Board 8 > Can someone tell me the deal with the Epic Store and Steam Store?

(+) Yeah! (+)

GildedFool posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

But when a dev refuses to put a game on sale, or sells a game for $20 or $30 instead of the standard $15, or only sells on Itch & Epic instead of Steam, know that they are trying to make more money, which may or may not benefit you.

This so much. Devs don't care at all about improving the system. They care about making more money, regardless of whether it helps or harms the system. The Epic exclusivity isn't about improving the system. It's Epic cutting them a fat check that'll more than make up for the lower sales caused by being exclusive to a store with smaller userbase. I fail to see how limiting consumer choice helps the system.
---

The culture around only buying games at insane sales and the Steam cut are totally valid issues and I've never liked either. Sales are great for the buyer and all and if there happens to be one for a game I want of course I'll take advantage of it, but if it's a game I want/like/want to support I've never had any issue paying full price for it. I want the dev to succeed after all.

I think some of the more egregious examples of the Epic exclusivity are valid complaints and reasons to be annoyed with them but that's only part of a larger picture. The line's kinda blurry though and it's not quite as simple as "Epic cut them a check so that's on the bad side of the line."
---

GildedFool posted...

trying to make more money

Wow Muffin AND Gilded dropping epic bombs of economic knowledge. What would we do without them?

Except none of those methods make the dev more money. It's a huge risk, and it might work but RARELY. Why would Steam wants devs to keep putting their games on sale if they would sell more (and thus Steam would get more cut) at higher prices? People need to think for 5 seconds before posting this shit.

But yes, devs ACTUALLY making more money is the goal. Changing the industry so that it's easier for devs to make money is the goal. This directly benefits gamers in such obvious ways that I've repeated 10 times already.
---

Xiahou Shake posted...

Lots of folks in this topic are using "devs" when they really mean "publisher" - it's important to distinguish the two. Monetization decisions are pretty much always made at the publisher level so if you want to talk about someone shitting on customers or being greedy, that's who you should look at. Devs are artists - nothing more and certainly nothing less.

There are indie devs who self publish too
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

This so much. Devs don't care at all about improving the system. They care about making more money, regardless of whether it helps or harms the system.

1. How can developers improve the system in ways that would still allow them to function as a business?
2. What's wrong with developers wanting to make more money?
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

I fail to see how limiting consumer choice helps the system.

It doesn't. Now go tell Steam to reduce their cut so devs stop being Epic exclusive and the consumers have more choice.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Mewtwo59 posted...

This so much. Devs don't care at all about improving the system. They care about making more money, regardless of whether it helps or harms the system.

1. How can developers improve the system in ways that would still allow them to function as a business?
2. What's wrong with developers wanting to make more money?

1. If it doesn't help them as a business, I don't see why they should bother improving the system. I mean, right now they're harming the system to help them as a business, so seems like they're doing what they want just fine.
2. Nothing wrong with it. Just don't pretend like you're helping things when it's really all about making money. Basically don't be disingenuous about it like foolmo is.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Mewtwo59 posted...

I fail to see how limiting consumer choice helps the system.

It doesn't. Now go tell Steam to reduce their cut so devs stop being Epic exclusive and the consumers have more choice.

I will as soon as you go tell Epic to stop paying off devs to keep their games off Steam and consumers have more choice.
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

2. Nothing wrong with it. Just don't pretend like you're helping things when it's really all about making money. Basically don't be disingenuous about it like foolmo is.

Uh...

But when a dev refuses to put a game on sale, or sells a game for $20 or $30 instead of the standard $15, or only sells on Itch & Epic instead of Steam, know that they are trying to make more money, which may or may not benefit you.

foolmo's basic points in this topic boil down to 'Steam sale culture hurts game devs' and 'Epic games exclusivity is a byproduct of that'. He's been pretty consistent on those points.
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

I will as soon as you go tell Epic to stop paying off devs to keep their games off Steam and consumers have more choice.

I am not going to tell anyone to stop paying developers for their games. That is the problem in the first place. YOU are the problem. I know you won't admit it here, but you do know that.

Just sit back on the sidelines and try not to harass too many innocent people while you beg for them to give you free games.
---

KamikazePotato posted...

Mewtwo59 posted...

2. Nothing wrong with it. Just don't pretend like you're helping things when it's really all about making money. Basically don't be disingenuous about it like foolmo is.

Uh...

