THE Epic Games Store Thread

[Nagorak]

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight

They will end up raising the 12% cut substantially, just to cover costs, and when all said and done, they will be on par with Steam. I suspect they will run the service at a loss the first year or so, to try and get developers on their platform, then they will start increasing there take. Otherwise, they won't be able to sustain it, and it will fail.

BTW, steam share decreases to 25% once the earns $10 million (including "game packages, DLC, in-game sales, and Community Marketplace game fees") , and 20% when it hits $50 Million. This change was done in December. Another note, is most bigger distribution fronts such as GoG, GreenmanGaming, etc also charge 30%.

Steam is a hugely profitable. There's no way that you need to charge 30% just to break even. I wouldn't even be surprised if the 12% cut more than covers any costs.

Also interesting how you point out that Steam has suddenly felt the need to reduce their cut once sales reach a certain point. I'm sure that would have happened purely in isolation without the Epic Store, right?

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight

How many have tried and failed. (All of them) Epic will be no different.

Who's actually tried? All the publisher stores apparently have prices pegged to Steam, so they couldn't compete there to win anyone over. And none of them tried to go after the other side of the equation (developer cut) which Steam cannot dictate. It was actually pretty smart of Epic to see how to approach the problem from a different angle.

Epic also took a page right out of Valve's playbook by using Fortnite to push their store.

Originally Posted by theshadowcult

I want to point something out by the way. Something a lot of people have simply glossed over.

The money given to the developers is ONLY increased for indie devs. The devs attached to publishers are not getting that 12%, they are only getting whatever the they agreed to in their contract with the publisher. 4a no doubt is under nda and can't say anything, but i doubt, no even close to believing that they are getting any more of that 12%, or any more money in general from this deal.

4a are not benefiting from this at all.

How much money is Valve paying them from the extra 18%? Having that money go into Gabe Newell's pocket certainly doesn't benefit 4A or anyone else. More money to the publishers might be the difference between a game losing money, or at least breaking even. Or turning a small profit and being canned, or maybe a decent enough profit to warrant a sequel.

I think it's funny how some of you guys are trying to act like Valve vacuuming up money the way they are is somehow benefitting PC Gaming. Most of the money that goes into Valve is just dead money. It doesn't go back into PC Gaming, whether publishers or developers or anyone else. It doesn't go into developing Steam, which will be apparent when Epic copies every relevant feature from Steam in less than a year.

Valve currently controls the market, so they can demand whatever prices they want, fair enough. But they're not some sort of "good guys" who just deserve their 30% for being so generous and benevolent. They're just as cutthroat as any other large company. They certainly haven't done right to their fans either with just canning Half Life, despite having basically unlimited resources to develop it. Frankly I'm not sure where all this loyalty to Valve comes from.

[theshadowcult]

Pretty sure valve has been pushing money into rnd for development of the future of gaming for a long time now. an os, steam box, a gamepad, vr, etc. Just because things have not ended up "successful" doesnt mean valve are not doing anything. They are doing more individually then anybody else.

[NIGELG]

Originally Posted by Nagorak

Steam is a hugely profitable. There's no way that you need to charge 30% just to break even. I wouldn't even be surprised if the 12% cut more than covers any costs.

Also interesting how you point out that Steam has suddenly felt the need to reduce their cut once sales reach a certain point. I'm sure that would have happened purely in isolation without the Epic Store, right?



Who's actually tried? All the publisher stores apparently have prices pegged to Steam, so they couldn't compete there to win anyone over. And none of them tried to go after the other side of the equation (developer cut) which Steam cannot dictate. It was actually pretty smart of Epic to see how to approach the problem from a different angle.

Epic also took a page right out of Valve's playbook by using Fortnite to push their store.



How much money is Valve paying them from the extra 18%? Having that money go into Gabe Newell's pocket certainly doesn't benefit 4A or anyone else. More money to the publishers might be the difference between a game losing money, or at least breaking even. Or turning a small profit and being canned, or maybe a decent enough profit to warrant a sequel.

I think it's funny how some of you guys are trying to act like Valve vacuuming up money the way they are is somehow benefitting PC Gaming. Most of the money that goes into Valve is just dead money. It doesn't go back into PC Gaming, whether publishers or developers or anyone else. It doesn't go into developing Steam, which will be apparent when Epic copies every relevant feature from Steam in less than a year.

Valve currently controls the market, so they can demand whatever prices they want, fair enough. But they're not some sort of "good guys" who just deserve their 30% for being so generous and benevolent. They're just as cutthroat as any other large company. They certainly haven't done right to their fans either with just canning Half Life, despite having basically unlimited resources to develop it. Frankly I'm not sure where all this loyalty to Valve comes from.

I don't understand why some people want a near monopoly.

Competition is good.The consumer will decide.

I wholly agree with you about Half Life 3.Valve is riding on their legacy.They would do well to actually start making Half Life 3 and more games.

[Mangler]

How is competition that leads to zero benefits for the customer good?

Say what you want about steam, battlenet, origin, and uplay, you can atleast buy those games through other storefronts, unlike EGS titles.

[Nunz]

Originally Posted by Mangler

How is competition that leads to zero benefits for the customer good?

Say what you want about steam, battlenet, origin, and uplay, you can atleast buy those games through other storefronts, unlike EGS titles.

Yeah seriously. How is this considered good competition? There is no benefit for consumers with what Epic is doing; if anything, this is WORSE for competition because we are losing options (Steam and Epic's store having the game available).

[Eisberg]

Because there is no other way for the game developers/publishers to fight against the PC gaming industry standard of the 70/30 revenue split.

