the fact that hey are an engine and asset store while Valve doesn’t and EA... well no one wants Frostbyte anyway. For that? I think they have done the best to be expected. Their customer service is the big problem but that was 100% Steam and Origins issue at their launch.

Now they are taking longer to get on the ball there than the other two and they can’t continue to have that being the third... or 5th if you count blizzard and galaxy.

grudgebearer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 17:33:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 17:17:
[
We've already seen one Steam change: increased revenue sharing by sales numbers. That change doesn't happen without EGS. As EGS improves and gains market share, we'll see further changes. The exclusive thing won't last forever, but will get EGS strong enough so they can compete.

So as a consumer, how are you benefiting from this?

As a consumer, you get game companies able to reinvest more money into more and/or better games.

Now queue the cynic that's quick to state that the increased revenue will exclusively go to CEO bonuses.

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 17:40:
Quoting facts won't make you any friends around these here parts.

Does Epic even pay you for out-of-context posts, or do they at least expect you to put effort into you shilling?

saluk wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 16:57:

Simon Says wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:49:

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:11:
Competition is good for the industry including consumers like us.

Where is that competition from EGS? Where is it right now?

And it's not like there's not already tons of other stores already. Uplay, Origin, Battlenet, Itch.io, GOG, Windows store etc.

What's the only special thing about EGS compared to the others? They bribe for exclusives, that's it... Exclusives have nothing to do with competition, it's the opposite of competition.

This argument makes zero sense and it never will.

His argument about the cut of the sales isn't either, for the reasons outlined in my previous comment's linked video in this thread which I guess I'll link again in case anyone missed it:

The Epic Narrative - The Mortiel Fallacy: May 9, 2019

grudgebearer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:45:
What demonstrable benefits are consumers receiving from EGS exclusivity?

None, zero, nada, zilch. Quite the opposite, it only had negative impacts.

Metro Exodus launched at 50$ instead of 60$. I got Oxenfree for free and had never heard of it - had a good time. Heavy Rain is on pc for a reasonable price for a rerelease for an old game (although who knows if, minus epic, this would have happened anyway)

Those are the tangible things I can think of for now.

I got all of the above plus Subnautica for free.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 17:17:

grudgebearer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:45:

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:11:
Competition is good for the industry including consumers like us.

What demonstrable benefits are consumers receiving from EGS exclusivity?

We've already seen one Steam change: increased revenue sharing by sales numbers. That change doesn't happen without EGS. As EGS improves and gains market share, we'll see further changes. The exclusive thing won't last forever, but will get EGS strong enough so they can compete.

Quoting facts won't make you any friends around these here parts.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 17:17:
[
We've already seen one Steam change: increased revenue sharing by sales numbers. That change doesn't happen without EGS. As EGS improves and gains market share, we'll see further changes. The exclusive thing won't last forever, but will get EGS strong enough so they can compete.

So as a consumer, how are you benefiting from this?

Beamer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 16:59:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 16:56:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:34:
I am going to become irrationally angry over something that doesn't monetarily effect me and vent my spleen including pejoratives and ad hominems.

You'll fit right in here. We call this place "the internet."

How dare you say all of the internet is irrationally angry! I'm part of all of the internet, and I'm not irrationally angry!!!!!!!

Damn you and your calm demeanor!

grudgebearer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:45:

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:11:
Competition is good for the industry including consumers like us.

What demonstrable benefits are consumers receiving from EGS exclusivity?

We've already seen one Steam change: increased revenue sharing by sales numbers. That change doesn't happen without EGS. As EGS improves and gains market share, we'll see further changes. The exclusive thing won't last forever, but will get EGS strong enough so they can compete.

Beamer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 16:58:



"Full game" is kind of a weasely term. How many games actually needed the DLC, or in most cases, were even improved by it? Fallout 3, I'd say. Can't think of another.

DLC is almost always coming from a second budget. The game released is the full game, the DLC is budgeted separately and often done by different teams. It's outside the scope, and even in the 90s would not have been included.

