I think because it’s clearly temporary, and as many have asserted, viewed as a necessary evil to get the traction to launch a successful store? Steam launched in a different landscape and still used effective ‘exclusivity’ of HL2 to force the change they wanted.
I’m not sure I’d qualify that as a good equilibrium. That’s like saying we have Wal-Mart and a few mom&pops and that’s it.
Alternatively, should Epic start to corner the market on desirable new games Steam would be forced to follow suit and buy exclusives on major titles. If the games market devolves into Epic and Steam bidding for the exclusive right to sell games, the consumer will suffer in the end. They will be the ones to pay the cost and anyone who believes the increased competition is good should be very fearful of that possibility.
They won’t because they know Epic will eventually stop. It’s untenable over the long haul - and unlike on consoles, it’s not that hard for piracy to make an end-run around exclusivity on PCs, especially when DRM-free titles are part of the equation. I mean, you do the math, and eventually a %change to the royalty rate makes better financial sense than dropping stacks of cash on people in perpetuity.
The question for them is whether folks continue to use the Epic store after the exclusives end, and how hard the tide of developer sentiment turns.
Engineers like to set up a system that works and then move on, not constantly firefight it.
I do not think you can make that assumption. If the model turns out to be both sustainable and profitable Epic will continue it. This is not engineering, this is business. There is not enough data yet to make that the model is not sustainable. I make no claim that it is or is not sustainable but should it be it will be the customers who ultimately bear those costs. That is the one thing that we can be sure of.
OK, you’re making an assumption about a possible future, but telling me I can’t make assumptions about same.
Feel free to disagree with me, whatever, but please don’t chide me for making informed assumptions when this thread is at least 70% people’s speculations, including your own.
As far as the data available, I think I fairly clearly have more of the available data than probably anyone in this thread, given my years in the business, and I actually have an agreement with the store in question in this circumstance.
In Epic’s case, it is a business run by engineers. And they act like it.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the customers who will ultimately bear the costs’. And why you’re sure of it. Games are cheaper per unit of fun than they have ever been in history. More plentiful, of higher quality, and of higher availability. Costs for developers have skyrocketed while games prices have stayed flat or dropped. How are the customers bearing the costs?
Do I seriously need to preface every post I make with “Just my opinion, but”.
We are speaking of future events that haven’t happened yet. That’s pretty clearly impossible to make definitive statements about - only informed assumptions.
I mean, isn’t that obvious? Really, man.
You didn’t answer my question about customers bearing the cost.
So, wait - developers getting more of a cut of their sales increases prices? I am not following.
Even if Valve and Epic lay out cash for exclusives - that comes from THEIR end - not the developers who set prices. Moreover, that cash goes TO developers. Which, again, improves their bottom line and doesn’t seem an obvious factor for increasing prices.
I’m still not following. The stores do not set the prices. The developers do. So less revenue from developers to the store does not affect prices. Valve and Epic cannot make up the cost of their exclusivity buys or %revenue split by increasing prices, because they do not set them.
I hesitate to use the word ‘gouge’ but there’s certainly been some advantage taken by the incumbent players in the PC store (or platform, if you prefer) market over the last 10 years. I see the change to a more favorable developer split as an over-due correction rather than as something that presents an existential crisis to the retailer. In other words, they eat it.
Is it the developers, or is it the publishers? I had always assumed your position was different from that of Obsidian or 4A?
This is also why I assume that the extra money coming from Epic may result in better pay for non-management/ ownership at some studios (such as those who self-publish), but not those under the 2k/ Deep Silver/ Private Division banner. I’m happy to see the people actually working on games get some extra in their checks, but I don’t really care about publishers.
The real question is whether that’s true. I hope it is, but I don’t trust that it is. I’m certainly not going to financially incentivize Epic to continue its current behavior, which means I won’t be buying anything through their store or installing their questionable launcher. I have very little regard for Steam, and I’d love to see a better option come along. This isn’t that.
I don’t know about price setting on the pub side - probably depends on your publisher relationship. Either way though, the cost for this initiative is on the side of the stores, not the pub/dev - so the pub wouldn’t increase price to assist the store either. And even if you’re in a pub/dev relationship, a better cut from the store means you earn out your advance and get to royalty faster.
I mean time will tell - Epic has publicly stated that it’s their intent, and I have no reason to doubt them, given the ongoing expense and PR drag.
All that said, I’m all for people making choices about what and where they buy based on their preferences. I don’t fault anyone for doing so.