31 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

The 30% is standard because when that started the developer got a LOT for that 30% from Steam.

They got dedicated support, they got advertising assistance, they got a lot of aid in managing getting the game to sale.

All that is gone now, price is still 30%.

See, originally Steam had to explain WHY they wanted as much as retail to provide a digital copy so they hustled for their business. As they got a bigger market share they removed more and more of what that 30% got you as a developer, until what it gets you is the ability to hand over1/3 the sale price of your product just to get in the door.

Yet that 30% was called 'market standard' because there really only was 2 markets, Steam and retail, so that's what everyone else started charging.

That someone else is coming along and charging less IS A GOOD THING. The Epic Game Store isn't collecting anything from you that Steam isn't and way less than Facebook and Twitter do. They're giving up that extra 18% to buy market share. That, on its own, is good business practice.

That they're also offering a lot of money for exclusives though is ******, however it's nothing that Sony and Microsoft haven't been doing since Consoles came out. So all the stuff people are complaining that Epic is doing is also just as much 'industry standard' as the 30% cut is.

Not that the Epic game client isn't ****** and exclusives are not super, super ******. However there's nothing shady about the Epic Game Store. Unlike Steam I can get games from Epic and play them directly without even starting the Epic client, which I really like. Even the multiplayer games. Can't do that with Steam for the great majority of games. Steam, however, is a way more polished client to use.

[LordNothing]

Nightbird, on 11 October 2019 - 07:46 AM, said:

You're a dev, you create a game, and you sell it for 40$.

B&M comes, buys for 40$, sells for 60$. Steam comes, buys for 40$, sells for 60$.

Epic comes, says, "we want to buy it for 53$"
Dev: "We're selling it for 40$ to everyone"
Epic: "BUT.. we want to pay 53$"
Dev: "OK... if you really want to, you can pay 53$"
Epic: "Just sign this contract and you cannot ever reveal its terms"
Dev: "....."
You see the problem? It's one thing if Epic bought games for the same 40$ and then sold it for 45$. Devs benefit because when prices drop more people buy, customers benefit from lower prices. It's basic economics. If they wanted to build up their store front, this is all they have to do.

The only reason the Epic wants to pay more than what devs are selling games for is because they want something in return, and they also don't want customers to benefit from it. It's shady as hell.

seems like a viable strategy to get into a market with a lot of competition already. but because they are playing catchup with valve and others, they got to do things much more aggressively. securing exclusives is a major part of their plan to get established. i expect that once the epic store can stand on its own there will be a major hike in their cut and fewer exclusives. right now they are just securing the contracts.

if successful they will then likely invest in improving the store front. keep in mind the product they are developing is the store itself. exclusives will only go so far. giving away extra money would bankrupt them eventually, even cutting into their ue licensing fees, which is likely their major source of income for the company. at some point they are going to need to make it feature competitive with steam and then settle into a more conventional business model on par with their competition. shadey, that's just business as usual.

[Nightbird]

MischiefSC, on 11 October 2019 - 05:30 PM, said:

That they're also offering a lot of money for exclusives though is ******, however it's nothing that Sony and Microsoft haven't been doing since Consoles came out. So all the stuff people are complaining that Epic is doing is also just as much 'industry standard' as the 30% cut is.

That's not how it works. The devs sells the games to the stores for 40$, and the stores add a 50% mark-up, and sell it for 60$. The 30% is simply the portion of the final price not going to the devs.

Epic is basically buying the games for 53$ from the devs, this is shady. All they have to do to gain a lot of market share is to sell the games for 45$ if they're happy with a 12% cut. There's no reason for not lowering prices that will be good for consumers. Maybe they plan to hike the rate to 30% once they have a player base, whatever, but all this maneuvering only ensures that the customers get screwed in the end.

[Nesutizale]

Nightbird, on 12 October 2019 - 03:06 PM, said:

Maybe they plan to hike the rate to 30% once they have a player base, whatever, but all this maneuvering only ensures that the customers get screwed in the end.

I am pretty sure that, except big stores reduce their rates, Epic will go up. There is no reason why they shouldn't if everyone else stays with 30%. Even if they go to 25% they can still claim to be "better".
As for doing good for consumers...this has nothing to do with consumer interests. The 12% attack that was mostly against steam is a marketing campaign, nothing more.

[Nightbird]

Nesutizale, on 13 October 2019 - 09:03 AM, said:

I am pretty sure that, except big stores reduce their rates, Epic will go up. There is no reason why they shouldn't if everyone else stays with 30%. Even if they go to 25% they can still claim to be "better".
As for doing good for consumers...this has nothing to do with consumer interests. The 12% attack that was mostly against steam is a marketing campaign, nothing more.

Humble store is already at 15%, plus they give 10% in store credit back to the customer. If you want to buy a game for a better price, you'd never go Epic unless it's an exclusive. Again, Epic has 0 benefits for the consumer, only demerits.

[Sjorpha]

It's a type of lead loss strategy, aimed at developers rather than customers. Instead of competing by price they are making it attractive to go exclusive, and then the thing offered to the customers is simply access to the game that is now available only there. I don't really see anything shade about the strategy as such, exclusives are a common way to secure market share in the entertainment industry, just look at TV-shows, film premieres and music and how they usually start exclusive to one network or store, it was always a matter of time for this strategy to become more normal for games too.

I don't really get the "nothing for the customer" line, the customer gets the product the only way it can be obtained.

[Horseman]

FRAGTAST1C, on 11 October 2019 - 12:38 AM, said:

Did you read Tim's reply to that article? It was funny as hell.

https://twitter.com/...302491226525698

Edited by Horseman, 15 October 2019 - 12:53 AM.

[Nightbird]

Horseman, on 15 October 2019 - 12:47 AM, said:

https://twitter.com/...302491226525698

Who has that profit margin? Steam?

Wal-mart for example has a 3% profit margin, I think most devs have more than that

[General Solo]

Wallmart has much more turnover, so 3% of that is kazillions or something like that

[Horseman]

Nightbird, on 15 October 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

Who has that profit margin? Steam?
Wal-mart for example has a 3% profit margin, I think most devs have more than that

Clearly he thinks that hosting a massive content distribution network is free.

[Nightbird]

OZHomerOZ, on 15 October 2019 - 08:58 PM, said:

Wallmart has much more turnover, so 3% of that is kazillions or something like that

No, 3% profit margin means on a 60$ game sale, they profit 1.8$

[General Solo]

Multiplied by the number of sales, and thats just one product from many, many many many.

Game devs don't have so many

I understand, for some outrage is strong against, PGI,

Just wondering, for this deed, the last one, or all of them

Hard to measure, outrage, money ez too measure/count. Just saying.


Im kinda outraged by all the pointless, they not American outrage, wot eva, Trump does the same hes just better at it

Welcome Feudal America, ...which some BT fan may actually like.


God Save us.

IMO

Doh, “I don't like that man. I must get to know him better.”
― Abraham Lincoln

“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to
succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have.”
― Abraham Lincoln



Not directed to any previuos poster, Just saying IMO

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 16 October 2019 - 07:44 AM.