But when a dev refuses to put a game on sale, or sells a game for $20 or $30 instead of the standard $15, or only sells on Itch & Epic instead of Steam, know that they are trying to make more money, which may or may not benefit you.

foolmo's basic points in this topic boil down to 'Steam sale culture hurts game devs' and 'Epic games exclusivity is a byproduct of that'. He's been pretty consistent on those points.

Yeah, and my point is Steam sale culture helps the consumer. And you quoted Gilded's post mocking fool, not fool's actual post. Fool's post was pretending like that actually helps the consumer. It's fine for devs to chase the money. But don't act like it's good for the consumer when you do.

foolm0r0n posted...

Mewtwo59 posted...

I will as soon as you go tell Epic to stop paying off devs to keep their games off Steam and consumers have more choice.

I am not going to tell anyone to stop paying developers for their games. That is the problem in the first place. YOU are the problem. I know you won't admit it here, but you do know that.

Just sit back on the sidelines and try not to harass too many innocent people while you beg for them to give you free games.

Funny. You assume I'd buy every game I'd buy in a sale for $60. It's not like the choices are get the game for free or pay $60. You could keep the game at $60 and I'd never buy it, or put it on sale and I'd buy it. Only one of those results in the devs getting money from me, and it's not keeping it at $60. If anything, I'd guess that Epic's exclusivity is losing devs more money than Steam's sales. What was that Gabe quote? "We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem" So if this causes devs to lose more money to piracy, is that okay, just because they got a check from Epic and a higher cut from the sales?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

GildedFool posted...

trying to make more money

Wow Muffin AND Gilded dropping epic bombs of economic knowledge. What would we do without them?

Except none of those methods make the dev more money. It's a huge risk, and it might work but RARELY. Why would Steam wants devs to keep putting their games on sale if they would sell more (and thus Steam would get more cut) at higher prices? People need to think for 5 seconds before posting this shit.

In which Fool tries to explain that the economic concept of the curve of elasticity applies to all video games and devs identically and also ignores the idea that if Steam is getting a flat percentage at full price or at sale and has sales in order to make more money, the sale price must also be earning the devs more money.
---

didn't Epic recently have a sale that wasn't advertised beforehand to the devs and even though the devs received the same exact cut per sale as they would have if it weren't on sale they were pissed because Epic was devaluing their games without their permission?

i can see why that would be a problem
---

GildedFool posted...

ignores the idea that if Steam is getting a flat percentage at full price or at sale and has sales in order to make more money, the sale price must also be earning the devs more money.

Mewtwo59 posted...

If anything, I'd guess that Epic's exclusivity is losing devs more money than Steam's sales.

You guys literally repeated my arguments back at me, so uh... I guess you understand my point
---

ZenOfThunder posted...

didn't Epic recently have a sale that wasn't advertised beforehand to the devs and even though the devs received the same exact cut per sale as they would have if it weren't on sale they were pissed because Epic was devaluing their games without their permission?

i can see why that would be a problem

Oh yeah, that was baddddd. Steam sales are always opt-in, at least.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

GildedFool posted...

ignores the idea that if Steam is getting a flat percentage at full price or at sale and has sales in order to make more money, the sale price must also be earning the devs more money.

Mewtwo59 posted...

If anything, I'd guess that Epic's exclusivity is losing devs more money than Steam's sales.

You guys literally repeated my arguments back at me, so uh... I guess you understand my point

Oh good, so Steam sales aren't just good for the consumer, they're good for the devs too! So I don't see what your problem is. Everyone wins!
---

ZenOfThunder posted...

didn't Epic recently have a sale that wasn't advertised beforehand to the devs and even though the devs received the same exact cut per sale as they would have if it weren't on sale they were pissed because Epic was devaluing their games without their permission?

i can see why that would be a problem

Yes and no.

Epic had a sale where anything over a certain price point got a $10 price drop, even pre-orders. It seemingly did this without telling the devs/publishers. Epic was eating the loss for this drop themselves but, for instance, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines 2 pulled itself from this because it made them unable to compete with that reduced price on other platforms.

Another game upped its price earlier than anticipated (and against its own promise of providing advance warning) because while they always planned on the price hike, the sale made them feel pressured to do so immediately.
---

xp1337 posted...

Another game upped its price earlier than anticipated (and against its own promise of providing advance warning) because while they always planned on the price hike, the sale made them feel pressured to do so immediately.

I mean, we get this on Steam too. Didn't GTA5 do something like this for one of the Steam sales so they could offer a bigger discount but not actually lower the price that much?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

GildedFool posted...

ignores the idea that if Steam is getting a flat percentage at full price or at sale and has sales in order to make more money, the sale price must also be earning the devs more money.

