Tim Sweeney on EGS' Impact [Jun 26, 2019, 12:18 pm ET] – Share – Viewing Comments
A lengthy
series
of tweets from Tim Sweeney looks to address some of the concerns gamers have
expressed over Epic Games Store exclusives and other issues:
This question gets to the core of Epic’s strategy for competing with dominant storefronts. We believe exclusives are the only strategy that will change the 70/30 status quo at a large enough scale to permanently affect the whole game industry.
For example, after years of great work by independent stores (excluding big publishers like EA-Activision-Ubi), none seem to have reached 5% of Steam’s scale. Nearly all have more features than Epic; and the ability to discount games is limited by various external pressures.
This leads to the strategy of exclusives which, though unpopular with dedicated Steam gamers, do work, as established by the major publisher storefronts and by the key Epic Games store releases compared to their former Steam revenue projections and their actual console sales.
In judging whether a disruptive move like this is reasonable in gaming, I suggest considering two questions: Is the solution proportionate to the problem it addresses, and are gamers likely benefit from the end goal if it’s ultimately achieved?
The 30% store tax usually exceeds the entire profits of the developer who built the game that’s sold. This is a disastrous situation for developers and publishers alike, so I believe the strategy of exclusives is proportionate to the problem.
If the Epic strategy either succeeds in building a second major storefront for PC games with an 88/12 revenue split, or even just leads other stores to significantly improve their terms, the result will be a major wave of reinvestment in game development and a lowering of costs.
Will the resulting 18% increase in developer and publisher revenue benefit gamers? Such gains are generally split among (1) reinvestment, (2) profit, and (3) price reduction. The more games are competing with each other, the more likely the proceeds are to go to (1) and (3).
So I believe this approach passes the test of ultimately benefitting gamers after game storefronts have rebalanced and developers have reinvested more of their fruits of their labor into creation rather than taxation.
Of course, there are LOTS of challenges along the way, and Epic is fully committed to solving all problems that arise for gamers are for our partners as the Epic Games store grows.
Slashman wrote on Jun 28, 2019, 08:48:Verno wrote on Jun 27, 2019, 18:34:Creston wrote on Jun 27, 2019, 16:02:
Ugh, I'm not going to read 155 posts, but I was just thinking of this earlier:
Everyone who argues that the extra split that EGS gives is going to somehow wind up in the hands of the developers, please think about this: The gaming industry is rife with stories of publishers abusing the LIVING FUCK out devs. Year long crunch times, 100 hour work weeks, no paid overtime, etc.
Yet somehow, you guys think that these publishers, these selfsame pieces of shit that treat human beings as fucking CATTLE, are going to voluntarily give these devs more money?
Yep. There is far more evidence demonstrating that too, the case for optimism is flimsy at best. I'm sure Randy Pitchford and Take-Two will be writing extra large bonus checks instead of fucking over their staff. Shit even among indie devs we have many examples of people absconding with development funds. The gaming industry is a pretty shitty place and it needs unionization a lot more than it needs an extra 12% revenue split.
And again they're not selling shares here, we're buying games. I don't care how they divvy the back end. Revenue splits are a PR handwave. Stop doing shitty things like removing consumer choice and pretending like you're doing us a favor.
The funny thing is that the people who are arguing for EGS are actually more concerned with hurting Valve for not making games anymore than they are for "better stuff for everyone". They believe that Valve will be pushed into making games again if Epic's Store takes off.
Is there an example here?
I'm sure it's true, but has anyone here said that? I haven't noticed the weirdo Valve haters falling on one side or the other - plenty of those angry over no HL3 seem to be also angry at EGS - I think some people just take games very personally and get very angry all the time, rather than just enjoying a very fun hobby.
I know I'm the annoying person in the middle. My stance isn't that EGS is good, just that it isn't bad. Competition isn't going to be as beneficial for the consumer as pubs/devs, they're the real customer here, not us, but we'll still see benefits. The store is behind right now, but there's no way for it to catch up without a revenue stream, and no levers it can pull other than exclusives. It's severely lacking in features, but none of the released exclusives really benefit from those features, their development roadmap shows the needed features hitting before any exclusives that need them, and if EGS is lacking in some needed feature when an exclusive is about to launch, I'm pretty sure that exclusive will no longer be exclusive.
Right now, the only real loss is "choice," which I don't think we ever really had with Steam (the choice was Steam or Steam), and hypothetical future losses, which we have no reason yet to assume will actually come true.
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Date
Subject
Author
Copyright © 1996-2020 Stephen Heaslip. All rights reserved.
All trademarks are properties of their respective owners.
Privacy Policy. Manage Cookie Settings.
News CGI copyright © 1999-2020 James "furn" Furness & Blue's News. All rights reserved.
Chatbear v1.5.0/blue++: Page generated 8 July 2020, 19:49.