Total War Saga: TROY is now a 12 month Epic Games Store exclusive

Quoting: CatKiller

QuoteWhile we know that some of you won’t like the Epic Games Store exclusivity, we feel like this is a great opportunity for us in a lot of ways

... because Epic gave us a big bag of money.

You know since EPIC store came to the scene, we are seeing so much bull5h/t PR from gaming companies that go Epic exclusive. Not even consoles, EA(Origin) and Microsoft were so sassy when they launched their exclusives in their stores. It was so simple "It is exclusive for our store, get it here or GTFO"
But suddenly gaming devs have become so hypocritical.

I don't know if I gotta get banned for this, but fuck EPIC, fuck these devs, and fuck people who support Epic in any way. You have made of PC gaming a full wasteland of liers and dishonest marketing with press releases that are offensive to the reader's intelligence.
This is the kind of stuff you see in politics. Since EPIC entered the store race, PC gaming becomes like a presidential race in the U.K., USA, or any of those countries were tabloids, and the press in general use disinformation and half-lies/truths to influence people's vote.
This is trash, just say, "we take the money" straight to peoples face, we already know Tencent/Fortnite money is huge, so you can not say you are making this for anything. If I don't like it, I just don't buy your game, as same in politics, if I don't like a candidate, I won't vote for him/her!!

Oh and I don't think attacking Epic Store exclusives' quality is relevant, as Epic has had both Metro Exodus and Borderlands 3 as exclusives, and those are very good titles. Doing business this way is just ludicrous, and they deserve the hate. It's not just a Linux-only argument here, people love Steam as a platform and want to use it.

Maybe I will read all the comments first then comment, because it is amazing how some peeps are just, well, trying to justify Creative Assembly decision away from the straight fact that this is all about money.

Suddenly after 12 years of existence and at least 8 years of CA and Sega releasing games on Steam, Steam became "complicated" or more "complicated" than Epic.
Then the dev revenue/share argument that it is so silly but still lurking people's minds.

Just ask yourself this question, how to save an almost death community in 2008 when consoles were so thriving to the point most of the PC developers we knew then moved to consoles and stopped releasing games for PC in GENERAL(Windows/Linux/MacOS)?

SERVICES and Features!!
And Epic lack both, Epic is a barebone store with just a few bunches of features that even make look Origin like the God of all stores. You cant keep building a community of millions of gamers offering free games forever, you need to offer good services, features, and extra stuff that keep people attached. Guess what is one of that Extra Stuff, PROTON. Proton didn't come from anywhere, it came from that 20-25-30% you are constantly crying about, also Steam Play Together, Workshop and other features that makes people to jump over consoles, buy a PC, and install Steam. Epic is the sure bet to make PS5 and the next Xbox/Nintendo console more attractive to PC gamers, because If I wanted to have a store that doesn't go beyond what consoles can go, Ill better buy a console.
So that dirty 30% you think is going straight to Gabe Newell pockets is really going to developers who are developing more and advanced features, it is creating decent jobs(not those 80 hours a week Fortnite jobs), it is going to create more tools for users, I know most users are just a bunch of mindless people who only seek for their own convenience, but still, they get advantages from this stuff.

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: kuhpunktAnd how low should they go?

10-20% is fair, with a higher cut as developers can opt in to additional services (forum, matchmaking, etc.) with 20-30% being the cut for all services used.

The problem is that at the basic level (which is what most developers actually use), they really just host their game and offer the community service with it - but they don't really have any work with it that would justify the high share for developers.

How do you know that 10%-20% is fair? Do you have the numbers? gog uses 20% to pay the bills to run the service and the other 10% as actual profit.

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: TheSHEEEP10-20% is fair, with a higher cut as developers can opt in to additional services (forum, matchmaking, etc.) with 20-30% being the cut for all services used.

You're forgetting the biggest value. Steam presents the product to 100 million monthly active users. No other store comes close.

I've seen that argument a few times, and frankly, it is a myth.
Ever since Valve opened the floodgates and accepted every piece of garbage game on their platform without any moderation whatsoever, the number of games coming out is so huge that a developer gains pretty much nothing from the fact that they are on Steam. This is especially true for indie developers.
Valve doesn't "present" a damn thing, users have to actively wade through the masses of unmoderated games.

Tell how awesome being on Steam alone is to all the developers who didn't do their due diligence, didn't do any marketing, and as a result barely sell anything on Steam.
And if you have to do the marketing routine anyway, what exactly is so great about being "presented" on Steam, again?

Of course, you still have to be on Steam, because that is just something users expect. And that's IMO the only reason Valve hasn't reacted with a share cut. Yet.

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: TheSHEEEPFrom a developers perspective - and most devs don't care about Linux, that's the sad truth - the Epic deal is really damn good.