You guys literally repeated my arguments back at me, so uh... I guess you understand my point

I literally don't know which point you're trying to claim now.

A) Steam sales are good
B) Epic is worse than Steam
C) It's better to have games be sold for cheaper because that makes devs more money
---

I'm gonna try to say it more clearly
foolm0r0n posted...

when a dev refuses to put a game on sale, or sells a game for $20 or $30 instead of the standard $15, or only sells on Itch & Epic instead of Steam

^These methods you guys think are the dev just trying to squeeze money out of customers, but:

foolmoron posted...

Except none of those methods make the dev more money. It's a huge risk, and it might work but RARELY.

Why would Steam wants devs to keep putting their games on sale if they would sell more (and thus Steam would get more cut) at higher prices?

^Which is what you guys repeated to me. We understand that the devs are rarely making more money on the game when doing those things. So why the hell would they do it?

foolm0r0n posted...

they are trying to improve the system, which ultimately benefits you

Pretty straightforward.

I think the confusion is that you guys can't let go of the notion that game devs are greedy villains standing in between you and your cheap games (which are made by fairies or something). Or that the dev AND the gamer (and even Steam) can all benefit from an improved industry.

Well, if you do need to think of it from a greedy dev perspective, try this: Would the greedy dev prefer to make $200 today and $200 tomorrow, or $100 today and $1000 tomorrow?
---

foolm0r0n posted...

foolmoron posted...

Except none of those methods make the dev more money. It's a huge risk, and it might work but RARELY.

Why would Steam wants devs to keep putting their games on sale if they would sell more (and thus Steam would get more cut) at higher prices?

^Which is what you guys repeated to me. We understand that the devs are rarely making more money on the game when doing those things. So why the hell would they do it?

It's like I said. I might buy a game at a discount that I wouldn't buy for full price. 70% percent of 15 dollars is still more than the 0% of 60 dollars you would've gotten out of me otherwise. You get enough people like that, and you make more money even though you're selling things for cheaper. And it works too, since everyone's giant Steam backlog is pretty much a meme at this point. If anything, it might be better for the devs since they got your money for something you're never going to play. >_>
---

Hey fool, take everything you've just said and reverse the position of Steam and the devs.

Steam got created to improve the system, which ultimately benefits gamers.

I think the confusion is that you can't let go of the notion that Steam are some greedy villains standing in between devs and easy money (which is made by fairies or something). Or that the dev AND the gamer (and even Steam) can all benefit from an improved industry.

Well, if you do need to think of it from a greedy Steam perspective, try this: Would Steam prefer to make $200 today and $200 tomorrow, or $100 today and $1000 tomorrow?
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

it might be better for the devs since they got your money for something you're never going to play

This doesn't make any sense. Even if you're discussing games as a service, where there's a continuous cost in addition to the upfront cost... every dev wants you to play their game. I can't think of any reasonable scenario where a game dev would be thrilled to have 100,000 people who bought the game but 0 playing it.
---

It's because people are fucking stupid. Being an "Epic Games Store" exclusive changes absolutely nothing in their lives, because you can just DOWNLOAD IT ON THE SAME PC YOU HAVE STEAM ON. You are required to purchase nothing additional, just download a launcher, oh the horror.

People are entitled babies and don't understand how competition helps them.
---

GildedFool posted...

Well, if you do need to think of it from a greedy Steam perspective, try this: Would Steam prefer to make $200 today and $200 tomorrow, or $100 today and $1000 tomorrow?

The first one, because the $1000 tomorrow is sure as hell not going to them.

Since you thought that reversal was a killer argument, that means you liked my original argument too, so we're done. You can keep trying to come up with gotchas I guess, but I've said enough here.

Mewtwo59 posted...

It's like I said

Oh I know, you've repeated yourself many times without addressing anything I'm saying. So I'm done there too.
---

That's rich, considering you've never managed to explain how this improves the industry from a consumer standpoint. I'm fine with what you've been saying as long as you're honest and say "I don't care about the industry or consumer, I just want more money", but you're pretending like this is good for everyone. If Steam was so bad, why didn't the devs just sell their game on their website? Minecraft did it and became one of the biggest games in the world and made its creator a multimillionaire. If Steam doesn't help at all, why doesn't everyone do that?
---

"If Steam was so bad, why don't devs do the exact thing that I came to this topic to complain about devs doing?"

