# Steam AAA Bleed Continues: Anno 1800 to be UPlay and Epic Games Store Exclusive



## btarunr (Apr 2, 2019)

Ubisoft has pulled the upcoming entry to its smash-hit RTS franchise, "Anno 1800" from Steam. For the PC platform, the game will be available only through Ubisoft's own UPlay, and the Epic Games Store, which continues to vacuum AAA titles from Steam on the promise of higher revenue share for the game developers. Ubisoft is giving Steam fans a chance to put their money where their mouths are, though. 

You will be able to pre-order "Anno 1800" on Steam until April 16. The pre-ordered game will remain in your Steam library, and you will receive updates for the game through Steam. Also, people who purchased the game on Steam will be able to play multiplayer with those who bought their copies through UPlay or Epic Games Store. This presents Steam fans with a unique opportunity to tell a big studio like Ubisoft what they want. 





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Esse (Apr 2, 2019)

> This presents Steam fans with a unique opportunity to tell a big studio like Ubisoft what they want.


Of course you should not fall into the trap of pre-ordering. History tells us this.

Exclusives can suck a dick. Make it available on all platforms and let the user decide.


----------



## kings (Apr 2, 2019)

People complain, but at the end of the day they end up buying it anyway, if they like the game!

See Metro Exodus, huge success in the Epic Store, despite all the hate on the internet!


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 2, 2019)

Esse said:


> Make it available on all platforms and let the user decide


Well it’s already on the PC PLATFORM, so you want it on all consoles as well?


----------



## Metroid (Apr 2, 2019)

soon only old games prior to this revolution of greedy publishers and valve games will be on steam hehe, the user base on steam is huge and that is bad for the greedy publishers cause if they don't exclusively sell their games in their stores then their userbase will never grow, so basically this is a war against steam and nothing else.


----------



## Warlen (Apr 2, 2019)

So much for Epic saying 'we don't want to pull another Metro Exodus'.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 2, 2019)

Warlen said:


> So much for Epic saying 'we don't want to pull another Metro Exodus'.


You’ve not been paying attention. They’ve bagged nearly a dozen games in the last month. What they meant was they weren’t going to get exclusivity on a game in the future that was already on presale on another game store/launcher/service.


----------



## Basard (Apr 2, 2019)

I still don't see why companies can't just pass the extra cost of doing business with Steam onto the customers.  
If we all love steam so much, an extra five bucks for a sixty dollar game is not too much to ask.


----------



## jabbadap (Apr 2, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> You’ve not been paying attention. They’ve bagged nearly a dozen games in the last month. What they meant was they weren’t going to get exclusivity on a game in the future that was already on presale on another game store/launcher/service.



Well this one is presale on Steam, though you can always buy it from Ubisofts own Uplay. Putting blame to Epic this time is a bit unfair, though. the blame should really be now on Ubisoft side rather than Epic.


----------



## ShurikN (Apr 2, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> What they meant was they weren't going to get exclusivity on a game in the future that was already on presale on another game store/launcher/service.


ANNO 1800 was on preorder (and still is) on Steam before this exclusivity deal was announced.
So much for that then...


----------



## Tatty_One (Apr 2, 2019)

Irrespective of personal views/values, any discussion around pirating is against our guidelines therefore it either stops or points will be dropping..... thank you.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

kings said:


> People complain, but at the end of the day they end up buying it anyway, if they like the game!
> 
> See Metro Exodus, huge success in the Epic Store, despite all the hate on the internet!



As it should be... Perhaps people will learn that talk is cheap and the internet is all talk.

But this is one hell of a weird mix, though. Now we can pre-order to buy a product in our preferred store, as if that is even a perk...



Esse said:


> let the user decide.



That is exactly what exclusives force the user to do. And it is exactly why they work and why Epic uses them. Commerce 101, you need to have something the competitor doesn't.


----------



## Warlen (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> That is exactly what exclusives force the user to do. And it is exactly why they work and why Epic uses them. Commerce 101, you need to have something the competitor doesn't.



How long until all 3rd party launchers start forcing exclusives?  Doesn't matter because the launchers are free right?  How long until launchers start charging a monthly fee to access these exclusives?  This is the direction this is going.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

Warlen said:


> How long until all 3rd party launchers start forcing exclusives?  Doesn't matter because the launchers are free right?  How long until launchers start charging a monthly fees to access these exclusives?  This is the direction this is going.



And then there will be someone who doesn't charge a fee and we flock to it... people worry too much. The market has pretty good ways to correct itself, and believe it or not, Epic's current actions are such a correction to break a Steam near-monopoly for publisher-independent stores. You may or may not like that, but it is what it is. You have every opportunity to have your say on the matter by buying what you like.

An example. Consider the actual sale price of games. Games get more expensive to produce over time, we have inflation, and also, on the plus side, the target audience is larger. But, there are _also_ far more games to choose from. This makes a game's success a high risk factor and any investment doubly so. At the same time, we as consumers will not accept super high game prices, historically we gamers have shown to be pretty crafty at avoiding high pricing and a large audience simply hasn't got the funds, mostly (very) young gamers - this explains why we get free content that explodes like PUBG. There is a group of fans that buys at launch and the rest will wait for budget bin. That on its own, is already the market at work. That budget bin wouldn't even exist if we didn't ask for it.

How do we ask for such things, simply by not buying at full price. Why do you think we get lured with pre-orders? Publishers want us to buy at launch, at full price, because they know it will drop like a stone shortly after, with promotions, key selling and reselling etc etc.

But the average sale price of a high profile game, is STILL, even today, at best 60 EUR/$. I remember that being the same norm 10-15 years ago. That is quite something and it completely contradicts the sentiment that we as customers are 'powerless'. We have power, we exercise it, and most of the time barely even realize that. Actually it got even better, because you can also buy tons of smaller / indie games at any price between $5 and $40,- and some of those offer 10x the value of a triple A release.


----------



## The Quim Reaper (Apr 2, 2019)

Not to worry, Gabe's already earned more than enough from Steam to keep him in pies for the rest of his life..


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 2, 2019)

jabbadap said:


> Well this one is presale on Steam, though you can always buy it from Ubisofts own Uplay. Putting blame to Epic this time is a bit unfair, though. the blame should really be now on Ubisoft side rather than Epic.





ShurikN said:


> ANNO 1800 was on preorder (and still is) on Steam before this exclusivity deal was announced.
> So much for that then...



Yeah, that does make things look worse. I didnt realize it was already on Steam pre-sale, since this game is not on my radar.


----------



## Crackong (Apr 2, 2019)

Game = Yes
Epic Store = No No
Yes + No No = No.


----------



## Warlen (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> And then there will be someone who doesn't charge a fee and we flock to it... people worry too much. The market has pretty good ways to correct itself, and believe it or not, Epic's current actions are such a correction to break a Steam near-monopoly for publisher-independent stores. You may or may not like that, but it is what it is. You have every opportunity to have your say on the matter by buying what you like.



Do you have a Netflix account?  And Amazon Prime? And Hulu? And YouTube Red?  And Disney?  And CBS all access? And HBO GO? And BritBox?  Once someone is successful doing it, they all do it. (Sorry, edited that last part before your reply)


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

Warlen said:


> Do you have a Netflix account?  And Amazon Prime? And Hulu? And YouTube Red?  And Disney?  And CBS all access? And HBO GO? And BritBox?



Only Netflix and only because it offers something I didn't have before. I'm already starting to scratch my head as the price of the sub went from 7,99 to 12,99 over the course of two years. If they keep that up, its going out... Alternatively, I will cancel my cable TV entirely when I can get a fiber connection over here.

See, there's a real simple thing going on here, I can only spend as much as I can every month, and there are far more important things to spend money on. I also prefer ownership over on-demand in a basic sense, but for entertainment, especially film/video which is 'fully consumed' if you've seen it once, I think on-demand is a perfect vehicle. So I consider it worthwhile. For gaming, I don't see that at all. The always online component is already a huge red flag, but no control is another I simply cannot get around. And then we have the ever-present latency, quality problems. It won't fly. Going deeper, there is also the problem of mod support, persistence, (fixable but not as such in the current offering of services) and in the long run a cost aspect, because if you do any more than casual gaming, this will run a higher cost -  its like you say, its easy to stack a dozen subs on top of each other. But I only have limited time, so what's the point.

EDIT: (response to yours above) They all do it? A few years back everyone did VR, look where that is at today. They all TRY it and they fail left and right as quickly as new services get fired up. Its a novelty on the marketplace, and everyone wants to get their share of the pie. In the long run, a few large players will dominate, even if only because of the problems I pointed out above. You can't feasibly have dozens of services and make good use of them all.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

kings said:


> See Metro Exodus, huge success in the Epic Store, despite all the hate on the internet!



Huge success? Where exactly? And please don't link me that news where exodus sold more than last light in the same amount of time on steam, because it's just stupid and makes no sense.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Huge success? Where exactly? And please don't link me that news where exodus sold more than last light in the same amount of time on steam, because it's just stupid and makes no sense.



Check this out - reviews, overall score and number of it.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/412020/Metro_Exodus/

Doesn't look like a boycot to me.

And how about this then, for numbers

2883 ratings (over a much longer period of time)






versus... 2788 in a month post launch.





Reality check...


----------



## 64K (Apr 2, 2019)

I suspect Borderlands 3 will be the next Epic exclusive but possibly for only 6 months due to some tweets yesterday by Randy Pitchford. 2K will make the decision though and afaik they haven't.



The Quim Reaper said:


> Not to worry, Gabe's already earned more than enough from Steam to keep him in pies for the rest of his life..



Newell is fairly wealthy already. Around 4 billion dollars in wealth. He's a self-made billionaire who dropped out of college.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Check this out - reviews, overall score and number of it.
> https://store.steampowered.com/app/412020/Metro_Exodus/
> 
> Doesn't look like a boycot to me.
> ...



Reality check? What reality? Yours maybe, basing "reality" on metascore reviews. I played the game, i honestly didn't like it as much as is did the previous 2, it's pretty poor and kinda rushed, besides the exclusivity fact.

