Epic Games Store - 88% split goes to devs

[KevinC]

I can’t predict the future, but I can say that competition is generally good for consumers (especially in terms of pricing and quality) and without competition, companies tend to get complacent and lazy.

So no, you don’t think those $60 are going to become $50 games. :)

That was a response worthy of a politician, BTW (I’m playfully teasing here, not trying to be a dick).

[Nesrie]

If I thought EGS had any intention of competing in the way that you are suggesting competition is needed, I wouldn’t be against them. I have no reason to believe, at this point, EGS has any intention of doing so other than the word of someone who constantly walks back what they say.

[CraigM]

But that’s the thing, there is already competition, quite vigorous actually, at the consumer level.

But that’s because games are in competition against other games. The presence or absence of multiple stores has little material difference in that, merely that different games are competing for consumer dollars. Any incentive to compete on price already existed.

And in fact we have seen that play out. Humble, Steam Sales, the fact that the $60 price point for AAA has not budged despite inflationary effects. Some devs do launch at lower prices outside of AAA. See Travis’s RGO, or Paradox.

I do not see multiple store fronts really adding to that intense competition towards lowering prices.

[Lunarstorm]

So no, you don’t think those $60 are going to become $50 games. :)

Sure, given that scenario, inflation alone is a counterpoint to that suggestion! As development costs rise, games will have to do so, too.

[LockerK]

I’m still waiting for the lower prices we were promised for digital games because there was no cost of physical goods manufacturing or logistics involved. Any day now!

[Lunarstorm]

That was a response worthy of a politician, BTW

Ouch! :D I agree with you and am grinning at the well played response, even if it stings a bit.

[legowarrior]

I’m on @legowarrior’s side here pertaining to prices. It’s the continuation of a debate that Travis and I had several months ago. To be clear, while I’ve bought a few games on EGS, I am not a fan of the storefront or their practices. I’m just willing to sell out to play a few exclusives. :)

There are two scenarios here:

1. The majority of the storefronts continue with a 70/30 split. In this case, I see nothing changing meaningfully in prices.
2. A sizable portion of the storefronts adopt a more developer/publisher-friendly revenue split with the store (this could come in the form of blanket changes or changes that impact a larger segment of the market). In this case, pure economics take over. The cost of delivering a good will go down, so some developers/publishers will try to price their good at a lower price in an attempt to lure consumers (Note: We’ve had the debate over and over whether games are comparable/fungible and while individual specific games aren’t, gamers time/money budgets are). Once some developers/publishers go down this route, there will be an incentive for more of the market to go down this route. To show otherwise, one would have to demonstrate why the market isn’t charging much higher prices than they currently are. In short, the profit boost will be temporary until a new, lower price point is achieved. (Second note: whether it’s a lower price point or whether inflation simply allows the further continuation of the $60 price point is a separate issue).

Why is it, when you write it out, it sound so much better and is so much clearer then when I write it out? I have to honest, I am a little bit jealous.

Anyway, @meeper is spot on, and actually, his last point about inflation is also valid. And I will steal that when we have this discussion again in a few weeks. Hope you don’t mind.

[Brad_Grenz]

I’m still waiting for the lower prices we were promised for digital games because there was no cost of physical goods manufacturing or logistics involved. Any day now!

Like six dozen digital only games release on PSN, Xbox Live and the eShop every week for less than $60 that never would have been so cheap if physical was the only option.

Exclusives are not competition.

It is a form of competition, whether you like it or not.

[YakAttack]

If you include sales I think current prices are fine. I can wait 10 months or however long for a game to get marked down by 40%-60% on Steam. I don’t make purchases on Day 1. (Of course, I don’t game with friends, so there’s no social pressure.)

[Nesrie]

It is a form of competition, whether you like it or not.

And yet when ATT had their exclusive with iPhone there was a fair amount of discussion about how not competitive ATT became and how they were going to handle it when they didn’t have it anymore. I guess if you make competition to be whatever the hell you want it to be Brad, then sure you can manufacture your narrative as you go.

[Brad_Grenz]

Do you believe television shows on CBS are not in competition with television shows on ABC? Do you think Netflix and Hulu are not in competition? Your claim is absurd on its face.

[meeper]

Steal away! I’m just happy a couple of guys on generally opposing ends of the spectrum in this thread can agree on something! ;)

[Nesrie]

Do you believe television shows on CBS are not in competition with television shows on ABC? Do you think Netflix and Hulu are not in competition? Your claim is absurd on its face.

Netflix and Hulu did not start out with exclusives and actually offered convenience of existing content still found elsewhere. They seemed to care about winning customers over too. CBS and ABC were more equivalent with first party offerings… which we have talked about here, many times.

[CraigM]

Do you not think things like Stranger Things, Game of Thrones, and Star Trek Discovery were used to justify the current costs and price increases for the respective platforms they were on?

Because they are designed to allow them to charge more, not less, as more streaming services came online creating more competition. So exclusives were used to resist pressure to lower prices.

[Brad_Grenz]

Netflix and Hulu did not start out with exclusives and actually offered convenience of existing content still found elsewhere.

So? They compete using exclusive content now.

CBS and ABC were more equivalent with first party offerings…

Networks literally get in bidding wars over televisions shows in development.

Do you not think things like Stranger Things, Game of Thrones, and Star Trek Discovery were used to justify the current costs and price increases for the respective platforms they were on?

Uhh, no? I think they were used to justify gaining and maintaining subscribers.

[Nesrie]

So? They compete using exclusive content now.

No, you get exclusives so you don’t have to compete. ATT’s actual service didn’t compete and beat out the others, they had something the others didn’t have so they did the exact opposite, kept prices high, services without much improvement all because they had that one dazzle exclusive. The exclusive did not make them better, and it did not lower prices.

Networks literally get in bidding wars over televisions shows in development.

There have been long conversations about in-house development on this site for shows. You can always go find that. By the way guess what content can be found on Hulu… ABC and CBS. Disney movies were also found on the other channels and movies, and they sure as hell are not making Disney+ so they can make less money.

[legowarrior]

They still compete though. I don’t have DC or CBS steaming because I elected to go with Hulu and Netflix instead.

My entertainment dollars can only be stretched so far.

[AntediluvianArk]

Why are EA’s games not cheaper?

Because they don’t want to devalue the PC version compared to the console version where they do pay a 30% cut.

KevinC:

Forget EA maybe they’re just awful. Let’s focus on EGS. Why is Borderlands 3 not cheaper? Where are the savings from 88/12?

They are matching the price of the console version.

—‐------------------

World War Z launched at $35 on Epic vs $40 on consoles at the same time.

[legowarrior]

Is that game sold by EA?

If not, then I am not sure how it applies.

[Nesrie]

They still compete though. I don’t have DC or CBS steaming because I elected to go with Hulu and Netflix instead.

I don’t think you’re following this discussion. They aren’t really competing on exclusives. The content can be watched, purchased and otherwise consumed in more than one place… you chose Hulu and Netflix, choice being the keyword.

Exclusives are not competition… it’s more like a lure. ATT really entered competition when it lost it’s exclusive deal and suddenly, what do you know, it cared about getting the price down, offering plans people wanted, keeping ccustomers… they became dependent on exclusives. Want another example that had a bit of an issue with the exclusive approach, Costco… you’re thinking to yourself, but Costco is fun and their customers love them… yes, yes they are fine but you know who had an exclusive with Costco and didn’t do as fine without it… Amex. Exclusives tend make companies lazy, inefficient and therefore not that great at competing. It can certainly drive traffic though.