I really should stop
---

So why did it take Epic to do that? Their cut is still more than what they'd get selling it on their own. Why did Steam get so big in the first place if they could've done this all along?
---

Isn't that like saying why Stream on Twitch when you can just self host yourself on your own website?

Seems like an incredibly stupid question.
---

Yeah, that's my point. Steam offers a service to the devs. Access to a much bigger user base than they'd get otherwise. Clearly Minecraft is an anomaly or else everyone would follow that model. You go on Steam because you'd make more money than you would otherwise even with Steam's cut. Do you think devs would give up 30% of their profits if there wasn't some sort of benefit to it?
---

So then why is Epic Games Store a problem then? Anyone with a PC can have both for free, and this way Devs get even more of a cut.
---

It's fine if that's how they were trying to fight Steam. Instead they're forcing me to use their ecosystem if I want to play certain games they have no part in. Which is bad since their system is so insecure. Plus there's things like my friends list is on Steam, so I'd have to re add everyone if I wanted to play with them. If Epic's store wasn't so bad this wouldn't be an issue. Basically it boils down to I want an incentive to use it, not be forced. Use a carrot, not a stick.
---

It's free.

It costs you literally nothing, and helps developers. Are you pissed when Nintendo games don't have your PS Trophies? Get over yourself.

And how is getting good exclusive games not an incentive? Isn't that like the #1 incentive to gamers?
---

Yeah, I totally want to use a system where credit cards are regularly stolen. Or one that is potentially spyware. Maybe I'd be willing to use it if they spent their money on improving the system rather than buying out devs to force people to use them. I mean, there's so many games nowadays that devs should be making stuff as accessible as possible, because if I can just buy something else with less of a hassle, I'll do it.
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

Funny. You assume I'd buy every game I'd buy in a sale for $60. It's not like the choices are get the game for free or pay $60. You could keep the game at $60 and I'd never buy it, or put it on sale and I'd buy it. Only one of those results in the devs getting money from me, and it's not keeping it at $60.

This is a good point, but it's more complex than just this. Maybe I'd be willing to pay $60 for the game if I knew that was the only option. But since it's on Steam, I wait until it's 75% off. In that case, the sale causes the devs to lose money from me.

(But it also causes the devs to gain money from you. So which is ultimately more profitable, sale or no sale? Honestly I have no idea and it presumably depends on a lot of factors, but it's definitely not as simple as "sales make more money for devs.")
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

So why did it take Epic to do that?

It didn't. It's just the first one inattentive gamers like you noticed and beat the war drums for.
---

So what store had a lower cut? Origin? Why didn't they all move there then? Most of the stores were basically just selling Steam keys at a discount. I can't imagine that's good for the devs. You still haven't said why all these devs sold on Steam if it's been so bad for business when they could've been doing the alternative all along
---

Mewtwo59 posted...

Yeah, I totally want to use a system where credit cards are regularly stolen. Or one that is potentially spyware. Maybe I'd be willing to use it if they spent their money on improving the system rather than buying out devs to force people to use them. I mean, there's so many games nowadays that devs should be making stuff as accessible as possible, because if I can just buy something else with less of a hassle, I'll do it.

This is weak. Anything could be "potentially spyware" if you have no evidence. I also feel like these stories of having Credit Cards stolen are the neckbeards of the world trying to give people a reason not to use Epic. I'm sure they're grossly exaggerated.
---

people get their credit cards stolen from anything and everywhere, and basically everything is some form of spyware, Epic just doesn't hide it as well

I do think Steam is a monopoly and if it takes Epic of all things to knock them down a peg then more power to them, and more power to devs that want to actually make money if Epic is providing them with a means to do that

This is not a black and white situation and everyone here is making fair points. I think the best thing we can do now is just wait for things to play out and see what happens.
---

wg64Z posted...

This is weak. Anything could be "potentially spyware" if you have no evidence. I also feel like these stories of having Credit Cards stolen are the neckbeards of the world trying to give people a reason not to use Epic. I'm sure they're grossly exaggerated.

I started using the Epic launcher before it was even a store (to play Unreal) and since they've launched the store I've had three attempts on my account from China. I've had only one such issue with Steam in the 11 years I've been using it. Anecdotal sure, but it's been my experience.

