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.
Bluddy
5321
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.
Indyls
5323
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?
jsnell
5326
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.
KevinC
5328
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.
jsnell
5330
The most recent Steam Sale of Far Cry Primal ended on July 9th. It was sold for $10. Before the current Epic Ubisoft sale, the last time Primal was for sale there was on June 18th, sold for $15. There have been six Steam sales on Primal this year, two on Epic.
So I just don’t see where this idea that it’s being discounted more often or more deeply on Epic than Steam is coming from. Of course it doesn’t help if they keys aren’t there, but I’ve never seen Steam not have Steam keys. Pretty surprising that Valve is allowing something like that.
The first game I checked (Watch Dogs 2) had a much higher base price on both Steam and Epic than on Uplay. But looks like that’s not universal.
Far Cry Primal literally is.
jsnell
5332
No, it’s not. The most recent Epic sale had a lower price than there’s ever been on Steam, sure. The most recent Steam sale had a lower price than the previous Epic low. Game sales percentages increase over time, that’s totally normal.
If the next Steam sale doesn’t happen, or has a higher price than on Epic, then you’d have a point.
Mate I find your argumentation disingenuous at best but you already made my point for me. I set the price alert, based on the historic low, during the last Epic sale, which started before the Steam Summer Sale, when Far Cry Primal was priced at $4.99 with the store-wide discount.
jsnell
5334
The one concrete claim you made was:
There have been several sales in a row now where
Play/Epic titles were discounted while Steam keys were
either unavailable or full-price.
I honestly don’t understand how that could be true when this is the 2nd Epic sale of Primal, and there have been none between this and the last Steam sale. Maybe you could explain it rather than resort to insults?
It was priced at $14.99. That’s the price that Ubisoft set, that was the price that was shown on the front page, and that’s the price that Ubisoft’s revenue from these sales was based on.
Now, to a customer that breakdown doesn’t matter, they’re just happy they got the game for cheap. To companies it does matter. And your initial post wasn’t phrased from the point of view of a customer. Instead you said that "Ubisoft games now have a Steam Tax” and that “they are aggressively flexing against Valve”. And that’s the part that I disagree with. As far as I can see Ubisoft has been running sales on both stores at a similar frequency, and has not been setting higher prices on Steam.
Just what is the tax? Ubisoft is imposing a Steam tax because Steam isn’t throwing money into a similar sale?