Also i don't really care what the majority of people does anyway, in these things especially is where they're wrong pretty much all the time.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Reality check? What reality? Yours maybe, basing "reality" on metascore reviews. I played the game, i honestly didn't like it as much as is did the previous 2, it's pretty poor and kinda rushed, besides the exclusivity fact.



That is great, but this is simply statistics at work, these numbers are pretty representative. If you want to avoid that and instead believe in your gut, by all means, but I don't think we have to discuss which is more credible. It also has nothing to do with the game's quality itself. This was about who bought it and whether we boycotted it. I say we didn't and numbers support that.

I also don't think this was ever about whether you cared or not, you disputed the news article about 'more sales' and are convinced it didn't sell, I'm just showing you sources that support the opposite. Grow up a bit... Or provide some source YOU think it credible that supports your statement - maybe we'll learn something beyond this temper tantrum.


----------



## bug (Apr 2, 2019)

First of all, I'm not sure why we need a piece of news for every game release that goes to Epic. Until Steam yields and lowers their cut, this is going to keep happening. It's not even unexpected.
Second, I like how people listed their pros and cons of having yet another game manager, yet the publisher's choice seems to be based (again, not surprising) on revenue cut only.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> That is great, but this is simply statistics at work, these numbers are pretty representative. If you want to avoid that and instead believe in your gut, by all means, but I don't think we have to discuss which is more credible. It also has nothing to do with the game's quality itself. This was about who bought it and whether we boycotted it. I say we didn't and numbers support that.
> 
> I also don't think this was ever about whether you cared or not, you disputed the news article about 'more sales' and are convinced it didn't sell, I'm just showing you sources that support the opposite. Grow up a bit... Or provide some source YOU think it credible that supports your statement - maybe we'll learn something beyond this temper tantrum.



You "showed me"? You showed nothing, because even if the game sold more than Last Light, it's pretty far from "Huge success". I could ask you the same, show me some credibile and actual source for what you're saying, because using metascore's 2788 reviews is as good as me saying it wasn't even close to a huge success.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> You "showed me"? You showed nothing, because even if the game sold more than Last Light, it's pretty far from "Huge success". I could ask you the same, show me some credibile and actual source for what you're saying, because using metascore's 2788 reviews is as good as me saying it wasn't even close to a huge success.



Metro 2033 and LL got another sequel because the franchise is shit, gotcha.

Let's drop it there. When you can add 1+1 come back.

Alternatively you can check out other big shooter releases of the past years and compare the review counts. Metro is pretty high up there, consistently with every part. For giggles, put those numbers next to Call of Duty BLOPS 4, with a measly 300 reviews. Or are you going to tell me now that doesn't say anything either?


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

Basard said:


> If we all love steam so much, an extra five bucks for a sixty dollar game is not too much to ask.



Aaaaaaaand this is why we have $1500 GPUs that used to cost $649.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Metro 2033 and LL got another sequel because the franchise is shit, gotcha.
> 
> Let's drop it there. When you can add 1+1 come back.



So in your eyes only "huge success" franchises have sequels? There's plenty of game that sold even worse than Metro, and still made at least one sequel. Making or not making sequels of a game, depends almost solely to Software house's goals, deep silver is not a big SH, and even games selling just ok, will do for them, besides it's probably one of their most important franchises, if not THE most important one - As i already said, this might have sold more than Last light and 2033, but it's not even close to a "Huge success", and if it launched on steam too, it would've only been better for everyone, software house included.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Alternatively you can check out other big shooter releases of the past years and compare the review counts. Metro is pretty high up there, consistently with every part.



This is one of those games that without real, solid numbers no one knows.  You have people purposely going out and giving negative reviews because their panties are in a twist while simultaneously having people leave overly positive reviews to correct it.

Edit:  I bought it last night and so far I really like it.  I have not played the other two so I can't compare in that regard.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> So in your eyes only "huge success" franchises have sequels? There's plenty of game that sold even worse than Metro, and still made at least one sequel. Making or not making sequels of a game, depends almost solely to Software house's goals, deep silver is not a big SH, and even games selling just ok, will do for them, besides it's probably one of their most important franchises, if not THE most important one - As i already said, this might have sold more than Last light and 2033, but it's not even close to a "Huge success", and if it launched on steam too, it would've only been better for everyone, software house included.



A success is when you get enough sales to keep going, because it means your bottom line is positive and you can keep your team employed. In that sense, going on review counts alone, Metro Exodus is potentially a bigger seller than its prequels because it already has the same review count just over a month post-release. Define 'Huge'... 10 million? 20? 100? Stop circling the hot pile and just admit you have no idea and you have not provided ANY sources that prove otherwise, all you have is your clouded gut feeling versus actual numbers and news reports.

Another writing on the wall is the scope of the game itself. It has become a LOT bigger than its predecessors and will likely receive further DLC treatment down the road.


And... yes. Successful franchises get sequels. Do I really need to give you a list of examples, is the plank really that thick?


----------



## Warlen (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> EDIT: (response to yours above) They all do it? A few years back everyone did VR, look where that is at today. They all TRY it and they fail left and right as quickly as new services get fired up. Its a novelty on the marketplace, and everyone wants to get their share of the pie. In the long run, a few large players will dominate, even if only because of the problems I pointed out above. You can't feasibly have dozens of services and make good use of them all.



Yes they do.  Hulu was free, Youtube didn't have a paid model, most movies and TV shows were on Netflix, now most Channels have their own paid access.

Incorporating VR is far and away different than adding a monthly fee onto something already in place.  We are already seeing the trend into this with Origin Premiere Access getting games weeks in advance.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

Warlen said:


> Yes they do.  Hulu was free, Youtube didn't have a paid model, most movies and TV shows were on Netflix, now most Channels have their own paid access.
> 
> Incorporating VR is far and away different than adding a monthly fee onto something already in place.  We are already seeing the trend into this with Origin Premiere Access getting games weeks in advance.



You're right about that. I'm just not convinced it will stick, time will tell...


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> A success is when you get enough sales to keep going, because it means your bottom line is positive. In that sense, going on review counts alone, Metro Exodus is potentially a bigger seller than its prequels because it already has the same review count just over a month post-release. Define 'Huge'... 10 million? 20? 100? Stop circling the hot pile and just admit you have no idea and you have not provided ANY sources that prove otherwise, all you have is your clouded gut feeling versus actual numbers and news reports.



I don't know, huge is something else, huge is something only battle royale games recently reached, and having more reviews on metascore means nothing as i already said, it's not a reliable source, never was. It's you having no idea what you're talking about like most of the time you write on this forum regarding anything really. I have myself as source, which is surely more valuable than what you're using as "source", just stop it with this aggressive ignorant posting of yours you're by far one of the lamest users in this forum.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> I don't know, huge is something else, huge is something only battle royale games recently reached, and having more reviews on metascore means nothing as i already said, it's not a reliable source, never was. It's you having no idea what you're talking about like most of the time you write on this forum regarding anything really. I have myself as source, which is surely more valuable than what you're using as "source", just stop it with this aggressive ignorant posting of yours you're by far one of the lamest users in this forum.



So asking for a source is now aggressive and ignorant, while ignoring any and all sources provided is good form.

Thanks for the update.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> So asking for a source is now aggressive and ignorant, while ignoring any and all sources provided is good form.
> 
> Thanks for the update.



No, writing like you do with your choice of word is.
Stop asking for a source, there's no reliable source for these things, especially this close to the launch of a game, what you claim to be a source just isn't, no matter you keep pushing that at all costs, it isn't, because reviews say nothing, and mean nothing, you have no idea where those reviews come from what they say. No problems for the update.


----------



## willace (Apr 2, 2019)

As long as it is still on UPlay, I do not mind (because I have ordered it on UPlay).


----------



## neatfeatguy (Apr 2, 2019)

I don't see what the fuss is, aside from the fact that the game was listed on pre-order for Steam and it's now getting pulled after the fact (that's pretty shitty).

Ubisoft publishes the game (series) Anno. I'm kind of surprised they haven't started pulling more games from Steam to be strictly sold on their Uplay store. Look at EA. When was the last time EA released a game on Steam? According to search by Publisher on Steam, and sorting by Release date:






YEAH! Sims 3! (what a garbage game, if you ask me)

EA shifted from Steam, but left a lot of older games they already offered on Steam to be available through Steam (though they probably require Origin to be used to actually play the games), so they didn't truly cut ties with Steam, they just stopped offering newer games.

Steam needs a kick in the ass to correct how it does thing. More and more companies are coming around with their digital stores. Steam will soon feel the pinch once they start to lose enough of their slice of the pie. They'll have to adjust how much they cut off the top for their take. They may even realize that companies with big, triple A games (Tom Clancy games on Uplay, BattleField games on Origin and so on) are keeping the sales and more money for themselves by skirting Steam and using their own digital store or other launchers (such as EPIC) that takes a much smaller cut.....maybe Steam will stop f'ing around and get back into game development....?


----------



## Penev91 (Apr 2, 2019)

Valve needs to stop milking developers. Their "steam tax" is way too high. Sure, as a gamer and a consumer I want all of my games to be in one convenient place, but if that means that less money has to be spent by stusios on developing quality games because they have to take "steam tax" into account, then I will have to support other services.


----------



## bug (Apr 2, 2019)

neatfeatguy said:


> I don't see what the fuss is, aside from the fact that the game was listed on pre-order for Steam and it's now getting pulled after the fact (that's pretty shitty).



If that's not illegal, it is at least immoral. You take advantage of the platform to rake in money when you have no product and when you do, you take your business elsewhere. Definitely not cool.



Penev91 said:


> Valve needs to stop milking developers. Their "steam tax" is way too high. Sure, as a gamer and a consumer I want all of my games to be in one convenient place, but if that means that less money has to be spent by stusios on developing quality games because they have to take "steam tax" into account, then I will have to support other services.