Ignoring full expansions, because we've always had those, what else actually completed a game, instead of adding either more of the same or, in some cases, lesser versions of content already in the game (looking at you, pirate-and-jungle themed expansions for Borderlands 2.) Most of this stuff is also completed months after launch.

Day 1 DLC, is not budgeted differently, it's cut content. Ubisoft even admitted to doing so back in 2016.

As I stated, you can play the base game, and that's what you are paying for at $60.00, but that's not the full gaming experience, if you want the full gaming experience, prepare to purchase the season pass and/or DLC(s).

That's not the way $60.00 games worked in 1999. $60 got you the full game, and you had the option to extend some games with expansion packs, that were not cut content, and actually were budgeted as separate products, instead of content carved out during production, to be specifically sold as DLC.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 16:56:

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:34:
I am going to become irrationally angry over something that doesn't monetarily effect me and vent my spleen including pejoratives and ad hominems.

You'll fit right in here. We call this place "the internet."

How dare you say all of the internet is irrationally angry! I'm part of all of the internet, and I'm not irrationally angry!!!!!!!

grudgebearer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 16:44:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 16:28:
Today a AAA game is $60. In 1999, it was $50. However, $50 in 1999 is the same as $75 today. So AAA games are in fact cheaper than they were 20 years ago, and get relatively cheaper every year.

How many AAA games that come out now are really $60.00 for the full game? How many of them don't immediately have season passes and/or day 1 DLCs available?

In 2019, for $60.00, you get the base game when it comes to AAA games, and that's it. You can play just the base game, but let's not pretend that you are getting the full experience for $60 and that content hasn't been carved out as DLC that's going to cost you an extra $20-$50.

Tack on some loot boxes or an in-game storefront, and get yourself some "recurrent user spending" which didn't exist in 1999, and you have a completely different gaming sales paradigm.

"Full game" is kind of a weasely term. How many games actually needed the DLC, or in most cases, were even improved by it? Fallout 3, I'd say. Can't think of another.

DLC is almost always coming from a second budget. The game released is the full game, the DLC is budgeted separately and often done by different teams. It's outside the scope, and even in the 90s would not have been included.

Ignoring full expansions, because we've always had those, what else actually completed a game, instead of adding either more of the same or, in some cases, lesser versions of content already in the game (looking at you, pirate-and-jungle themed expansions for Borderlands 2.) Most of this stuff is also completed months after launch.

Simon Says wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:49:

RedEye9 wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:11:
Competition is good for the industry including consumers like us.

Where is that competition from EGS? Where is it right now?

And it's not like there's not already tons of other stores already. Uplay, Origin, Battlenet, Itch.io, GOG, Windows store etc.

What's the only special thing about EGS compared to the others? They bribe for exclusives, that's it... Exclusives have nothing to do with competition, it's the opposite of competition.

This argument makes zero sense and it never will.

His argument about the cut of the sales isn't either, for the reasons outlined in my previous comment's linked video in this thread which I guess I'll link again in case anyone missed it:

The Epic Narrative - The Mortiel Fallacy: May 9, 2019

grudgebearer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:45:
What demonstrable benefits are consumers receiving from EGS exclusivity?

None, zero, nada, zilch. Quite the opposite, it only had negative impacts.

Metro Exodus launched at 50$ instead of 60$. I got Oxenfree for free and had never heard of it - had a good time. Heavy Rain is on pc for a reasonable price for a rerelease for an old game (although who knows if, minus epic, this would have happened anyway)

Those are the tangible things I can think of for now.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:34:
I am going to become irrationally angry over something that doesn't monetarily effect me and vent my spleen including pejoratives and ad hominems.

You'll fit right in here. We call this place "the internet."

Why didn't sweeney post the worst case scenario if he's wrong, again? Isn't the obvious damage he IS causing and the lasting damage a concern? The damage he IS causing is measurable atm and in NO way a small thing. In fact it's of Great Concern, if you care about video game development and distribution.

I.e. allowing anyone or corporation with billions of dollars, in need of a tax write off or dumping of excessive revenue, to bribe and extort (holding the game hostage from the NORMAL outlets) for their own power and profit.