It's clearly not a great deal unless Epic throws money at devs. Although for at least some it is that they prepay the devs for a number of sales in exchange for exclusivity. But after the period they all go back to Steam because that's still where the real money is made.

Just to be clear, that is the deal I'm talking about. Basically free money for a year or a half, and then additional income once that agreed upon number of "guaranteed sales" is reached.
And then you get your Steam&other release later, which you can roll the marketing drums for a second time.
That IS a great deal (for developers).

I don't blame any developer or publisher for accepting - I only blame them for not being completely straight about the reason: "We do it for the money".

Quoting: EhvisAt the end of the day, Valve doesn't need to change anything because the majority of customers are still on Steam. When that changes, things will change.

If Valve aren't completely daft, and I don't think they are, they will react way before that happens.
They should, anyway.
Right now, they have the users and the (much) better software and services. But they'd be crazy to just sit on that and hope nobody will ever catch up.

Of course, Epic should also improve their client and services, but man are they slow about it...

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: TheSHEEEPHard to tell for sure at this point, but the recent developments seem to point toward Epic succeeding.

Please note that this is something I'm genuinely looking for more information about, so I'm not being sarcastic when I ask, what developments would those be?

The number of exclusives EGS is racking up, for one thing.
As is the number of free giveaways (of otherwise still quite new and expensive titles) - and the people that talk about it.
But most importantly, just how normal and accepted EGS has become. Sure, when the whole thing started, the outcry about those exclusivity deals was huge. But it isn't anymore, not in most places.
Here, of course, people are very negative about EGS, which makes sense.
But outside of Linux communities, people talk very openly and normally about using EGS, the number of "China bad!" screechers is dwindling, as is the people chiming in about how terrible exclusivity is and how bad Epic is, etc.
Streamers playing EGS games see less negative comments about that as well. And those are probably the no1 gamer influence source right now.

What we are seeing is just the process of something new becoming normal, which, I think, is very much a positive development for Epic.

You'll always have those who just won't use EGS no matter what. But that group just isn't as big as it might have seemed at first or you'd still see the big outrages everywhere. The rest are split somewhere between getting a game on EGS if they really want it or just waiting for a year.
Personally, I'm in the latter camp, but that's really only because EGS doesn't support Linux. If it did, I wouldn't care about exclusivity deals and just get the games I want wherever I can get them when I want them.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 June 2020 at 6:05 am UTC

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: kuhpunktAnd how low should they go?

10-20% is fair, with a higher cut as developers can opt in to additional services (forum, matchmaking, etc.) with 20-30% being the cut for all services used.

The problem is that at the basic level (which is what most developers actually use), they really just host their game and offer the community service with it - but they don't really have any work with it that would justify the high share for developers.

How do you know that 10%-20% is fair? Do you have the numbers? gog uses 20% to pay the bills to run the service and the other 10% as actual profit.

I have been working on the backend side of many web services for many years. I know about the cost of hosting huge amounts of data with loads of traffic, web and application development pretty well.
You can roughly extrapolate what income Valve gets from what little data they give us (which is certainly not nearly all the data or income they make, which non-publicly-traded company does that, right?) combined with some average gamer spendings per time period. And if Valve aren't running an entire country, there simply isn't a way they really need that 30% share.

The 10-15% Epic takes (forgot the exact number) is much closer to the real cost of a service (+ profit) and I don't see Epic ever raising that cut to more than 20%. Except if there suddenly was a giant increase in hosting cost.

GOG can claim those numbers (do they, actually?). I don't believe it one bit, as I just know a bit more about the backend side of things and its cost.
And even if that were true. One third profit margin? Holy shit, that's already some incredibly good margin. Only very few things have such a margin.
Which is exactly my point, you don't need a one third profit margin to run a successful business, and the real number is likely even higher than that.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 June 2020 at 6:28 am UTC

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: kuhpunkt

Quoting: TheSHEEEP

Quoting: kuhpunktAnd how low should they go?

10-20% is fair, with a higher cut as developers can opt in to additional services (forum, matchmaking, etc.) with 20-30% being the cut for all services used.

The problem is that at the basic level (which is what most developers actually use), they really just host their game and offer the community service with it - but they don't really have any work with it that would justify the high share for developers.

How do you know that 10%-20% is fair? Do you have the numbers? gog uses 20% to pay the bills to run the service and the other 10% as actual profit.

I have been working on the backend side of many web services for many years. I know about the cost of hosting huge amounts of data with loads of traffic, web and application development pretty well.
You can roughly extrapolate what income Valve gets from what little data they give us (which is certainly not nearly all the data or income they make, which non-publicly-traded company does that, right?) combined with some average gamer spendings per time period. And if Valve aren't running an entire country, there simply isn't a way they really need that 30% share.