Valve is free to charge whatever they want for their service. The trouble is, till now it was their service or bust because outside of publisher run stores, there was only GOG. That has changed.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Penev91 said:


> Valve needs to stop milking developers. Their "steam tax" is way too high. Sure, as a gamer and a consumer I want all of my games to be in one convenient place, but if that means that less money has to be spent by stusios on developing quality games because they have to take "steam tax" into account, then I will have to support other services.



Valve offers much much more (not bribing though) to real developers compared to anyone else, their 20 to 30% cut is justified most of the times.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Valve offers much much more (not bribing though) to real developers compared to anyone else, their 20 to 30% cut is justified most of the times.



I hate to be an asshole but again... source? We have no idea what deals have been struck with Epic and we have no idea whether or not Steam's cut is justifiable either... All we know is they generate some free keys and offer a discount on large revenues...


----------



## jmcosta (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Check this out - reviews, overall score and number of it.
> https://store.steampowered.com/app/412020/Metro_Exodus/
> 
> Doesn't look like a boycot to me.
> ...



That only tells how popular the Metro series got, not purchase numbers, (steam does but not everyone will review it, hard to know the real numbers) and that popularity is to expect since they invested most of their budget on marketing to reach as much people as possible. You could see advertisements in so many gaming sites and youtube. It was a spam fest for a few months.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Apr 2, 2019)

bug said:


> If that's not illegal, it is at least immoral. You take advantage of the platform to rake in money when you have no product and when you do, you take your business elsewhere. Definitely not cool.



Not arguing. I even said it was a pretty shitty move.

Now, unless Steam has something in their "sell your game on our platform" contract that says you can't pull your game and they make it illegal, a publisher can do whatever they want with their game even after they offered it up on Steam.

I looked through (quickly, it is possible I missed something) the Documentation you go through for posting games on Steam and I didn't see anything mentioned about pulling  a game off steam. Other then the fact that you'd be obligated by consumer rights to still offer the game to those that paid or issue a refund. You can go through the documentation here, if you're bored.....and I'm not that bored, nor do I have the time to read every single word while I'm at work.


----------



## bug (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Valve offers much much more (not bribing though) to real developers compared to anyone else, their 20 to 30% cut is justified most of the times.


Not to mention the work Valve did on getting games to run on Linux.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

jmcosta said:


> That only tells how popular the Metro series got, not purchase numbers, and that is to expect since they invested most of their budget on marketing to reach as much people as possible. You could see advertisements in so many gaming sites and youtube. It was a spam fest for a few months.



That's probably part of it, but then again, compare it to other well marketed games. Its not very likely for random people to place a review on metacritic when they don't own the game, and even if there are some, those also exist for every other game so you can easily cross them off against one another. The sample size is pretty decent here.

Here's another comparison: also released at around the same time, with a *50 million* player peak... and _free to play._

_728x_

I think you can safely cross off a lot of ifs and buts to the reliability but what remains is a pretty solid indication.

_*

*_


----------



## bug (Apr 2, 2019)

neatfeatguy said:


> Not arguing. I even said it was a pretty shitty move.
> 
> Now, unless Steam has something in their "sell your game on our platform" contract that says you can't pull your game and they make it illegal, a publisher can do whatever they want with their game even after they offered it up on Steam.
> 
> I looked through (quickly, it is possible I missed something) the Documentation you go through for posting games on Steam and I didn't see anything mentioned about pulling  a game off steam. Other then the fact that you'd be obligated by consumer rights to still offer the game to those that paid or issue a refund. You can go through the documentation here, if you're bored.....and I'm not that bored, nor do I have the time to read every single word while I'm at work.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure the move was covered by their contracts. What I was hinting at is I wouldn't mind seeing these moves forbidden. You took advantage of pre-orders? Sell on that store for 6-12 months at least.
At the same time, I realize this was caused by Epic Store not being around when per-orders started. Maybe without this particular conjecture, we won't see dick moves like this again.


----------



## Diverge (Apr 2, 2019)

Steam needs to make it so if you advertise your game on Steam, by putting your game on Steams store, you agree to launch it there. Back out, pay the divorce fees.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> I hate to be an asshole but again... source? We have no idea what deals have been struck with Epic and we have no idea whether or not Steam's cut is justifiable either... All we know is they generate some free keys and offer a discount on large revenues...




Logic is your friend. Why you developer with a new game would you go and publish on the worst platform PC has right now? Why worst? Just compare the features of EGS with any other launcher or platform present on PC, you'll find EGS is the one with less features and has issues more frequently than any other platform. Oh and i forgot to mention that, not only those devs publish on the worst platform, but they make that game exclusive for a whole year on that platform only - If it's not money what is then? Revenge? Cmon...


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Logic is your friend. Why you developer with a new game would you go and publish on the worst platform PC has right now? Why worst? Just compare the features of EGS with any other launcher or platform present on PC, you'll find EGS is the one with less features and has issues more frequently than any other platform. Oh and i forgot to mention that, not only those devs publish on the worst platform, but they make that game exclusive for a whole year on that platform only - If it's not money what is then? Revenge? Cmon...



Worst platform is an opinion mostly pushed forward by flaming reddit posts with extensive lists of feature gaps. Not by developers. Metro has no real mod support, so workshop = irrelevant and I'd say that is one of the major perks Steam can offer a developer, a mod framework. It saves dev time and adds to game popularity, so that can be translated to actual profit.

But friends lists, and other community features, trading cards... all of that is largely irrelevant to a developer looking to release a game. These perks only matter to the end user and are unrelated to the game. Also, developers don't really choose. Publishers choose, and they look at the bottom line _only_.

I realize its all about money, but what Steam does is not all that unique or essential to a developer or publisher. What they care about is reach of a platform and in that, Steam has better reach but we also see a steady trend of people getting their content elsewhere. So, again, we have no clue whether Steam really does have such a great offer. Our consumer logic doesn't always apply on the business side... in fact it usually doesn't.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Valve offers much much more (not bribing though) to real developers compared to anyone else, their 20 to 30% cut is justified most of the times.



Like what?

Their main edge is userbase, nothing else.

Their engine is antiquated and while the documentation is ok, unreal and unity is as good for a much more advanced game engine.

They don't offer grants to Indies like epic, or as much free content or even the same level of interaction with Devs as you get from both unreal and unity.

Valve have needed a kick up the arse like this for years, I just hope they do react and don't think they can keep selling old rope like they have since origin, uplay and battlenet all took titles away from them.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Apr 2, 2019)

I want a unified gaming app that doesn't fuck with my game settings and doesn't bother me with what place it was purchased at... I'm sick to death with all these fucking store fronts... I could give a shit less who the middle man is..I just wanna play the damn games...fuck off with this stupid exclusive bullshit.
Fucking stupid people.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Apr 2, 2019)

Diverge said:


> Steam needs to make it so if you advertise your game on Steam, by putting your game on Steams store, you agree to launch it there. Back out, pay the divorce fees.



But then you walk a fine line - bully companies with your legal crap and slap them with fines if they back out (for whatever reason). Companies will see other launchers without these things in the contract and go with them, while avoiding Steam. (now, that's just a guess on my end, I don't know how any other company handles how offering games on their platforms and what happens when a company pulls it).

If Steam were the only company to have a contract like that, would you want to deal with them when there are other venues you could go through to sell your game?



bug said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure the move was covered by their contracts. What I was hinting at is I wouldn't mind seeing these moves forbidden. You took advantage of pre-orders? Sell on that store for 6-12 months at least.
> At the same time, I realize this was caused by Epic Store not being around when per-orders started. Maybe without this particular conjecture, we won't see dick moves like this again.



It would be nice if they were bound to keep their game selling IF they offer it as a pre-sale and at least 1 copy of the game is sold, to be held to keeping the game on Steam for a short duration of at least 3 months. It would prevent a company from offering it on Steam, netting sales and then running away from Steam before the launch date.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

jmcslob said:


> I want a unified gaming app that doesn't fuck with my game settings and doesn't bother me with what place it was purchased at... I'm sick to death with all these fucking store fronts... I could give a shit less who the middle man is..I just wanna play the damn games...fuck off with this stupid exclusive bullshit.
> Fucking stupid people.



Here it is

https://playnite.link/

I love it. Its even open source.


----------



## bug (Apr 2, 2019)

@vega22 Think about their game tools for a moment


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Worst platform is an opinion mostly pushed forward by flaming reddit posts with extensive lists of feature gaps. Not by developers. Metro has no real mod support, so workshop = irrelevant and I'd say that is one of the major perks Steam can offer a developer, a mod framework. It saves dev time and adds to game popularity, so that can be translated to actual profit.
> 
> But friends lists, and other community features, trading cards... all of that is largely irrelevant to a developer looking to release a game. These perks only matter to the end user and are unrelated to the game. Also, developers don't really choose. Publishers choose, and they look at the bottom line _only_.
> 
> I realize its all about money, but what Steam does is not all that unique or essential to a developer or publisher. What they care about is reach of a platform and in that, Steam has better reach but we also see a steady trend of people getting their content elsewhere. So, again, we have no clue whether Steam really does have such a great offer.



Friend list, community and reviews are all thing that matter to developers too, because they'll only increase the interest people has on that game, hence buying the game, because of its "social" features, cloud for saving progress on a game is also another important thing. _"Worst platform is an opinion mostly pushed forward by flaming reddit posts with extensive lists of feature gaps" _I sincerely hope you're joking, you understand this makes no sense right? That list is legit and has a clear point, objective point, not subjective, those are facts, and lacking those feature make EGS worse than steam, and the worst in general, since the other smaller launchers have more feature than that. Refund? Wanna talk about it? Mods? Doesn't matter that flaming t**d of Metro doesn't have mods, many games on PC do, and that's a PC platform we're talking about. NONE and i repeat NONE of those features listed are subjectively useful, they're all OBJECTIVE USEFUL, hence subjective useless. What do you mean with "steady trend of people getting their content elsewhere"? Steam does offer more to both devs and users, which automatically means offering more to devs again. My use of devs in this discussion isn't appropriate, i know, but it's to make it understand better what i'm trying to say.



vega22 said:


> Like what?
> 
> Their main edge is userbase, nothing else.
> 
> ...



