Kxmode wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 16:27:

Slick wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:18:

Kxmode wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:02:
"Location, location, location!" Publishers are well aware of the optimal digital space to market and sell their games.

I get your point, but the location is my PC. If people are too lazy to double-click a different icon on their desktop, that's not a valid excuse.

The Playstation Store is a "location"

The Apple Store is a "location"

My PC is the only "location" I need. This platform rules specifically because it's not dominated by any storefront. Someone should remind gamers of that.

You have golf equipment and your house has at least 3 closets.

Closet 1 stores the bag and clubs
Closet 2 stores the golf balls, tees, divot repair tool, and ball markers
Closet 3 stores the specialist golfing rain gear, scorecards, and rangefinder

To golf, you can grab this stuff from three separate closets... or you can consolidate them into one for ease.

Which do you prefer?

Do you belittle those who want to store all their golfing gear conveniently in one place?

That's an analogy full of fallacy if I've ever seen one. I click an icon and my game loads it doesn't matter what storefront it came from. I dunno how you do it, but if your closet comparison is any indication do you only have one storefront per computer?

Slick wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:18:

Kxmode wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:02:
"Location, location, location!" Publishers are well aware of the optimal digital space to market and sell their games.

I get your point, but the location is my PC. If people are too lazy to double-click a different icon on their desktop, that's not a valid excuse.

The Playstation Store is a "location"

The Apple Store is a "location"

My PC is the only "location" I need. This platform rules specifically because it's not dominated by any storefront. Someone should remind gamers of that.

You have golf equipment and your house has at least 3 closets.

Closet 1 stores the bag and clubs
Closet 2 stores the golf balls, tees, divot repair tool, and ball markers
Closet 3 stores the specialist golfing rain gear, scorecards, and rangefinder

To golf, you can grab this stuff from three separate closets... or you can consolidate them into one for ease.

Which do you prefer?

Do you belittle those who want to store all their golfing gear conveniently in one place?

Verno wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 11:27:
Epic tried to deny games from being offered on Steam and it didn't work, many people simply don't buy the game until its on Steam regardless of how cheap it is on EGS.

It depends on the definition of what "works" means but I would say that Epic has not failed as hard as you are trying to portrait it.

GOG launched in 2008 and they have never managed to make more than an annual revenue of $40 - $45 million in non-Witcher or non-Cyberpunk release years. We all know that GOG is investing a lot in marketing. They also have many giveaways, many special sales events and they are generally promoting their store rather aggressively.

The Epic Games Store launched in 2019 and it generated revenues over $700 million in 2020, of which $265 million were from third parties. This means that Epic made about 6x more revenue just from third parties than GOG does in a regular year from 3rd parties *and* their own games (Witcher, Cyberpunk, Gwent etc.).

In 2021, Epic announced "more than $300 million" in 3rd party revenue ($840 million total) and in 2022 3rd party revenue was up another +18% over 2021 at $355 million while total revenue was down slightly (less Fortnite income due to the general post-CoVid economic climate at the time).

Contrary to GOG, which has been stagnating for many years, Epic is actually growing. The 3rd party revenue of the EGS alone is 8x to 9x the total revenue of GOG.

Of course, all of this is chicken shit compared to the Steam behemoth but it would be unfair to say that Epic's efforts have been in vain. They have established themselves in record time as a more serious competitor than any other store before them. Yes, they had to invest a lot of money to get there but that kind of high level disruption is the only way you can even begin to tackle a de facto monopoly like Steam.

This commission-free exclusivity is another smart step in attempting to secure more of a share from the 3rd party market. The other smart venue is the Epic Publishing stuff. If Epic ever want to put a dent into the Steam monopoly then they need to sign more deals like Alan Wake 2 which will probably be a permanent Epic exclusive for all we know right now.