Avus wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:06:
I DON'T CARE how much game developer % cut when I buy game. It is fxxking stupid for consumer to care about this. I as a gamer (consumer) only care if I can buy this game with a great price, software quality, post support, digital store features...

If a game developer cannot survive with 30% digital store cut, too bad, it is on the dev management. There are many dev don't make profit with 30% cut but there are also MANY can. Try go back to good old retail route and see how far can you go...

When you buy your Big Mac, Ford Mustang, Samsung TV do you fxxking care how much profit the food suppliers, automaker or Samsung actually made?? I would care about PRICE, store/sales quality and support instead. When fanboys come to game, they just throw their logic out the windows. This is why all these AAA dev made so much $$ off them by DLC, lootbox. Their favorite dev never wrong...

You can hate Valve for many things, but complain them taking 30% from dev is the most stupid.

Ah, yes, let's go back to the good old days of retail, when we had very few games, and mostly from big publishers. And all games were $50-60 always. Those were the days. Retail took 50%.

MoreLuckThanSkill wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 15:02:
Are these going to be the new Star Citizen threads?

Personal opinions: exclusives are bullshit tactics that only harm consumers, whether it's a hardware or software platform exclusive. Epic seems to be staffed with a bunch of assholes, at least at the top.

jdreyer: No offense, but I think you're a little off:

Except that Steam won't let you sell for a different price on a different store. Exclusives are the only way that happens.

I've bought plenty of games on Gog, that are also on Steam, that are at least TEMPORARILY discounted on Gog only. Gog doesn't even run their sales at the same time as Steam anymore. Unless you're referring to some listed non-sale price fine print somewhere, which wouldn't surprise me.

This applies to the list price, not sale price. Source: founder of Arcen games who has more than half a dozen games on Steam.

Mordhaus wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 14:22:
And let's all remember, the money that Epic is using to fund this expedition are from the vanity sales in a game mode they pretty much ripped off from pubg.

Fortnite was a struggling zombie survival game when PUBG was released "early access" in March 2017. PUBG quickly became the most popular PC game in the world and most popular game ever on Twitch at the time.

September 2017: Fortnite introduced a new game mode, Battle Royale, based on PUBG's format: 100 players, airship over the map, play zones that get smaller, crate drops, medkits and bandages, squad members getting "knocked out", etc.

Today: Tweets explaining how copying something is better for all of us...

It's what we call "The Blizzard Model:" Take an existing genre, refine it, add cartoony graphics, and it sells like hotcakes.

Parallax Abstraction wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 14:59:

jdreyer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 14:42:
You can't sell for $45 on EGS and $60 elsewhere.

What about the exclusives then? Because that hasn't been happening with them either. Epic is asking us to use a feature barren, insecure store and literally offering no incentive to do so beyond "The devs get more money" (which shouldn't be the consumer's concern) or "It'll lead to lower prices maybe" (which it hasn't.)

You compete by doing things better than the other guy, not by spending the money you could be using to do that, to bribe other companies in an attempt to strongarm your way into a market you aren't prepared for.

And those are the other major points Sweeny doesn't seem to grasp. Security, a good UI, actual customer support, feedback, and localized prices are all important to consumers. None of which the Epic store has. If it was some indie startup - and they weren't engaging in anti-consumer behavior - I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and maybe send some business their way. Epic on the other hand has oodles of money and can easily hire top shelf people and pay for all this as afterthought. They're actively choosing to be cheap. And I hate cheap people.

jdreyer wrote on Jun 26, 2019, 16:28:
Today a AAA game is $60. In 1999, it was $50. However, $50 in 1999 is the same as $75 today. So AAA games are in fact cheaper than they were 20 years ago, and get relatively cheaper every year.

How many AAA games that come out now are really $60.00 for the full game? How many of them don't immediately have season passes and/or day 1 DLCs available?

In 2019, for $60.00, you get the base game when it comes to AAA games, and that's it. You can play just the base game, but let's not pretend that you are getting the full experience for $60 and that content hasn't been carved out as DLC that's going to cost you an extra $20-$50.

Tack on some loot boxes or an in-game storefront, and get yourself some "recurrent user spending" which didn't exist in 1999, and you have a completely different gaming sales paradigm.