Steam doesn't offer their engine, that's for use if you want, it's not a feature they offer with their platform, what's your point?

They offer much more Grants to indies than epic, what are you talking about. Free content? Who cares about that, besides steam offers that too. Again with the interaction of unreal engine and unity engine, what you're saying makes no sense at all, engine are a different, separate thing, that's not a feature EGS offers, per sé, nor Valve.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Friend list, community and reviews are all thing that matter to developers too, because they'll only increase the interest people has on that game, hence buying the game, because of its "social" features, cloud for saving progress on a game is also another important thing. _"Worst platform is an opinion mostly pushed forward by flaming reddit posts with extensive lists of feature gaps" _I sincerely hope you're joking, you understand this makes no sense right? That list is legit and has a clear point, objective point, not subjective, those are facts, and lacking those feature make EGS worse than steam, and the worst in general, since the other smaller launchers have more feature than that. Refund? Wanna talk about it? Mods? Doesn't matter that flaming t**d of Metro doesn't have mods, many games on PC do, and that's a PC platform we're talking about. NONE and i repeat NONE of those features listed are subjectively useful, they're all OBJECTIVE USEFUL, hence subjective useless. What do you mean with "steady trend of people getting their content elsewhere"? Steam does offer more to both devs and users, which automatically means offering more to devs again. My use of devs in this discussion isn't appropriate, i know, but it's to make it understand better what i'm trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



These things are also things customers can get elsewhere, and the actual value of these features can be another point of discussion. Again: _we don't know_ how many people _really want Steam_ because of these features. What I do see is that the review system is a pretty shitty place to be reading reviews (though good for general impression if you care to read a whole bunch of them, similar to metacritic ), and the community features are really not convenient at all via Steam because it ties you to the platform. When your group of buddies goes to Overwatch... what then? This is why most/many gamers actually use Discord for grouping. Thát is a popular community service. That is why I singled out mods/workshop as a real perk. Its usable, its in the right place for its purpose, and it works the same for all games. Mind you its nothing more than a framework developers can tap into, and in that, its not any different from a service like NexusMods which has been around since forever (and is still the be-all end-all place to be besides moddb - another service that's been around for ages for modding).

You're not wrong saying all of this, but you also have no clue as to how it relates to sales or profits. Its just a list of features that got implemented over time - mind you - over a decade of time and that the competition doesn't have _yet... _but has it on the roadmap for next year.

Try to step back from the bias and idea that Steam is objectively better. It may be to the end user, but that is really a different world than the publishers'. In the end its the publisher making the investment and taking the risk... Saying Steam is a better proposition is effectively saying all those publishers have gone crazy and you know better than all of them combined. Not something I'd go on...

About the steady trend: its clear as day that more and more content is offered outside of Steam and that the offering on Steam itself is a pretty muddy affair these days. There's so much, its a mess and titles get drowned, while the bigger releases avoid Steam altogether (Ubisoft is hit/miss, but EA consistently doesn't release on Steam, as do some others like Blizzard). Thát is also no good for a publisher that wants to get attention to its release. EGS is hands down a better idea in that sense because games are much more visible, simply because there are fewer of them.

You played the logic card earlier, isn't this pure logic?


----------



## 64K (Apr 2, 2019)

Epic has laid out their 2019 Roadmap for Store improvements a couple of weeks ago. We can watch and see if they follow through. For now I'm not signing up for an account there even for the free games until they've proven over time that they will maintain their store properly. Anyway, this is what Epic is claiming:

_"According to the roadmap, Epic Games has recently implemented a Store Search feature, Free Game Notification, Code Redemption improvements, Collections and Bundles, an Offline mode, Pre-Loading and Regional Pricing._

_In the next three months, Epic Games aims to implement the ability to search by genre or tag, make some improvements to the Offline Mode, overhaul its Install Management “Under the Hood”, add Store Video Hosting, re-design the Store page, improve DLC support, add/enable Cloud Saves, implement add-on purchase checks and improve patch sizes._

_Epic’s mid term goals (4 to 6 months from now) are to enable User Reviews, add Wishlists, improve the Newsfeed and Follow features, implement additional Payment Methods and Currencies, as well as Player Play Time Tracking, add Mod support for games, enable an Epic Games Overlay and make some improvements to the Library._

_Last but not least, Epic’s long term goals are to add Achievements, Shopping Cart, Direct Carrier Billing and overhaul the Social functionalities!"_


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> These things are also things customers can get elsewhere, and the actual value of these features can be another point of discussion. Again: _we don't know_ how many people _really want Steam_ because of these features. What I do see is that the review system is a pretty shitty place to be reading reviews (though good for general impression if you care to read a whole bunch of them, similar to metacritic ), and the community features are really not convenient at all via Steam because it ties you to the platform. When your group of buddies goes to Overwatch... what then? This is why most gamers actually use Discord for grouping. Thát is a popular community service.
> 
> You're not wrong saying all of this, but you also have no clue as to how it relates to sales or profits. Its just a list of features that got implemented over time - mind you - over a decade of time and that the competition doesn't have _yet... _but has it on the roadmap for next year.
> 
> Try to step back from the bias and idea that Steam is objectively better. It may be to the end user, but that is really a different world than the publishers'. In the end its the publisher making the investment and taking the risk... Saying Steam is a better proposition is effectively saying all those publishers have gone crazy and you know better than all of them combined. Not something I'd go on...



Since Steam started it all, those features are taken for granted, it's something steam always had, i'm not saying reviews give you all the times a correct perspective on a game you want to buy, but they help you with some information, just like metacritic (i don't understand if this was meant as a joke, but makes no sense honestly). "the community features are really not convenient at all via Steam because it ties you to the platform" i'm not sure i understand what you mean. If your group of buddies goes to overwatch, and you want to go too, just go then, what's the problem, but Battlenet launcher is not EGS, because it's a launcher (not a store/platform like Steam and EGS are), and has more features, and works pretty much better than EGS ever did. Discord is mainly used because it's free and it's much more user friendly than Teamspeak or mumble or ventrilo.

Over a decade time? What? They had most of the feature they have now, even 10 years ago, the only thing that grew much bigger is the games catalog, and the community section due to that. The only thing devs or publishers to be precise, can argue or complain about, is the steam cut, which could be revisited, but still they offer much more to anyone compared to EGS, and there's no denying that.



> About the steady trend: its clear as day that more and more content is offered outside of Steam and that the offering on Steam itself is a pretty muddy affair these days. There's so much, its a mess and titles get drowned, while the bigger releases avoid Steam altogether (Ubisoft is hit/miss, but EA consistently doesn't release on Steam, as do some others like Blizzard). Thát is also no good for a publisher that wants to get attention to its release. EGS is hands down a better idea in that sense because games are much more visible, simply because there are fewer of them.
> 
> You played the logic card earlier, isn't this pure logic?



What kind of logic is that, steam is much more used than EGS anyway, if you want visibility for your game, you can pay ads, and make it more visible, and you'll probably get the best out of it since the enormous user base steam has compared to EGS, that is if your game is "good" or is interesting to the mass.


----------



## Basard (Apr 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Aaaaaaaand this is why we have $1500 GPUs that used to cost $649.


Not really...
I'm not advocating spending $65 on a game.  I don't think I have ever spent more than $40--and that's a rarity.


----------



## Warlen (Apr 2, 2019)

64K said:


> Epic has laid out their 2019 Roadmap for Store improvements a couple of weeks ago. We can watch and see if they follow through. For now I'm not signing up for an account there even for the free games until they've proven over time that they will maintain their store properly. Anyway, this is what Epic is claiming:
> 
> ...Snip...



Great on Epic for adding improvements to their launcher, call me a pessimist, but I can see them adding these features to be more like Steam then turn around and start charging more of a revenue split closer to what Steam is currently.


----------



## 64K (Apr 2, 2019)

Warlen said:


> Great on Epic for adding improvements to their launcher, call me a pessimist, but I can see them adding these features to be more like Steam then turn around and start charging more of a revenue split closer to what Steam is currently.



imo they will but possibly still not as much as Steam is right now. I don't know but for sure but I don't think Epic is making much, if any, profit with their 12% cut. Once they grow their Store to a size that they are comfortable with I expect they will raise their cut above 12%. Businesses don't operate just to break even unless there's good reason for it. They operate to generate profit.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Since Steam started it all, those features are taken for granted, it's something steam always had, i'm not saying reviews give you all the times a correct perspective on a game you want to buy, but they help you with some information, just like metacritic (i don't understand if this was meant as a joke, but makes no sense honestly). "the community features are really not convenient at all via Steam because it ties you to the platform" i'm not sure i understand what you mean. If your group of buddies goes to overwatch, and you want to go too, just go then, what's the problem, but Battlenet launcher is not EGS, because it's a launcher (not a store/platform like Steam and EGS are), and has more features, and works pretty much better than EGS ever did. Discord is mainly used because it's free and it's much more user friendly than Teamspeak or mumble or ventrilo.
> 
> Over a decade time? What? They had most of the feature they have now, even 10 years ago, the only thing that grew much bigger is the games catalog, and the community section due to that. The only thing devs or publishers to be precise, can argue or complain about, is the steam cut, which could be revisited, but still they offer much more to anyone compared to EGS, and there's no denying that.



Steam _didn't start any of this_. You're sounding like an Apple fan now, convinced they were responsible for the Big Bang and all innovation that followed after it. Steam followed because there was a community demand. And like Steam, other services did the exact same thing.

Do I really need to provide a timeline with Steam's last decade feature releases? Let's get into that then...

https://www.pcgamer.com/steam-versions/

*Four years post-release:*





*+5 years. Last decade development: cloud save.*





*+7 years post release: Mod Support /Workshop. (oopsie!) Also 2FA which EGS has at launch *(though that should be considered as bare necessity IMO).