Slick wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:09:
The same dynamic where Valve was unhappy having to give a big cut to Vivendi is now EVERYONE having to give a big cut to Valve. The fact that Epic is GIVING AWAY %100 of their cut on EGS and still the sentiment is "screw that" by gamers is pathetic. Zero love for the actual people who spend their lives creating the art we all love, that has enhanced our lives throughout the years. We've collectively given Valve an effective monopoly, and nobody seems to care. So much for the worker's revolution. Everyone's on team multi-billion-dollar zero-development-contributing corporation. And we're all fine with it. It kinda disgusts me.

Err I wasn't referring to the Vivendi lawsuit so that was a lot of text that didn't relate to anything I was discussing. Is Valve hypocritical? Sure, I don't know but I wasn't arguing that. I was referring to the development of Steam itself later on, through its many ups and downs and while the PC gaming industry was in decline. Anyways to address your other point, it's not the job of consumers to directly reward creators, this isn't Patreon. I'm not directly paying someones salary, I don't have that agency in decisions when I decide to purchase a game. It's a product that I buy, that's the beginning and end of that relationship. If you want to see it as more then fair enough but sorry - most people won't share your brand of zealotry. I don't know many people making purchase decisions based on revenue splits that they likely aren't even privy to, kind of a bizarre complaint. It's also really weird to blame consumers for simply using the platform they like the most or to handwave it away as market forces. Almost every big company had a crack at this and people keep coming back to Steam.

From my perspective not a single one of them did it well. Under developed clients, many of them buggy, constantly changing name/branding, not differentiating themselves in any meaningful way to consumers rather than developers and so on.

First, you have to justify why Steam features are worth the same amount as all development towards the game itself. You have to argue that they're equal in value to the gamer. That the game itself is worth the same as the payment portal/launcher. I'll wait while y'all do that.

No one has to justify anything, Steam is clearly worth something (tangible or intangible) to gamers as they keep making that choice. I have no real interest in Valve or Steam, it just fulfills all of my needs for PC gaming and thus I use it the most frequently. I don't think about it too hard, it's just my favorite launcher with the most features and the least amount of friction. I'm not worried about paying Audio engineers salary with a 5% higher revenue split or whatever. I'm just buying games and playing them, often with friends.

I have nothing against EGS, they just haven't really done anything from my consumer perspective to make it worthwhile to use on a consistent basis. I appreciate them existing as a check and balance in the market but that's not enough to make me use it when it represents compromises from the users end.

Verno wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 11:27:
People like Steam man, great features, constant iteration and it has the most title variety. Competitors have tried to differentiate themselves in various ways (mostly flawed IMO) but ultimately consumers keep choosing Steam. Valve has been a pretty good shepherd to PC gaming overall and sure they've benefited from it significantly but so have we.

Consumers redeem the free titles on other services but ultimately don't stick around for various reasons we can debate about. Epic tried to deny games from being offered on Steam and it didn't work, many people simply don't buy the game until its on Steam regardless of how cheap it is on EGS.

I don't deny the argument that Valve should be more accommodating with revenue shares but people forget that Valve took all of the risk in establishing the platform at a point in time where PC gaming was on the decline. Also they did make some concessions in response to Epic so kudos to Epic for that.

Valve took a risk? Really? I never saw it, and don't recall it as ever being a "risk"...;) Online software selling was hardly a new idea when Valve decided to expand on it and drop out of the game development business to enter the game distribution-store business. The global shareware business was booming, in fact, at that time, and it was mostly available through the Internet, even way back then. Valve changed its core business model, is what happened. The Internet was already growing like a wildfire. It wasn't much of a risk, as many companies today know.

BTW, Steamworks has plenty of "flaws", if you haven't noticed. It reminds me of Google's browsers perpetually being updated for flaws and bugs here and there (Chrome took millennia it seems to get out of beta...;)) Valve's daily bugfix notes for Steamworks are often voluminous. Steamworks has its share of problems, flaws, and complaints, never fear. I don't know how it's possible not to notice them, actually, as there have been so many of them. But like these things go, they are usually minor "flaws" concerning only certain areas of the globe and certain software (people seem to loathe Valve's notions about global copyrights, and certain "fees" and location availabilities, for instance--lots of Steam detractors there, as I've seen over the years.)

