Yes, I suppose you have been careful to avoid actually saying anything about what Epic should do; rather than make a counter argument you just repeat that not everyone gets to benefit. And my question remains the same: So? How is some developers benefiting not better than no developers benefiting? Why do you insist on pointing out the limits to the benefit like it matters to anything being said?
I never said it wasn’t.
Because of course it does matter. If you’ve been following this thread a number of EGS supporters have been touting how this will benefit PC gaming by providing more money to developers. I think it is important to note that this benefit will be very limited. Even if EGS is successful it is unlikely to really change the current pricing for the vast majority of PC games because EGS is so limited in their selection. Why do you insist on ignoring that these benefits will be rather limited given EGS limited number of games for sale?
Well, we actually don’t know the scope of this yet, do we? We don’t know yet how many developers will benefit, or how many developers have reject the deal or are still considering the deal or how many deals Epic plans for make.
So, it really is just what you choice to believe. But, we do know that the developers with games that are actually popular are being offered the deal, so whatever the benefit is currently, it’s not zero.
But, if Epic gets off the ground, I think you might see a lot of developers looking at what is being offered by other stores and asking for more themselves. Steam had already made some concessions around the time Epic had announced their intentions. If steam and valve feel threatened, I am sure more concessions will be made.
Anyway, it’s still early days yet, with the store still not complete. Like steam itself, it will probably be a while before some of the more stubborn members of this forum turn a corner on this.
In the mean time, free games and 10 dollar off deals. Not to shabby for almost no investment on my part.
Strawman, who said it was “zero”? But we know EGS is not going to have hundreds, much less thousands of games like Steam. From everything I’ve read, they intend to maintain a select curated storefront.
What developers want is irrelevant. If EGS is not going to take a game, what leverage does that developer have over Steam? That doesn’t seem to make much sense. Steam will be free to compete with EGS on certain games, and free to maintain current pricing for everyone else.
I don’t think the number of games matter. Most games are just not valuable to either Steam, Epic or even the developer (in terms of monetary gain). Most will never see a profit. Most are money sinks for both the developers and for Steam. We already know this.
Like an angel investor, Valve only needs a handful
of games to succeed on steam for it to be good make up the costs of all the rest. For the longest time, steam was trying to limit the number of indie games on the market, so that it would have to deal with the 99% that just take up room.
So, for the sake of argument you have 100 games coming out from indie developers. For the sake of argument, maybe 10 of them will be good enough to turn a profit of any significance. So, those 10 games will probably pay for the costs of hosting the other 90 and then some.
Now, Epic tries to game the system by figure out what those 10 are and maybe make as offer on 8 of them and maybe 10 or so of the sucky games. Well, even if they snag 5 of the good ones and all the crappy ones, that leaves Steam with 5 games that have to support other 80 crappy games left over, while Epic has 5 good games and now 10 bad ones.
Steam doesn’t care about the 80 crappy games it has, by it sure as hell cares about the 5 good games that it lost to Epic. And since Steam has a pretty open system, it has a tougher time figuring out which of the 100 games will be good before Epic comes in, so in order to keep them on its payroll, it needs to make Epics offer less beneficial by offering better deals to all 100 games. The model that Steam uses doesn’t allow it to pick and choose winners and losers like Epic can (at this point).
Anyway, that’s how I foresee Epics strategy having an outsized effect on Steam because they are trying to target Steams money makers.
Now, Steam doesn’t have offer everyone a better deal. It’s already gamed the system by offer everyone that sells more then a certain amount of units a better deal. Certainly, they can keep doing that instead, and developers that are confident in their game might decide to stick with Steam because of that. But, I think they would still need to lower that amount to make it tempting, which is still a net gain to developers.
First of all, quality and profitability aren’t that related, on anything. Secondly, it’s more like 2. Thirdly, if they indeed were to pay for everyone else, congratulations, whatever doesn’t look successful won’t get funded, we can look forward to (only) endless clones of Minecraft, PUBG and TF2, just like the big boys in Hollywood.
While that would be a mercy to Space Tyrant, whelp, so much for Obra Dinn or Baba, who cares about this ugly, 2d crap where you don’t even kill anything. Let’s do Youtuber’s Life instead, that’s in, right? Oh, look, yep, seems like it has 5 times the
sales quality, let’s hope we see more of that instead!
Great the whole popular doesn’t mean good argument. The last stand of the erudite, the elite the first among equal.
Sorry, but the overlap between popular and quality is there, as long as it’s affordable and accessable. And with Epic giving steep discounts like they did during the last sale, I can see it happening more often that games are accessible and affordable (with the noted exception of Linux users. Sorry guys and girls).
Perhaps not 100%, but people like what they like.