*

*

I'll leave you to enjoy the rest of the article on your own, but I think these are important highlights and above all, important _perspective._



oxidized said:


> What kind of logic is that, steam is much more used than EGS anyway, if you want visibility for your game, you can pay ads, and make it more visible, and you'll probably get the best out of it since the enormous user base steam has compared to EGS, that is if your game is "good" or is interesting to the mass.



Actually no, even bad publicity is attention and a release on EGS is currently the number one way to get attention to your release. Look at this very topic, or are you going to deny that too?

Really man, I'm done. The info is there, enjoy...


----------



## Imsochobo (Apr 2, 2019)

kings said:


> People complain, but at the end of the day they end up buying it anyway, if they like the game!
> 
> See Metro Exodus, huge success in the Epic Store, despite all the hate on the internet!



there is a couple of epic exclusives I liked, I don't buy them


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Steam _didn't start any of this_. You're sounding like an Apple fan now, convinced they were responsible for the Big Bang and all innovation that followed after it. Steam followed because there was a community demand. And like Steam, other services did the exact same thing.
> 
> Do I really need to provide a timeline with Steam's last decade feature releases? Let's get into that then...
> 
> ...



I've been a steam user since december 2005, i remember exactly what happened since then, a decade is 10 years, and 10 years ago it was 2009, the biggest features were already there, others interesting and useful feature came later, like refund for example, 3/4 years ago iirc. Steam started it all, there was no demand for something like this back then, actually i remember being pretty pissed at the idea of being forced to install additional software to play HL2, even because my internet wasn't even close as good as it's now.



> Actually no, even bad publicity is attention and a release on EGS is currently the number one way to get attention to your release. Look at this very topic, or are you going to deny that too?
> 
> Really man, I'm done. The info is there, enjoy...



No, i agree that even bad publicity is attention, but that doesn't mean everyone will buy stuff from there, and releasing stuff on steam gives you probably more profit, except that Epic literally bribes publishers to counter that. Thank god you're done, seriously.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Steam started it all



Yup, they really did, again, you seem to have a problem with facts. I'm not done as long as that seems to be a returning issue, because I'm allergic to BS








What about voice? Gosh

Teamspeak:




Can you see a trend here? Hmmmmm. The only thing Steam 'started' is digital game distribution, and even in that they weren't first, but they did make it big. That is about as far as the credit goes. All those extra features existed and got big long before Steam decided it would help their bottom line too. Its a typical 'Valve Time' example. I'm sure you know what that means.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yup, they really did, again, you seem to have a problem with facts. I'm not done as long as that seems to be a returning issue, because I'm allergic to BS
> 
> View attachment 120085
> 
> ...



???????????????????????????????? Are you seriously this mental? I say steam started it all, and you point to me how 2 websites started before steam distributing mods and you point to me how teamspeak (a voip client) started in 2001? It's like i'm talking italian and you answer talking  japanese.

With started it all i meant videogames platform, selling games, and creating a community around it, much before anyone else. Now the real answer is why you're point to me those things, those are different things from steam, although steam now offers in its way a workshop for mods, but apart from that, what's your point lmao? This is getting ridiculous, you're debating just for the sake of it.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> ???????????????????????????????? Are you seriously this mental? I say steam started it all, and you point to me how 2 websites started before steam distributing mods and you point to me how teamspeak (a voip client) started in 2001? It's like i'm talking italian and you answer talking  japanese.



You sure fail at English, at least, stop hopping to a different subject every time you're facing proof.

I'm sure this isn't the right 'tone' for you. So be it.





If you can't get the overall context perhaps scroll back and read again. I think its pretty clear.



oxidized said:


> i still don't understand



I can see that. Scroll back, read carefully, and try again.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> You sure fail at English, at least, stop hopping to a different subject every time you're facing proof.
> 
> I'm sure this isn't the right 'tone' for you. So be it.
> 
> View attachment 120088



Oh my god you're out of your mind, i wasn't referring to mods, besides what's teamspeak got to do with it i still don't understand


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

Basard said:


> Not really...
> I'm not advocating spending $65 on a game.  I don't think I have ever spent more than $40--and that's a rarity.



So how is saying:



Basard said:


> If we all love steam so much, an extra five bucks for a sixty dollar game is not too much to ask.



Not advocating raising the price?  If we start with a sixty dollar ($60) and then put an extra (add) five bucks ($5) - what do we get?


----------



## JalleR (Apr 2, 2019)

AAAaaaand the game is preordered on Steam...…...


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> You sure fail at English, at least, stop hopping to a different subject every time you're facing proof.
> 
> I'm sure this isn't the right 'tone' for you. So be it.
> 
> ...



Please stop editing every fkn time your posts, make a new post if you have to add stuff, i don't get the notifications if you keep editing your posts.

Steam started it all, as i said above, and you responded with what? 2 Mod sites and 1 voip client? Is it me not understanding or you actually?


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Please stop editing every fkn time your posts, make a new post if you have to add stuff, i don't get the notifications if you keep editing your posts.
> 
> Steam started it all, as i said above, and you responded with what? 2 Mod sites and 1 voip client? Is it me not understanding or you actually?



OK, I'll connect the dots for you.

Steam *didn't start a mod community*. Steam *didn't start voice chat*. Steam *didn't bring new things to the table that weren't there at the time*. All it did was *absorb that demand into its own service*. And it did that only YEARS AFTER release, while these services that I linked have all been there since early 2000's, which really was the moment they became feasible and usable for gaming.

The only real, new thing Steam did, was digital distribution of games. Consolidating gamers in one place because, simply enough, there was no alternative with the same reach.

Fast forward to 2018. EGS comes out with a bare storefront and no features. I invite you to put that next to the first year of Steam. Or its first three, even. Steam took its sweet (Valve!) time implementing the very same features you now call EGS inferior for. Not exactly fair, is it. Especially not because the majority of those features _are on the roadmap for next year._

_On top of that_ the services I named outside of Steam, still exist, and they actually do a better job at that than Steam does because they transcend the limitations of the Steam community, are not tied to a publisher or even to Valve. This makes them useful for ALL game releases and not just those on Steam. Now, more dots to connect: Because more releases happen outside of Steam, the relevance of that community is also starting to erode. It only needs some time and more and more people will realize that the old consolidation doesn't work anymore. People flock over to all sorts of places now. No point keeping Steam as the central place when you're spending most of your time elsewhere.

Capiche?


----------



## Zifnab (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Please stop editing every fkn time your posts, make a new post if you have to add stuff, i don't get the notifications if you keep editing your posts.
> 
> Steam started it all, as i said above, and you responded with what? 2 Mod sites and 1 voip client? Is it me not understanding or you actually?



It's pretty obvious ...it is you not getting it. Steam never had an original idea. They were just smart enough to combine them at a time nobody had.


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 2, 2019)

I'd just like to see companies sell it on all platforms / storefronts and let the customers decide where to buy it. Forcing pre-order only to Steam and then taking it off after release is a crappy move as many gamers don't believe in giving a company money for something that's not out yet.

Ah well, not going to get angry about it, just figure if a game I want to play is released in a store I buy games (Steam or GOG), I'll be happy to buy it and if not, I'll play it "somewhere else".


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Steam *didn't start a mod community*. Steam *didn't start voice chat*. Steam *didn't bring new things to the table that weren't there at the time*. All it did was *absorb that demand into its own service*.



Gamespy.  'Nuff said.  The only thing Steam brought to popularity was a place to buy games.  Everything else had already been done.  Kinda like the iPhone.  It just brought everything together.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Gamespy.  'Nuff said.



HAH indeed holy shit


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

Razrback16 said:


> Ah well, not going to get angry about it, just figure if a game I want to play is released in a store I buy games, I'll be happy to buy it and if not, I'll play it "somewhere else".



So if Chevy decided to only sell Corvettes at a particular dealership (not where you buy cars), would you just steal one?



Vayra86 said:


> HAH indeed holy shit



Sorry for the ninja edit by the way.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> OK, I'll connect the dots for you.
> 
> Steam *didn't start a mod community*. Steam *didn't start voice chat*. Steam *didn't bring new things to the table that weren't there at the time*. All it did was *absorb that demand into its own service*. And it did that only YEARS AFTER release, while these services that I linked have all been there since early 2000's, which really was the moment they became feasible and usable for gaming.
> 
> ...



Steam never meant to start any mod community or voice chat, those are feature that came just slightly later, what it started is the whole launcher and videogames platform. You're trying to climb this mirror as much as you can. Gamespy is a totally different thing.

Also capiche isn't italian, it doesn't exist, if you're trying to be the funny guy, at least double check before.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Steam never meant to start any mod community or voice chat, those are feature that came just slightly later, what it started is the whole launcher and videogames platform. You're trying to climb this mirror as much as you can. Gamespy is a totally different thing.
> 
> Also capiche isn't italian, it doesn't exist, if you're trying to be the funny guy, at least double check before.



Riiiiight. To that all I can say is


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> So if Chevy decided to only sell Corvettes at a particular dealership (not where you buy cars), would you just steal one?



Kind of a silly, irrelevant question. Chevy's not dumb enough to make a decision like that - they give lots of options so there's no need to worry about not having availability on storefronts. Ordered my first one and picked it up at the Corvette Museum, and the 2nd (current) one I shopped around on Autotrader until I found one I was interested in about an hour away from my house - called them up made an offer, they accepted it and I went out and bought it. It's nice when companies give their clientele lots of purchasing options. Customers are happy and keep giving them money. Neat how that works, and not really all that complicated. 

If they all of a sudden decided to only sell them in say, California (I'm in Ohio), I'd probably just buy 1-year lightly used one or maybe it would give me the final push to buy my first Ferrari.


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Riiiiight. To that all I can say is



What? The mirror broke? Or you're just too tired to keep climbing?


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 2, 2019)

Fx said:


> Not everyone. Everyone has different standards and principles though.