Steamworks is as good a game distribution service as any other, but in no way is it "clearly superior"--I mean, maybe you might sincerely think so, and that's fine, of course, as opinions are never really "wrong" when we have them, are they?...;) I see people refusing to buy a game if it isn't offered on Steam as purely the product of ignorance and inexperience--n00b territory--far more than anything else, really--I do. Steam is the "go to" for noobs. Nothing wrong with that as long as it as recognized.

I have purchased from a variety of online services over the past decades, including Steam, and my favorite hands down is Gog. This opinion has been reached after literally decades of using both services. Basically--and truthfully--the only time I will not buy a game on Gog is when I must go to Steam to get it because it is not available on Gog. And here we get to the crux of the issue as to why I consider Gog so much better than Steamworks: Gog does not support DRM under any conditions. The company is principled in that way--it is the bedrock of the company, in fact. Steamworks/Valve has no such guiding principle! Steam will happily support any kind of DRM that the developer/publisher wishes to apply to his software. Denuvo--it doesn't matter. When buying from GOG, I don't have to think about DRM--ever. If I contemplate a Steam purchase, I must check out the DRM, first! It's required for anyone who isn't a n00b, imo.

Here's the basic and serious flaw that sites like Steam have in supporting DRM. DRM is a concrete assertion by the game publisher that, whether the consumer pays for his copy of the software himself, or he doesn't, he will be treated as though he stole it or intends to steal it! DRM assumes that even paying customers are cheats and bootleggers. That is one of the biggest FLAWS I can imagine, personally, and it is a flaw that GOG does not have that Steamworks swims in. I note that you omitted this fundamental flaw from your praise of Steamworks. The assertion or the pretense that "the DRM is not noticeable in playing the game, so it doesn't matter," is simply the sort of rationalization that only a n00b would make. It's a complete evasion of the DRM question: If I pay for my software--regardless of what anyone else may do--is it a benefit to me to be treated as though I am a dishonest thief?

So, who is it who thinks that DRM is a worthless topic that has no meaning? Who is it who believes that DRM is 100% transparent, doesn't cost anything to develop or apply, and never affects the performance and stability of the software to which the DRM is applied? The N00b, by George...;) The N00b, and only the n00b, and nothing but the n00b...;)

Slick wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:16:
First, you have to justify why Steam features are worth the same amount as all development towards the game itself. You have to argue that they're equal in value to the gamer. That the game itself is worth the same as the payment portal/launcher. I'll wait while y'all do that.

This kind of thing is why people don't like zealots of vegetarianism, anti-abortion or whatever who reduce every discussion down to their pet causes. People don't *have* to justify liking Chick-Fil-A or In-N-Out's food in light of their political donations or whatever, and they usually resent that kind of lecturing to the point of pushing them in the opposite direction.

Aren't you the guy who was shrieking at me for buying an VR headset from Oculus instead of supporting Valve -- remember, evil! -- and then bought the Quest 2 a few weeks later because the price was just too good, "lol"? Is it that you wished more people had questioned the moral purity of your purchases?

All else being equal, I think consumers are better off with a viable Steam competitor. Paying for exclusives is not the ideal way for Epic to become that viable competitor, at least from a consumer perspective. But Epic is constrained here by Valve's anticompetitive conduct. Epic reduced their store cut compared to Steam's, but those savings can't get passed on to consumers because Valve reportedly requires that Steam pricing be equivalent to pricing on other stores (a so-called Most Favored Nations clause). If customers knew that games were $10 cheaper on Epic, it would drive a lot more traffic there -- or force Valve to reduce its cut to compete.

Not to say that Valve is a wholly bad actor in the space - they often do things that are great for PC gamers. I love my Steam Deck and Half-Life: Alyx.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:02:
"Location, location, location!" Publishers are well aware of the optimal digital space to market and sell their games.

I get your point, but the location is my PC. If people are too lazy to double-click a different icon on their desktop, that's not a valid excuse.

The Playstation Store is a "location"

The Apple Store is a "location"

My PC is the only "location" I need. This platform rules specifically because it's not dominated by any storefront. Someone should remind gamers of that.

