3825

To be clear, by “they” I meant the devs and publishers that have signed on with Epic. I think PC Gamer is just cynically taking advantage of all the outrage to get clicks.

3826

Yep. The devs said no such thing as “thanks to” in the linked sources. In fact, I noted the word “despite.”

3827

Incorrect. The whole reason modern software businesses are so fabulously profitable is that programming is generally a fixed cost. (Outside of consulting work; but this is exactly why consulting doesn’t make for a good startup idea). When the sales of Epic games store doubles, they don’t need to hire any more software engineers to accomplish it.

Of course they are variable costs. Where did I say or imply otherwise?

You seem to not understand the nature of fixed versus variable costs.

What, exactly, do you think a variable cost is? Because you appear to be very very confused.

You know, that’s a really shitty thing to say.

But you’re right. You’re the one claiming that Epic’s claim of 7% is a lie. The burden of proof is on completely on you, there’s no point in putting any effort into the discussion while that’s the case. So far you’re just hand-waving. Put up or shut up: what do you think is the actual cost breakdown?

3828

Costs of 7% is not viable, having worked in multiple businesses over the years I would have given my right hand for a cost like like. You do not need a burden of proof to know that, it’s bullshit and if you believe that get down the bottom of the garden and gets some shots of the fairies that live their for me as well.

3829

So what do you think the actual number is, and how does it break down?

3830

This is the essence of this discussion with jsnell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynm34WFJ0aA

It is not worth it. The Epic jock sniffer will believe what ever they want to believe.

3831

So you have no idea of what the cost structure could be, and are unwilling to provide any number that could be actually be discussed. Got it.

You’re a real piece of work.

3832

Interesting article.

“On the PC specifically, we are performing way above expectations thanks to the support we have received from the Epic Games Store."

3833

But above what expectations? The basic rule of thumb is that about a quarter of the sales are on PC for a title released on PC/XBox/PS4. And that’s very close to what they got. How is that “way above”? (Could be that the sales of the game in general are better than expected, but then that’s not really a statement about “the PC specifically”).

The only way that statement makes sense is that they expected it to do quite badly on Epic. And then were surprised it reached roughly the level of sales they would have expected on Steam. Which is indeed surprising, even considering the $5 discount compared to consoles.

3834

Good post. I dunno about expectations, but the article certainly makes it sound like Saber Interactive is happy with the Epic store. However, applying skepticism to journalism is wise and we’ll see how things develop over time.

I don’t think my Steam library is threatened in the slightest; I think Steam will still yield tremendous results for Valve. But if those who release on the Epic store do well, they should able to persist and pursue more projects if their profits surge. Good news for the studios that need the boost.

3835

I think we can probably do without the insults, if you’re getting that upset about a game store maybe it’s time to take a step back from the thread. That applies to everybody.

3836

How to Visa and Mastercard stay in business charging only 2%?!?!

3837

Because they aren’t in the same sector as Steam.

3838

But Reemul tells us they worked in multiple industries and 7% is not viable, period!

3839

This argument to support EGS is flawed.

3840

It’s not like they charge interest rates of over 20% or anything.

3841

Well they charge 2% to process the transaction but it’s not their only income stream.

I worked for Barclays Bank for 7 years on their digital side including processing their visa payments. There is plenty of additional income streams tied in from yearly fees, interst rates, penalty clauses etc etc

But do you really really believe you can run a business with a 7% cost only never any more. You can make any comment you like whether you believe that but 7% honestly.

The lowest cost i ran was 12.5% but that did not include infastructure, transportation, sickness, recruitment or training that was just the stable part eg generic costs we always had. Once you add the add hoc, unknown, unplanned etc it just keeps rising. It is just so had to keep costs down to say you can run at an arbitary 7% shows you are either full of crap or maybe your business won’t survive in that form for long.

Additionally does that 7% cost include the bunce they are paying for the exclusives or are they listed as other and exluded from cost even though it is a cost?

3842

I think it might be helpful if people remind themselves of what Tim Sweeney said…

The important phrase there is direct costs, ie hes not accounting for every cost to the business. 7% costs seems entirely plausible in that context.

3843
3844

Yep, it’s a BS statement that means nothing. Costs are costs regardless how you report them.

Oh look we made a massive profit, ah don’t worry about those costs they don’t really count, what do you mean we didn’t really make that much profit, we don’t include that stuff :D