+1

Some folks talk a good game but cave when push comes to shove. Some mean exactly what they say. I'm thankful to be in the latter group.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

Razrback16 said:


> Kind of a silly, irrelevant question.



No it isn't.  A goods/services provider happens to not sell something you want where you want it so you decide to get it 'somewhere else'.  How is that irrelevant?  The point is that people seem to think software is supposed to be available at their terms and if it is not, then they pirate it.  However, these same people seem  to have 'morals' about hard goods like refrigerators or cars.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> What? The mirror broke? Or you're just too tired to keep climbing?



Yep that is what it says in Italian. Soldier on!


----------



## oxidized (Apr 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Yep that is what it says in Italian. Soldier on!



Yeah i thought so...


----------



## bug (Apr 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> No it isn't.  A goods/services provider happens to not sell something you want where you want it so you decide to get it 'somewhere else'.  How is that irrelevant?  The point is that people seem to think software is supposed to be available at their terms and if it is not, then they pirate it.  However, these same people seem  to have 'morals' about hard goods like refrigerators or cars.


Yes, but in the case of physical goods, there's the actual problem of hauling them around. Digital goods don't need that and can be replicated at zero cost. That's why people expect availability for the latter, but not the former.


----------



## wrathchild_67 (Apr 2, 2019)

To the guy claiming that the quantity of Metacritic user reviews is a completely accurate metric for gauging success of a paid game, especially compared to user reviews of a free game, you fail to account for inorganic reviews. Every popular review medium is being gamed. This problem is so bad that there are websites that exist only to determine if user reviews for products are legitimate. I can't say for certain that a campaign to generate fake positive user reviews for Metro occurred, but it has happened with other AAA games. And my whole argument here is not that the game is bad and was propped up with false positive reviews, I'm arguing that looking strictly at the quantity of positive reviews in the age of astroturfed reviewing can't be used to determine popularity. As far as I know, there is no equivalent to FakeSpot for Metacritic user reviews. There is no quick way to determine the quality of those user reviews without reading all of them manually, and even then a human may not make the same conclusion based on language and content of the review that a site like FakeSpot would. 

Also you're assuming that users of a free game, Apex Legends, would have the same motivations to post a review as those who paid for a game. In the case of Apex Legends, a user that has sunk $0 into the game doesn't have to feel justified in their purchase and let everyone know about it via an online review because there was no purchase to justify. Food for thought.


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> No it isn't. A goods/services provider happens to not sell something you want where you want it so you decide to get it 'somewhere else'. How is that irrelevant? The point is that people seem to think software is supposed to be available at their terms and if it is not, then they pirate it. However, these same people seem to have 'morals' about hard goods like refrigerators or cars.



It's irrelevant for a couple of reasons:

1.) I didn't say I would "get it" "somewhere else". I said I would "play it" "somewhere else". Had I said I was going to steal it straight up, then your comment would have made more sense, but I didn't, you just made an assumption. I was intentionally vague as there is more than one way to play a game you don't want to reward a publisher for financially (I'm sure you've had friends at some point your life and if you're an adult, you may have to housesit for them occasionally, that is another common way to play games without paying for them if you have friends who have access to many different games) as well as others - some people simply share accounts and games when they want to try things out and decide if a game is worth a personal purchase. That's why I was vague about it as there are myriad of ways to play games.

2.) Comparing a $70k item to a $60 item and asking if someone would apply the same decision making process in terms of how to acquire it is, like I said, silly and irrelevant. You've also got the digital versus tangible difference which completely changes the rules of what you're implying, and that, as a result, will change the decision making process for people. It's a helluva lot more difficult, and carries much stiffer penalties to steal say, a jug of milk from the grocery store, and downloading software illegally through a masked VPN. One has a high risk of getting caught and carrying legal ramifications with the former, while the latter is the complete opposite. And in my opinion that's simply one more reason software publishers and developers should be mindful of how they treat their customers. They sell a product that isn't difficult at all to acquire by "other means", so it's in their best interest to be as consumer friendly as possible. This is why companies like CD Projekt Red are so beloved - they try to be as consumer friendly as possible to the point people in general WANT to buy their games.

IMO it's simply an anti consumer practice to put up exclusivity walls like some developers / publishers have been doing. I saw someone make a funny, yet applicable comment on another site a few weeks back that was meant toward developers doing exclusivity deals with the security challenged Epic Games Store, and the comment was something along the lines of "when you do business in a dark alley, don't be surprised when you get robbed" and that is very relevant to what some of these publishers are doing, intentionally pissing off their customer base by attempting to strong arm them into exclusivity deals at certain stores, especially ones with security issues like EGS.

What they might consider doing is selling on Steam for a higher price. Many folks would still buy the game there and everybody would be happy. Last thing you should ever do from the angle of a company that sells goods / services is try to intentionally limit the choices of your customers. It's just bad for business.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 2, 2019)

wrathchild_67 said:


> To the guy claiming that the quantity of Metacritic user reviews is a completely accurate metric for gauging success of a paid game, especially compared to user reviews of a free game, you fail to account for inorganic reviews. Every popular review medium is being gamed. This problem is so bad that there are websites that exist only to determine if user reviews for products are legitimate. I can't say for certain that a campaign to generate fake positive user reviews for Metro occurred, but it has happened with other AAA games. And my whole argument here is not that the game is bad and was propped up with false positive reviews, I'm arguing that looking strictly at the quantity of positive reviews in the age of astroturfed reviewing can't be used to determine popularity. As far as I know, there is no equivalent to FakeSpot for Metacritic user reviews. There is no quick way to determine the quality of those user reviews without reading all of them manually, and even then a human may not make the same conclusion based on language and content of the review that a site like FakeSpot would.
> 
> Also you're assuming that users of a free game, Apex Legends, would have the same motivations to post a review as those who paid for a game. In the case of Apex Legends, a user that has sunk $0 into the game doesn't have to feel justified in their purchase and let everyone know about it via an online review because there was no purchase to justify. Food for thought.



Great points and I see those as well. But there is still going to be a bottom line with regards to simple 'big data' principles. The Apex comparison has its own problem indeed, but at the same time, it also has noticeable lower review count and it makes sense, you don't review a free game because who cares, just go play it. But when you put that number next to for example Battlefields or CoDs it becomes a lot harder to maintain the 'its all fake' idea. Note that I ONLY look at the review _count_ not the content or even the overall scores. And I said, its an _indicator_ that is likely pointing at decent sales, more so than a boycot. It makes no sense at all to have the same amount of metacritic reviews while nobody bought it, or less people bought it compared to Metro LL (and especially not, if its fake and meant to drive sales, with mediocre scores). And even if part of the Metro Exodus number is fake, its still a pretty awkward similarity I'd say - a similarity I would personally chalk up towards the idea that we are looking at a very same slice of the fanbase that is ready to write a review for all Metro games. That is again an _indicator _the game sold fine.

On the other hand, we haven't seen ANY indicators that the game didn't. That is just a gut feeling based on a very vocal minority...of which remains to be seen whether they've put their money where there mouth was.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

Razrback16 said:


> I didn't say I would "get it" "somewhere else". I said I would "play it" "somewhere else"





Razrback16 said:


> I was intentionally vague as there is more than one way to play



One would assume when they quote 'somewhere else' that they are meaning pirating.  Or else, they would have simply said: I'll play it at a friends house.  In either case, I'll take the blame for assuming.



Razrback16 said:


> You've also got the digital versus tangible difference which completely changes the rules of what you're implying, and that, as a result, will change the decision making process for people.  One has a high risk of getting caught and carrying legal ramifications with the former, while the latter is the complete opposite.



So basically, as I surmised, its about the whole 'getting caught' thing.  It's not bad if you don't get caught.  And no, it doesn't change the rules.  The act of acquiring without permission is the same.  Only the consequences change.



Razrback16 said:


> IMO it's simply an anti consumer practice to put up exclusivity walls like some developers / publishers have been doing.
> 
> What they might consider doing is selling on Steam for a higher price. Many folks would still buy the game there and everybody would be happy. Last thing you should ever do from the angle of a company that sells goods / services is try to intentionally limit the choices of your customers. It's just bad for business.



I don't disagree with you about the poor decision to go exclusive but the publishers must be pretty sure the money they are making from Epic's payout and resulting sales is going to equal or exceed what they would get from Steam or they wouldn't get it.  What I don't understand is why people think it is ok to 'get it somwhere else' just because it isn't on Steam.  Whether or not those are your intentions, I don't really care.


----------



## kastriot (Apr 2, 2019)

Can anyone tell me about what this thread was?


----------



## vega22 (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> Friend list, community and reviews are all thing that matter to developers too, because they'll only increase the interest people has on that game, hence buying the game, because of its "social" features, cloud for saving progress on a game is also another important thing. _"Worst platform is an opinion mostly pushed forward by flaming reddit posts with extensive lists of feature gaps" _I sincerely hope you're joking, you understand this makes no sense right? That list is legit and has a clear point, objective point, not subjective, those are facts, and lacking those feature make EGS worse than steam, and the worst in general, since the other smaller launchers have more feature than that. Refund? Wanna talk about it? Mods? Doesn't matter that flaming t**d of Metro doesn't have mods, many games on PC do, and that's a PC platform we're talking about. NONE and i repeat NONE of those features listed are subjectively useful, they're all OBJECTIVE USEFUL, hence subjective useless. What do you mean with "steady trend of people getting their content elsewhere"? Steam does offer more to both devs and users, which automatically means offering more to devs again. My use of devs in this discussion isn't appropriate, i know, but it's to make it understand better what i'm trying to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You talk about Devs, admit you're using the term wrong then try to counter points that really matter to Devs....

You might want to stop digging as your lack of knowledge and personal bias is shining through your very thin argument.

For Devs, the people gamers should be supporting, not the marketplace, things I have mentioned here are what counts as it makes it easier to make the games. Then you add their more generous cut at the checkout and you end up with all the indy Devs canning years of work on source engine projects and running to epic with open arms.