And a quick note for all the Steam "features".

First, you have to justify why Steam features are worth the same amount as all development towards the game itself. You have to argue that they're equal in value to the gamer. That the game itself is worth the same as the payment portal/launcher. I'll wait while y'all do that.

Secondly, most games I play on Steam don't make use of any features I can't get elsewhere. It's not like I have to drive to another part of town to get an embedded web-browser. We're PC gamers, we have everything at our fingertips anyways. Only a handful of Steam games make use of the few standout features like Workshop. The majority launch and play the same as on any other storefront/launcher. Shit, half the games in my Steam library launch their own launcher whenever I try to play them! I'm actually adding more inconvenience than if I'd just buy from the developer/publisher directly! Convenience!

RedEye9 wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:09:

Kxmode wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:02:
"Location, location, location!" Publishers are well aware of the optimal digital space to market and sell their games.

And they're also well aware that if they want a guaranteed return, Epic is their home. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Dependence on subsidizing isn't a sustainable business strategy. Eventually the gravy train derails.

Verno wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 11:27:
People like Steam man, great features, constant iteration and it has the most title variety. Competitors have tried to differentiate themselves in various ways (mostly flawed IMO) but ultimately consumers keep choosing Steam. Valve has been a pretty good shepherd to PC gaming overall and sure they've benefited from it significantly but so have we.

Consumers redeem the free titles on other services but ultimately don't stick around for various reasons we can debate about. Epic tried to deny games from being offered on Steam and it didn't work, many people simply don't buy the game until its on Steam regardless of how cheap it is on EGS.

I don't deny the argument that Valve should be more accommodating with revenue shares but people forget that Valve took all of the risk in establishing the platform at a point in time where PC gaming was on the decline. Also they did make some concessions in response to Epic so kudos to Epic for that.

Ahh yes, the irony.

Valve took a big scary gamble with their lawsuit against their publisher Vivendi 20 years ago, and they won. To the victor the spoils and all that.

But why did Valve sue Vivendi in the first place?

They did so because they were unhappy that they couldn't self-publish their own games on their own platform, and that the 3rd party Vivendi was taking too large a cut.

Fast forward 20 years, and now Valve is taking the ludicrously big cut for games they had no hand in creating, and in order to get sales traction other companies are "forced" to sell on Steam. Because gamers won't buy them on the company's own storefronts.

The irony is so thick you could spread it over toast. And the counter-argument that Valve doesn't force anyone to use their services isn't lost on me, market forces do that all on their own, and that's ultimately down to the consumer. Companies have to sell on Steam to be financially solvent because there is a majority of the gaming population that won't buy it otherwise.

The same dynamic where Valve was unhappy having to give a big cut to Vivendi is now EVERYONE having to give a big cut to Valve. The fact that Epic is GIVING AWAY %100 of their cut on EGS and still the sentiment is "screw that" by gamers is pathetic. Zero love for the actual people who spend their lives creating the art we all love, that has enhanced our lives throughout the years. We've collectively given Valve an effective monopoly, and nobody seems to care. So much for the worker's revolution. Everyone's on team multi-billion-dollar zero-development-contributing corporation. And we're all fine with it. It kinda disgusts me.

Kxmode wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 12:02:
"Location, location, location!" Publishers are well aware of the optimal digital space to market and sell their games.

And they're also well aware that if they want a guaranteed return, Epic is their home. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

WannaLogAlready wrote on Aug 23, 2023, 21:12:
Possibly one of the few ways to make an inroad into the Steam behemoth dominance.

EGS lacks something that eliminating the commission alone can't achieve: Steam's massive customer base and the platform's complete feature set and advantages. Some could argue that this constitutes a premium feature, and offerings often come at a premium price.

Slick wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 11:22:

Overon wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 11:12:
I'm not a fan of exclusives that's what I'm not a fan of the Epic Store. It's a sad state of the market where Steam dominates and only billion dollar companies can compete and they can only do by timed exclusives and free give aways.

It is a sad state, because a majority of gamers will only ever shop at one store. A store that takes as big of a cut as all development costs put together.

