Support us on Patreon
PayPalEpic Games are once again trying to entice more game developers to not only ship same-day on the Epic Games Store, but to use Unreal Engine too.
Announced during Unreal Fest Seattle 2024 is the new "Launch Everywhere with Epic" program. A deal for game developers and publishers that use Unreal Engine, to get a reduced royalty cut from 5% to 3.5%. This reduced cut will apply to all platforms and all stores (including Steam and consoles), as long as they ship their games at least same-day on the Epic Games Store. This new royalty model will begin January 1st, 2025.
This is on top of previous exclusive deals like Epic First Run, that can give developers 100% of the revenue for 6 months before going back to their standard 88%/12% split.
No doubt something that will entice more developers to get their games shipped on the Epic Store, and likely Unreal Engine too since the royalty fee is quite low. It's also another way for them to get more developers to release on their new mobile stores too, since developers also get 100% of net revenue if they use their own in-app payment solution (or 88% using Epic's).
The Epic Games Store still has no official Linux desktop or Steam Deck support, so you'll need community-built software like Heroic Games and Lutris to work with it.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Quoting: pleasereadthemanualIn the Exhibit 85 document on Aug 23, 2024, there is some reference to emails from Valve about price parity that is being submitted as evidence.For context, the plaintiff's expert witness produced a report saying what the plaintiff wanted; Valve's expert witness (compellingly, IMO) said that plaintiff's report was terrible and shouldn't be allowed in the case, and the document you're looking at is plaintiffs arguing that their export report should totally be allowed. None of it's actually in the case as evidence yet. Both sides are still in the "what is this case actually about" stage. Although, to be fair, once "what a case is actually about" is decided in anti-trust cases, the outcome tends to follow directly - hence the years of haggling before that point.
pleasereadthemanual about 4 hours ago
Quoting: CatKillerI won't pretend to understand the specifics here (and there are a lot of documents to sift through), but my understanding is that these are direct quotes from emails. I think the only way Valve could come out of this cleanly is if the emails were completely fabricated.Quoting: pleasereadthemanualIn the Exhibit 85 document on Aug 23, 2024, there is some reference to emails from Valve about price parity that is being submitted as evidence.For context, the plaintiff's expert witness produced a report saying what the plaintiff wanted; Valve's expert witness (compellingly, IMO) said that plaintiff's report was terrible and shouldn't be allowed in the case, and the document you're looking at is plaintiffs arguing that their export report should totally be allowed. None of it's actually in the case as evidence yet. Both sides are still in the "what is this case actually about" stage. Although, to be fair, once "what a case is actually about" is decided in anti-trust cases, the outcome tends to follow directly - hence the years of haggling before that point.
But it does seem early to conclude whether that is evidence or not.
Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI won't pretend to understand the specifics here (and there are a lot of documents to sift through), but my understanding is that these are direct quotes from emails. I think the only way Valve could come out of this cleanly is if the emails were completely fabricated.Oh, I'm sure they were excerpts of actual emails sent from actual people at Valve. Discovery dredges up a tonne of stuff - from other companies, too, as you noted. The court will look at the context of the documents, and both sides will make their arguments, and the court will decide whether it shows a policy or pattern of wrongdoing, or whether it's just perfectly fine course of business stuff.
But it does seem early to conclude whether that is evidence or not.
Plaintiffs have to throw every accusation they can, since they can't generally add them afterwards, and then they have to dig around to find something that might support their position; the court case is what determines whether there's any validity to it.
Media and commentators love to look at accusations of the plaintiff, since they get to go first and they necessarily have to throw in the most salacious stuff, whereas actual court cases are really long and kinda boring.
See more from me