@kastriot 
Epic getting more timed exclusives so steam fanbois are lighting the pitchforks...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 2, 2019)

jmcosta said:


> and that popularity is to expect since they invested most of their budget on marketing to reach as much people as possible.


Source for the use of most of their budget on marketing instead of game production?


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

bug said:


> Yes, but in the case of physical goods, there's the actual problem of hauling them around. Digital goods don't need that and can be replicated at zero cost. That's why people expect availability for the latter, but not the former.



I don't understand what you were going for here.


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> One would assume when they quote 'somewhere else' that they are meaning pirating.  Or else, they would have simply said: I'll play it at a friends house.  In either case, I'll take the blame for assuming.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No worries. I totally support your right to disagree with me. 

And absolutely - on the topic of pirating / stealing just in general, of course "risk" is going to be at the top of the consideration list. And let's be real - pirating games is pretty darn simple, and that's why I feel like publishers really ought to consider carefully how they treat their customers. But also on the flipside, you're absolutely right that they have likely done the math and figured "even if we piss a bunch of people off and they steal our $hit, the money EGS gave us plus the people who will buy anyway will more than offset it" - the unknown variable is will people be angry with that developer / publisher down the road? Some will probably, and some may forget or just not care. 

On your question about why gamers figure it's ok - I would imagine it's because they feel they're being done dirty by the publisher and figure they'll do the publisher dirty in return. I think the "right or wrong" angle of it doesn't really come into the equation. I personally feel like this is kind of a gray zone - I could cite some governmental / historical situations where they were officially "legal" but morally / ethically wrong by most observers and I think that's kind of what we have with these types of situations - what these publishers are doing is legal - there's nothing unlawful about it, but I think many consumers view it as wrong and as a result feel like they'll just stick it to the man in a "you tried to pooch me, so I'm gonna pooch you" sorta way. Right or wrong I think that's probably the view of most and I don't disagree with it.

For me personally, I'll just continue to advocate for companies selling the product on many digital storefronts and won't purchase games if they aren't sold at a store I do business with. I'm trying not to get as irritated with these types of announcements as the way I look at it, I'm going to play any game I want regardless, whether it's at a friend's house, via account sharing or via some other method - literally the only variable on the table is whether the developer gets my money. And I'm happy to give it if they deserve and practice consumer-friendly behaviors. Very much looking forward to buying Cyberpunk 2077 (if it ever comes out) on Steam.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 2, 2019)

Had to be done...


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

Razrback16 said:


> No worries. I totally support your right to disagree with me.



We are honestly only disagreeing about semantics at the most part.  Additionally, I am a software engineer which this topic tends to irritate me more than the average person.  Life is not black or white and always has various shades of grey.

However, two wrongs don't a right and the better person knows which path to take.  If they are fine taking the 'grey' path, that is not for me to judge as ultimately, they only need to answer to themselves when they look in the mirror.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 2, 2019)

https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2019-...-will-launch-as-an-epic-games-store-exclusive

I can't wait to see the hate they get on steam from their "fans" xD


----------



## Razrback16 (Apr 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> We are honestly only disagreeing about semantics at the most part.  Additionally, I am a software engineer which this topic tends to irritate me more than the average person.  Life is not black or white and always has various shades of grey.
> 
> However, two wrongs don't a right and the better person knows which path to take.  If they are fine taking the 'grey' path, that is not for me to judge as ultimately, they only need to answer to themselves when they look in the mirror.



Sometimes the developers do get caught in the middle and I honestly feel bad for them. The Metro Exodus situation seems like that - I believe that EGS exclusivity decision was made by the publisher and not the developers, so I felt quite bad for the game developers in that situation and the consumers. Both groups were made victims by bad publishing choices. So I do totally understand any heightened emotions you feel with that being your profession. Best of luck.


----------



## 64K (Apr 2, 2019)

Razrback16 said:


> Sometimes the developers do get caught in the middle and I honestly feel bad for them. The Metro Exodus situation seems like that - I believe that EGS exclusivity decision was made by the publisher and not the developers, so I felt quite bad for the game developers in that situation and the consumers. Both groups were made victims by bad publishing choices. So I do totally understand any heightened emotions you feel with that being your profession. Best of luck.



Yep. That's what happened. Deep Silver made the call to make Metro Exodus a timed exclusive on the Epic Store. People lashed out at 4A Games even though they had no say in the matter at all. Publishers make those kinds of calls. That's what I think is about to happen with Borderlands 3 as well and there will be a blow up on gaming sites against Gearbox but they've already pointed out that it's 2K that will make the decision and not them.


----------



## TheOne (Apr 2, 2019)

With all the "discussion" in these threads, I can't help but wonder how many people here have an active Epic account.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

TheOne said:


> With all the "discussion" in these threads, I can't help but wonder how many people here have an active Epic account.



I do.  For two reasons:

Experimenting with UE4.
Buying Metro Exodus because I don't give two shits where I buy games from.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Apr 2, 2019)

oxidized said:


> I don't know, huge is something else, huge is something only battle royale games recently reached, and having more reviews on metascore means nothing as i already said, it's not a reliable source, never was. It's you having no idea what you're talking about like most of the time you write on this forum regarding anything really. I have myself as source, which is surely more valuable than what you're using as "source", just stop it with this aggressive ignorant posting of yours you're by far one of the lamest users in this forum.


This is pretty sad, You and @Vayra86 had a nice discussion going until this. Just because he was making a better valid argument over yours is not a reason to personally attack him.  Since you dont have access to actual purchase numbers its hard to validate your argument versus what is shown on critic and review sites. Personal opinion aside, a game success or failure only matters when we buy and play it. True reviews sites have been bribed to inflate numbers or fluff reviews, sales numbers are exaggerated all the time. But anyone speaking for everyone else by using "people ..." should atleast have a source. You dont speak for me, I havent played the games you have but yet "people" references to gamers ( or everyone)  is always baseless.

This forum has lots of room for healthy discussion but personal attacks like this is better left on Reddit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 2, 2019)

TheOne said:


> With all the "discussion" in these threads, I can't help but wonder how many people here have an active Epic account.


I do.  Already beat most of the free games they gave away.  Thanks Epic!


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Apr 2, 2019)

TheOne said:


> With all the "discussion" in these threads, I can't help but wonder how many people here have an active Epic account.


I do also, free games ya know.



rtwjunkie said:


> Source for the use of most of their budget on marketing instead of game production?


A magic 8-ball most likely. However, from what I have observed, marketing budgets for small publishers with even lesser known dev studios seem to do only slightly better at PR than those larger than them when quality vs quantity matters.


----------



## dicktracy (Apr 2, 2019)

Valve shouldn't have abandoned game development. Now it's going to bite them in the ass. Half-Life 3, Team Fortress 3, Portal 3, etc. would attract more people into their platform. Gamers follow the games, not platform!

Just wait until Epic integrates Unreal Engine with their store platform... since they have one of the most popular game engines in the world, this will hurt Steam even more.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 2, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Gamers follow the games, not platform!



You wouldn't think so by reading forums.


----------



## Basard (Apr 2, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> So how is saying:
> 
> Not advocating raising the price?  If we start with a sixty dollar ($60) and then put an extra (add) five bucks ($5) - what do we get?



I'm just saying that I'd rather spend a couple extra bucks for a game on Steam than I would on the same game on a different platform.  Just because I'm used to Steam and have a few friends on there that I play games with.  It also depends on the other platform too.  

What I would really rather do is just buy DRM-free games from GOG that I can play without having to deal with a launcher.  But then I still run steam anyways to talk to friends.


----------



## Crackong (Apr 3, 2019)

TheOne said:


> With all the "discussion" in these threads, I can't help but wonder how many people here have an active Epic account.



Think opposite,  40% of Epic store user base do NOT have a steam account anyway.


----------



## Valantar (Apr 3, 2019)

Crackong said:


> Think opposite,  40% of Epic store user base do NOT have a steam account anyway.


Really? Do you have a source? 'Cause that's quite impressive, given Steam's utter and total dominance of digital PC games sales for the past 16 years - finding an untapped demographic like that is any sales rep's wet dream.


Again I want to thank everyone here for some great entertainment - Anno games aren't my cup of tea, but this (poor excuse for a) debate sure is! Grand entertainment! Even though I've asked this before, I still can't grasp it: what has Steam done to earn such intense and unblinking loyalty? They were first, and more importantly first at making a good launcher, but ... then they stopped developing games, and started effectively extorting games developers through their chokehold on the market. You wanted to sell a game? You had to pay Valve 30% for the privilege, even though all they did was provide a server and some ancillary services. Valve has become incredibly rich off the work of other developers, all the while game developers globally are struggling to get by thanks to an incredibly competitive market.

Steam's monopoly does not deserve our support. Period. And while an oligopoly isn't really any better, it's an acceptable stopgap if that is what is required to actually create a feasible marketplace for digital PC games in the long run. And it's rather obvious that loosening Steam's grip on the market is desperately needed for this to happen.


----------



## Crackong (Apr 3, 2019)

Valantar said:


> Really? Do you have a source?



Google is your Friend:


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 3, 2019)

Crackong said:


> Google is your Friend:
> 
> View attachment 120124


With a claim like that it was your responsibility to provide the source, not smugly say “ Google is your friend” when pressed.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 3, 2019)

dicktracy said:


> Valve shouldn't have abandoned game development. Now it's going to bite them in the ass. Half-Life 3, Team Fortress 3, Portal 3, etc. would attract more people into their platform. Gamers follow the games, not platform!
> 
> Just wait until Epic integrates Unreal Engine with their store platform... since they have one of the most popular game engines in the world, this will hurt Steam even more.



ERM....they integrated the store into the editor launcher. Same place you can mod games too


----------



## Crackong (Apr 3, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> With a claim like that it was your responsibility to provide the source, not smugly say “ Google is your friend” when pressed.



I am sorry.
I thought it is common sense to at least do the initial fact check by 2 sec google it.