30% marketing
30% development
30% Steam
10% profit

Gabe Newell makes as much from every sale on his store as wages for every developer who actually built the game.

Sad state indeed. A fair amount would be 30% of the PROFIT, not of GROSS.

Marketing and development staff are usually salaried employees, they're not paid per sale (aside from possible bonuses for hitting milestones). The way you've set up your reasoning, no matter what the storefront cut or whether it's taken out of the net or gross, the store makes more and more money relative to the wage slaves as sales go up; the winning strategy is to bomb sales so the developers earn their salaries while Gabe or Tim get nothing. Sadness increases as a function of sales.

"Location, location, location!" Publishers are well aware of the optimal digital space to market and sell their games.

Good for Epic! I've thoroughly enjoyed watching Epic trying to stimulate competition in the online game-store retail marketplace by daring to compete with the retail marketing behemoths such as the old fuddy-duddies like Apple or Steamworks, to name just a couple of those whose brains are locked in monopolistic or semi-monopolistic thinking (like what has been Intel's problem for the past several years, etc). Online game sales are the core of the global software gaming business today--exactly where retail store shelves were in the marketing scheme of 20-30 years ago! On one hand, I want to shout about how long ago that was (seems like yesterday, but it was hardly that)--and on the other hand, I'm still amazed by how fast the entire picture has radically changed. There was a time when I could not conceive of any distribution schemes apart from the sale of boxed copies!...;)

Competition injected into any marketplace where there are too few competitors will create a beneficial atmosphere for consumers and is always a good thing, imo. With this proposal, a consumer could buy a new game in the first six months of its availability from Epic for 20% less than it would cost him on Steam if it was available there, and the game publisher/dev could still come out ahead by 10% on each copy sold over what the same number of copies sold through Steamworks would put into his pocket! This is assuming that the dev/publisher would incentivize his retail customers by giving them 20% of his total 30% savings during the initial Epic exclusivity period, of course. But even if the devs/publishers pass none of the savings back to their retail customers, they still come out at least 30% ahead of where bog-standard Steam retail pricing would put them (Assuming Valve still runs with its traditional 30% commissions)!

One-size-fits-all might be a compelling economic scenario (or I should say "compelled" economic strategy) somewhere in some struggling fascist or teetering communist economy, certainly, but it's not something that works or will ever work in a vigorously competitive capitalist economy. Competition is great, and whatever Epic wants to do that stimulates it is A-OK with me.

People like Steam man, great features, constant iteration and it has the most title variety. Competitors have tried to differentiate themselves in various ways (mostly flawed IMO) but ultimately consumers keep choosing Steam. Valve has been a pretty good shepherd to PC gaming overall and sure they've benefited from it significantly but so have we.

Consumers redeem the free titles on other services but ultimately don't stick around for various reasons we can debate about. Epic tried to deny games from being offered on Steam and it didn't work, many people simply don't buy the game until its on Steam regardless of how cheap it is on EGS.

I don't deny the argument that Valve should be more accommodating with revenue shares but people forget that Valve took all of the risk in establishing the platform at a point in time where PC gaming was on the decline. Also they did make some concessions in response to Epic so kudos to Epic for that.

Overon wrote on Aug 24, 2023, 11:12:
I'm not a fan of exclusives that's what I'm not a fan of the Epic Store. It's a sad state of the market where Steam dominates and only billion dollar companies can compete and they can only do by timed exclusives and free give aways.

It is a sad state, because a majority of gamers will only ever shop at one store. A store that takes as big of a cut as all development costs put together.

30% marketing
30% development
30% Steam
10% profit

Gabe Newell makes as much from every sale on his store as wages for every developer who actually built the game.

Sad state indeed. A fair amount would be 30% of the PROFIT, not of GROSS.

lol... They are so desperate its sad. They will never be able to compete with Steam. I honestly wonder how long till they throw in the towel.

I'm not a fan of exclusives that's what I'm not a fan of the Epic Store. It's a sad state of the market where Steam dominates and only billion dollar companies can compete and they can only do by timed exclusives and free give aways.