The 10-15% Epic takes (forgot the exact number) is much closer to the real cost of a service (+ profit) and I don't see Epic ever raising that cut to more than 20%. Except if there suddenly was a giant increase in hosting cost.

GOG can claim those numbers (do they, actually?). I don't believe it one bit, as I just know a bit more about the backend side of things and its cost.

Epic at the moment takes 12%. Do you honestly think they make profit with that, when the payment methods alone can cost more? And you think 10% is fair... Epic is losing money to get into the market. 30% is the standard everywhere and I have yet to see developers complain about MS, Sony, Nintendo, Apple etc. - and I don't think they offer as much as Valve does - and when they do, they charge for their service.

And yes, gog said that. I saw a documentary about them.

Quoting: kuhpunktEpic at the moment takes 12%. Do you honestly think they make profit with that, when the payment methods alone can cost more?

Yes, I do. Because I actually work in the same field (not exactly gaming storefront, but hosting and payments costs are hosting and payment costs, no matter what exactly the servers do and which goods are sold) and know the costs. What exactly was your qualification here, other than "I saw it on TV"?

Not a huge profit margin, mind you, it might be only covering their expenses. And I do expect them to raise it somewhat, as I wrote above.

Quoting: kuhpunktAnd you think 10% is fair... Epic is losing money to get into the market.

Yes, they are. Because of their exclusivity deals. Not because of their cut.
Also, I said 10-20%, don't put words in my mouth just to try to make a point.

Quoting: kuhpunkt30% is the standard everywhere and I have yet to see developers complain about MS, Sony, Nintendo, Apple etc. - and I don't think they offer as much as Valve does - and when they do, they charge for their service.

You don't see anyone complain because complaining could make you enemies you don't want to have. Also, it would be entirely pointless. What are devs gonna do, not publish on PS4 because they don't like the cut?

Do you honestly think 30% would have become the standard if there wasn't a fat profit margin in it?
Capitalism, baby!

Only on PC, there is now the situation that someone comes in with a lower cut and exclusivity deals and all that is shaking up some rusty structures.
It will be interesting to see where it leads. For developers, I think this is all-in-all a very positive development. And as a developer - even if not games, yet - that is my perspective.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 3 June 2020 at 6:52 am UTC

Quoting: TheSHEEEPYes, I do. Because I actually work in the same field (not exactly gaming storefront, but hosting and payments costs are hosting and payment costs, no matter what exactly the servers do and which goods are sold) and know the costs. What exactly was your qualification here, other than "I saw it on TV"?

I saw devs say it.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPNot a huge profit margin, mind you, it might be only covering their expenses. And I do expect them to raise it somewhat, as I wrote above.

And covering your expenses is good enough?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPYes, they are. Because of their exclusivity deals. Not because of their cut.
Also, I said 10-20%, don't put words in my mouth just to try to make a point.

I'm not putting words in your mouth, but when transfer fees can be up to 15%, it's not covering costs. Sweeney himself once said it's not sustainable in certain areas. And they lose money with their sales, too.

Quoting: TheSHEEEPYou don't see anyone complain because complaining could make you enemies you don't want to have. Also, it would be entirely pointless. What are devs gonna do, not publish on PS4 because they don't like the cut?

And that makes it less hypocritical?

Quoting: TheSHEEEPDo you honestly think 30% would have become the standard if there wasn't a fat profit margin in it?
Capitalism, baby!

I'm not sure who started with the 30%, but once upon a time it was a dream for developers/publishers to get 70%. And what's so bad about them making profit? I don't think it's exploitative.

Also you didn't address the monthly fees for XBOX Live etc. that you don't have on PC.


Last edited by kuhpunkt on 3 June 2020 at 7:31 am UTC

Quoting: TheSHEEEPI've seen that argument a few times, and frankly, it is a myth.
Ever since Valve opened the floodgates and accepted every piece of garbage game on their platform without any moderation whatsoever, the number of games coming out is so huge that a developer gains pretty much nothing from the fact that they are on Steam. This is especially true for indie developers.
Valve doesn't "present" a damn thing, users have to actively wade through the masses of unmoderated games.

Tell how awesome being on Steam alone is to all the developers who didn't do their due diligence, didn't do any marketing, and as a result barely sell anything on Steam.
And if you have to do the marketing routine anyway, what exactly is so great about being "presented" on Steam, again?

What does that have to do with anything? There is too much of everything. Moderation doesn't change that. You won't notice the trash anyway, but do you complain about spotify and bandcamp, too? Everybody can upload their stuff there. There's a billion musicians. Not all of them can break through.