Add the security problems to the utter lack of basic features and the sleazeball tactics Epic's been using and this isn't a matter of just using another launcher. I have no desire to associate myself with this platform at all.
---

I don't understand how paying for exclusives is "sleazy tactics"

Seems like you're just really reaching to justify your opinion.
---

It's pretty tough to support a new store. Here's a key example from CDPR, owners of GOG: https://www.polygon.com/2018/11/17/18100180/thronebreaker-the-witcher-tales-pc-gog-com-steam-cd-projekt-red-sales

GOG's been around for many years, but even it struggles with exclusives. It takes a lot to build support for a store up, and Epic's taking every measure it has to.
---

wg64Z posted...

Seems like you're just really reaching to justify your opinion.

I do indeed find buying out exclusives on an open platform to be sleazy, especially when you do it at the last minute after enjoying a ton of free advertising from the competitor you're about to scoop. (To say nothing of the fact that this is apparently all they're doing with their money, since the store itself is still in dismal condition. Feels gross to me that they're just trying to brute force their way into relevancy instead of, you know, actually building a better mousetrap.)

But then I also disagree with the concept of exclusives at a fundamental level. I don't need to justify any of that, I'm just outlining points for the sake of conversation.
---

I'm no expert on the industry but why did we all blindly accept the fact that game devs are barely scraping by and are being crushed by Steam's cut (which is industry standard)? Literally the first thing I found on google says "Video game revenue in 2018 reached a new peak of $43.8 billion, up 18 percent from the previous years, surpassing the projected total global box office for the film industry"

Also, these companies aren't charities who would continue making games for people out of the goodness of their heart if there was no money in it. If they aren't making money in the current system, the price of games would change. Simple as that. Anyone who can't manage it has a bad business or bad product. I refuse to feel sad for them.

I also think a lot of people are being dishonest when they claim Epic is just another free launcher so only whiny people care about this. Epic gives a vastly degraded user experience compared to Steam. It has no reviews, no discussion pages for games, no guides, the store is difficult to use, etc, etc. The list of basic features that Epic is missing is easy to find. And no, it isn't fair to say 'Steam started with less features too so give Epic a chance to catch up' because we're in 2019 now, not 2003. No online store in the modern day should launch without a shopping cart and act like that's okay.

I wouldn't mind if Epic competed with Steam purely on price. Take less of a cut from every sale and suggest the devs pass half of that back to the consumer, that would be great. Then people could decide if saving a few bucks was worth losing out on those features I mentioned. By snatching exclusives, though, Epic is forcing people to put up with their shitty store. To compare these to real world shops, it's like a store opening up in the bad part of town where all the employees are unhelpful jerks and there's a weird smell. Sure, it's just another store and it's no different driving to that store than any other store, but no one would shop there unless they're literally forced to, which is what Epic does when they spend big money on exclusives instead of spending a little bit of money improving their lousy store.

That's why I support Steam and not Epic. And I'm not some rabid Steam fanboy, I was furious at Valve when it looked like they were going to ban the smutty visual novels I like. Unlike Epic, Steam actually cares about what its users think and they wisely backed down from that.
---

^ Expertly put! I agree wholeheartedly.
---

Robazoid posted...

Also, these companies aren't charities who would continue making games for people out of the goodness of their heart if there was no money in it. If they aren't making money in the current system, the price of games would change. Simple as that. Anyone who can't manage it has a bad business or bad product. I refuse to feel sad for them.

Well, yeah, 100% true. Game publishers are making tons of money from microtransactions nowadays. That's how they've been able to avoid pricing their games higher. Just keep adding more MTX.

Robazoid posted...

That's why I support Steam and not Epic. And I'm not some rabid Steam fanboy, I was furious at Valve when it looked like they were going to ban the smutty visual novels I like. Unlike Epic, Steam actually cares about what its users think and they wisely backed down from that.

They're still banning those smutty visual novels, unfortunately. Just a couple weeks ago, they banned The Expression Amrilato for no apparent reason other than that it comes from a smutty VN dev (it's a completely appropriate VN with no sexual content).
---

It's a god damn launcher to download a game. The game itself plays the same. It's the same price. It's on the same PC. The developers get more money.

Whiners gonna whine. It's unbelievable.
---

And when I have a question about that game I need to go hunting on google instead of hitting shift+tab and doing a quick search in the discussion page or finding an instantly available guide because the Epic store doesn't have discussion pages or guides. Just to use one example. Steam isn't a leech that takes 30% for nothing, they offer a whole bunch of stuff Epic doesn't and it's up to the consumer to decide what matters to them. That isn't whiny.
---

Incidentally, if you're curious about features, Epic has a roadmap here:

https://trello.com/b/GXLc34hk/epic-games-store-roadmap

You can see what they're planning on adding and when.
---