As for clones, most indie original concepts are crap. It’s fun to be out there and make something unique, but right now, the best games I’ve played is Dominions 5. That’s 5, after 4 iterations. It’s a unique game, but it’s not breaking new grounds. There are cool 8 bit RPGs out there, trying something newish, but they are still basically RPGs. RTS games are having a mini resurgence with AoE DE, but that’s just an old gams, but brought up to modern standards.
Hell, we here at QT3 are constantly hyped by the idea of whether the next Fantasy Strategy game will recapture the magic of Master of Magic or Fantasy General.
So, don’t give me the argument about popularity or clones. That’s just elitism gone rampant. A snobby attitude that has no basis in reality, but just a shelter for people to feel Superior to others. Good games usually improve on old concepts, not strike out to something brand new, just like art or music.
Interesting concept. I don’t really have a dog in the EGS fight; don’t care much. But I do agree with @peterb upthread that the market, essentially, will decide whether EGS is making good choices in what games to sell, so we really don’t have much to add to that beyond, well, buying or not buying. I am intrigued, though, about this assertion that as long as some people are benefiting, we should be happy for them.
In I guess some sort of cosmic moral sense, the opposite of schadenfreude seems like a reasonable and empathetic sort of reaction. “Hey, I’m glad you got that job!” or “I’m happy you won the lottery!” I’m not sure it’s nearly as valid in the realm of political economy, however. Paying off one group to screw over the rest is a time-honored tactic, especially in capital-labor relations. Divide and conquer has been a part of political and economic strategy since long before Machiavelli. Now, I am not saying EGS is doing anything of the sort, or implying any evil motives, or what not. What I’m suggesting is that, no, the mere fact that one group is benefiting from something does not make that thing in and of itself necessarily good. It might be. It might not be.
That is so not me, though. But fine, you still want to throw a bunch of good games out just because you don’t like the concepts, and I’m still going to say I care a lot more for games that wouldn’t exist in a world of walled gardens, when even Opus Magnum was temporarily rejected by GoG.
They’re not even that close to GMG launch discounts, let alone others, and it remains to be seen what sales of older games are like. Sorry, that’s baseless bullshit.
Usually, yes. Hardly always, because someone has to be first. Factorio, Minecraft of PUBG had slight improvements over what, exactly?
Using “sorry” with an assertion of “baseless bullshit” is a bit contradictory. Tone aside, the EGSale was a significant discount for many titles (e.g. every title that was $20, including recently released titles, was 50% off due to the $10 credit.) Although a $10 savings might not be worthwhile to some, it can make the difference in a purchase to others.
Are you saying that’s not related affordability or accessibility?
It is apparently contradictory, but I’ve been convinced that legowarrior is a nice guy, so I am sorry.
What I’m saying is that, even though it was once in a lifetime thing, supposedly, it’s nowhere near out of the ordinary. It’s only somewhat extraordinary for people who buy directly on Steam (including the big sale events since they changed a few years ago), otherwise, not really.
And this is where Epic is at its best. Less exclusives, more awesome sales is what we need.
Don’t grab popular titles last minute – help small devs who don’t have the means, and then some exclusivity makes sense.
Show that you’re pro-customer.
Inside is coming up free next. And Far Cry Primal is $4.99. (I don’t think I dare add that to the bargain thread though!)
It’s odd that Ubisoft games now have a “Steam Tax”. They are aggressively flexing against Valve and Epic’s the scapegoat, so Ubi’s going a bit unnoticed for it.
What do you mean? Higher pricing on Steam?
Is it a “Steam tax” rather than a “non-Uplay tax”? The base prices of old Ubisoft titles seem similarly inflated on both Steam and Epic.
There have been several sales in a row now where uPlay/Epic titles were discounted while Steam keys were either unavailable or full-price. This appears to be a direct result of Ubisoft no longer providing Steam keys to third-party retailers, but instead activating directly through uPlay.
The games are on uPlay no matter what, it’s just uPlay or uPlay/Epic (discounted) versus Steam/uPlay (full price). I noticed Far Cry Primal in particular because it actually interests me, but I don’t get any price alerts unless it’s a store that offer Steam keys.
I don’t have problems with Ubisoft or other devs lowering the cost of their games on platforms where they receive a larger cut. From a consumer point of view, that’s the reason to want this sort of competition. Steam can either lower their prices/increase compensation to devs, or they can compete by being more a of a premium service and not compete directly on price.
It’s definitely a smart move on Ubisoft’s part, but I expect that there is a backlash building. I’m sort of chuckling because to my poor perception of time Ubisoft is still struggling in the AA developer range like, say, THQ, against the giants like EA and Activision, think the short kid who really thinks he needs to prove himself, despite that not being remotely the case for years now.