[Taturana]

It is not only PC gaming industry standard. Google CEO Sundar Pichai said

“We invest a lot in our infrastructure to continuously make sure the overall experience is safe and results in high engagement for the developers back. So, I think there’s a value exchange there. And it’s been the industry standard. And so, I think we’ll continue down that path but obviously, always adapt to where the market is,” said Pichai.

https://www.bgr.in/news/google-will-...chai-fortnite/

So, what matters to me right now about the store, as a consumer, is the pricing. They lowered the price for Brazil, but it is still showing in dollars. They have a lot of payment methods, including some that does not require credit card. The thing is, despite the lower prices in dollars, the overall prices are still higher in my currency than what I see on Steam or GoG, for example. And since I can't buy some of the games somewhere else (like nuuvem, greenmangaming, etc), I won't really use ESG untill then.

[borat]

Are we sure games on Epic won't be sold on places like GMG anytime soon?

[Taturana]

Maybe in the future, but so far the games are exclusively sold through EGS.

[acroig]

Originally Posted by borat

Are we sure games on Epic won't be sold on places like GMG anytime soon?

My preorder at cdkeys is still good.

[bill dennison]

GMG is still selling Division 2 wasn't it a epic exclusive also ?

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/201...c-store-on-pc/

but then you can still buy it from uplay also

[Mangler]

Nah, they just pulled it from steam.

[jimjobob]

I don't see the issue with the epic launcher. Purchased Metro and enjoyed the discount.

[Taturana]

The Division 2 is not exclusive because of uplay. I don't know how cdkeys.com works, but their key is showing for EGS. Now, the price. On steam Metro Exodus was being sold close to 105,00 in brazilian real (mind you, it is expensive, but not that expensive) With some promotions it would go to a lower price point. At cdkeys.com it is being sold for 345.49. I am not buying there.

[Beak]

Hi,

Thanks for contacting cdkeys.com.

Unfortunately the code we have is for Epic games store. I can confirm that your order has now been cancelled and the transaction is voided/refunded. The funds should be back with you shortly.

Hope this helps.

I just bought the game again with a 8 dollar markup, cd keys is no longer selling the steam keys.

[Argoon1981]

Originally Posted by Nunz

Yeah seriously. How is this considered good competition? There is no benefit for consumers with what Epic is doing; if anything, this is WORSE for competition because we are losing options (Steam and Epic's store having the game available).

[A2597]

this is the same issue we're having with video streaming.
Suddenly need 10 subscriptions to watch the shows you want.

[jimjobob]

Originally Posted by Nunz

Yeah seriously. How is this considered good competition? There is no benefit for consumers with what Epic is doing; if anything, this is WORSE for competition because we are losing options (Steam and Epic's store having the game available).

I think a discount of almost 17% direct from the launcher vs a 3rd party store is a definite benefit to the consumer.

[theshadowcult]

This is a goode watch on the bullshit of publishers, and why 4a should not be blamed for the epic games store mess.

Goode watch in general too. Epic definitely falls into some of these issues themselves.

[Mangler]

Originally Posted by jimjobob

I think a discount of almost 17% direct from the launcher vs a 3rd party store is a definite benefit to the consumer.

That is not a universal discount though, only some regions got it.

[daPhoenix]

PC Master Race: LOL PC IS AN OPEN PLATFORM LOL AT CONSOLE USERS.

Console: 'sup Metro players.

[acroig]

Originally Posted by daPhoenix

PC Master Race: LOL PC IS AN OPEN PLATFORM LOL AT CONSOLE USERS.

Console: 'sup Metro players.

, tru.dat.

[KAC]

I could've started playing Metro about 2 days back when it became available for PS4 in my country. Too bad I had it on PC.

[Dungeoncrawler]

Originally Posted by KAC

I could've started playing Metro about 2 days back when it became available for PS4 in my country. Too bad I had it on PC.

Yeah, I was watching a few twitch feeds of people playing on the ps4. Most were from Russia. However the game looked really tight on it. But it seemed to have some performance issues but it could have been the twitch platform?

[bob saget]

Originally Posted by Dungeoncrawler

Yeah, I was watching a few twitch feeds of people playing on the ps4. Most were from Russia.

you were probably just watching a twitch stream of people travelling in Russia

[Eisberg]

Dangerous Driving, spiritual successor to Burnout and made by the same people, it coming to the Epic store

[Dungeoncrawler]

Still a class-act imo.

CD Projekt Red Gives Hard Pass to Epic Store Exclusivity for Cyberpunk 2077

...won't succumb to egregious, anti-consumer practices.

[DaJMasta]

It is anti-consumer, but it's there because without it people wouldn't go to the epic store.




Also worth mentioning: if CD Projekt was going to do an exclusivity deal with any platform, it would be GoG, since they own it

this is the same issue we're having with video streaming.
Suddenly need 10 subscriptions to watch the shows you want.

Similar, but not equivalent in this analogy, I think. It would be like having to go to 10 different websites to watch the shows you want, none of which have a subscription. Still less convenient, sure, but not as egregious as dividing up good content into sort of microtransaction subscriptions (which is still a way to monetize content that makes sense), or, let's say, requiring you to buy a subscription service to use online content and stores ()

[bill dennison]

well wait till one goes the way Ultraviolet is now and you lose your games

[twonha]

Originally Posted by DaJMasta

Also worth mentioning: if CD Projekt was going to do an exclusivity deal with any platform, it would be GoG, since they own it

They tried with the Witcher Gwent spin-off game. Lasted a few days before they realized GoG wouldn't bring in loads of cash compared to a Steam launch.