----------



## Super XP (Apr 3, 2019)

People will speak with their Wallet. And mine is telling me No Thank You, 
All Games should be available on all platforms, regardless so the end user has the final choice. 
Period.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Apr 3, 2019)

Valantar said:


> Again I want to thank everyone here for some great entertainment - Anno games aren't my cup of tea, but this (poor excuse for a) debate sure is! Grand entertainment!



I'd have to agree that a lot of these posts have been clearly unwarranted towards others, but they sure were entertaining to read through - to a point. 



Valantar said:


> Even though I've asked this before, I still can't grasp it: what has Steam done to earn such intense and unblinking loyalty? They were first, and more importantly first at making a good launcher, but ... then they stopped developing games, and started effectively extorting games developers through their chokehold on the market.



So many people are so hung up on Steam because, as you said, Steam was pretty much the first digital platform to stick around for so long. People have so many games tied to Steam and friends on Steam that it is the one program they want to keep using because of such a thing. Then, one day....


----------



## TheOne (Apr 3, 2019)

And now it is official that Borderlands 3 will be a 6 month exclusive.

https://www.pcgamer.com/borderlands-3-pc-is-releasing-exclusively-on-the-epic-store-in-september/


----------



## neatfeatguy (Apr 3, 2019)

TheOne said:


> And now it is official that Borderlands 3 will be a 6 month exclusive.
> 
> https://www.pcgamer.com/borderlands-3-pc-is-releasing-exclusively-on-the-epic-store-in-september/



It'll just be another game I don't get. It's got nothing to do with it not being available on release on Steam.

Sure, I can wait for 6 months to pick it up on another digital platform, but I won't. I won't support a game that specifically goes with an exclusivity deal with just one place.

I won't install EGS. I already have 4 different digital platform programs on my computer and I don't want anymore. My personal choice is to avoid these games made by these companies because of it. I may be in the minority here, but that's how I'll handle it. I'll vote with my wallet.


----------



## bug (Apr 3, 2019)

TheOne said:


> And now it is official that Borderlands 3 will be a 6 month exclusive.
> 
> https://www.pcgamer.com/borderlands-3-pc-is-releasing-exclusively-on-the-epic-store-in-september/


Is it a SteamWorks title?


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 3, 2019)

neatfeatguy said:


> It'll just be another game I don't get. It's got nothing to do with it not being available on release on Steam.



The rest of your post totally contradicts this statement.  

However, I understand what you mean.  That said, I look at all these launchers like the old days.  When I used to have to put disks or discs in to be able to play games.  Each game had its own launcher (because there were no launchers...just the game executable).  Now, it is the same again.  Each publisher has their own launcher.  I simply click on the game icon and enter whatever account it is and life goes on.  I consider store exclusives just like console exclusives, it's just part of business.

I could totally understand if all you knew was Steam.


----------



## bug (Apr 3, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> The rest of your post totally contradicts this statement.
> 
> However, I understand what you mean.  That said, I look at all these launchers like the old days.  When I used to have to put disks or discs in to be able to play games.  Each game had its own launcher (because there were no launchers...just the game executable).  Now, it is the same again.  Each publisher has their own launcher.  I simply click on the game icon and enter whatever account it is and life goes on.  I consider store exclusives just like console exclusives, it's just part of business.
> 
> I could totally understand if all you knew was Steam.


Game stores aren't the same thing as disks. Multiple game stores mean you have to share some personal info with multiple vendors. And trust that each one does a stellar job protecting your data. Multiple stores also mean less RAM for you because these things have a tendency to run at startup and games won't run if the launcher doesn't (once again, kudos to GOG).


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 3, 2019)

bug said:


> these things have a tendency to run at startup


Why? Just set them to not start up. Easy peasy.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 3, 2019)

bug said:


> Game stores aren't the same thing as disks. Multiple game stores mean you have to share some personal info with multiple vendors. And trust that each one does a stellar job protecting your data. Multiple stores also mean less RAM for you because these things have a tendency to run at startup and games won't run if the launcher doesn't (once again, kudos to GOG).



I understand.  That is why we, as users, have the ability to be able to tell things not to run at startup.  And to stop them after we are done with them.


----------



## bug (Apr 3, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> Why? Just set them to not start up. Easy peasy.





moproblems99 said:


> I understand.  That is why we, as users, have the ability to be able to tell things not to run at startup.  And to stop them after we are done with them.


Right. Because that was the crux of my argument: that I don't know how to prevent things from running on startup...


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 3, 2019)

bug said:


> Right. Because that was the crux of my argument: that I don't know how to prevent things from running on startup...


Lol, then it shouldn’t be a complaint.


----------



## Gasaraki (Apr 3, 2019)

Warlen said:


> How long until all 3rd party launchers start forcing exclusives?  Doesn't matter because the launchers are free right?  How long until launchers start charging a monthly fee to access these exclusives?  This is the direction this is going.



It's already that way. The only way to get EA games is to use the Origin store.

You people arguing over nothing. The simple fact is that as a developer/publisher, I want to make as much money as possible. If right off the bat I have to give 30% to Valve, I'm going to think real hard about alternatives. Then Epic comes to me and says "ok we only charge you 18% at our store plus if you use the unreal engine that's free. ALSO, if you sell at our store exclusively for 6 months, we'll only charge you 10%." 

If they came to me and said that I'll say, "where do I sign?"


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 3, 2019)

bug said:


> Right. Because that was the crux of my argument: that I don't know how to prevent things from running on startup...



So what was it?  It couldn't be the part about another account with a vendor that needs to protect your data, as that is a fact of internet life.  Do you buy stuff from Amazon?  JCPenny?  Macy?  OCUK? Newegg? Microcenter?  What about your TPU account?  Ars?  Wfcc? Toms?  Anands?  OCN?  

Any site that you do business with is just another account, it is what it is.  So having another account or programs that you know how to turn off at start up and when your done are not very strong legs.


----------



## Fx (Apr 3, 2019)

Basard said:


> I'm just saying that I'd rather spend a couple extra bucks for a game on Steam than I would on the same game on a different platform.  Just because I'm used to Steam and have a few friends on there that I play games with.  It also depends on the other platform too.
> 
> What I would really rather do is just buy DRM-free games from GOG that I can play without having to deal with a launcher.  But then I still run steam anyways to talk to friends.



*As would I! I don't want my games in 20 different libraries with 20 different launchers using 20 different accounts!*


----------



## nis (Apr 3, 2019)

kings said:


> People complain, but at the end of the day they end up buying it anyway, if they like the game!
> 
> See Metro Exodus, huge success in the Epic Store, despite all the hate on the internet!


Never mind the fact that Nvidia are giving it away with video card purchases.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 3, 2019)

Basard said:


> I still don't see why companies can't just pass the extra cost of doing business with Steam onto the customers.
> If we all love steam so much, an extra five bucks for a sixty dollar game is not too much to ask.


EGS exclusivity is basically a risk-free loan.

In the case of Borderlands 3 (a UE4 game), EGS only keeps 12% versus Steam's 30%.  The game is preordering for $59.99 so EGS keeps $7.20 versus Steam's $18.  How many people are going to pay $70.80 at Steam versus $59.99 at EGS?  Moreover, that doesn't take into account the guaranteed income that EGS offers for exclusivity.  Let's say the contract is for 5 million copies at $59.99.  That's $299,950,000 gross, minus the 12% EGS keeps which is $35,994,000 means the publisher gets cut a check for $263,956,000 simply for signing a dotted line.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what a publisher can do with that money (make expansions, pay debts incurred to make the game, make DLCs, start working on the next game, etc.).  Of course the publisher doesn't see any money from sales until it surpasses 5 million copies sold after that check but...plans can be put in motion for whatever comes next instead of waiting a month or two to get paid by distributors like Steam.

There's no one to blame here other than Steam making a terrible offer that hasn't changed much since a decade and a half ago when their main competitor was retail stores like GameStop and Wal-Mart.  Steam will continue to lose titles to EGS so long as they continue their draconian pricing structure.


Anno 1800 isn't a UE4 game so EGS keeps 17% instead of 12%.  That's still a much better deal than Steam and that risk-free signing bonus is a huge plus.

EGS likely can't keep up these signing bonuses forever.  We're talking a lot of money after all but it stands to reason that they'll offer them as long as they can afford to because it's awesome for everyone...except competitors...


...this might be the 21st century way video game publishing gets done.  Developers everywhere know the last five years have been a very crappy time to make a living creating video games.  EGS is providing a solution.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Apr 3, 2019)

Crackong said:


> I am sorry.
> I thought it is common sense to at least do the initial fact check by 2 sec google it.


it is your responsibility not to make false claims, when you already checked facts and have a source it is your job to post it if someone asks ( politely or not ), not bait others into flaming with "Google is your friend" comment, which makes you look bad.



FordGT90Concept said:


> EGS exclusivity is basically a risk-free loan.
> 
> In the case of Borderlands 3 (a UE4 game), EGS only keeps 12% versus Steam's 30%.  The game is preordering for $59.99 so EGS keeps $7.20 versus Steam's $18.  How many people are going to pay $70.80 at Steam versus $59.99 at EGS?  Moreover, that doesn't take into account the guaranteed income that EGS offers for exclusivity.  Let's say the contract is for 5 million copies at $59.99.  That's $299,950,000 gross, minus the 12% EGS keeps which is $35,994,000 means the publisher gets cut a check for $263,956,000 simply for signing a dotted line.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what a publisher can do with that money (make expansions, pay debts incurred to make the game, make DLCs, start working on the next game, etc.).  Of course the publisher doesn't see any money from sales until it surpasses 5 million copies sold after that check but...plans can be put in motion for whatever comes next instead of waiting a month or two to get paid by distributors like Steam.
> 
> ...


I am unsure if platforms would do a per copy contract as you explain here, if it fails both sides are out the money. I think it would make more sense if they did a time base contract for exclusivity. You never can tell what the outcome will be. Gamestop losing its ass currently ( see home page article) might make sales worse early on. Its speculation, which is really 50-50 guessing.



rtwjunkie said:


> Lol, then it shouldn’t be a complaint.


what are you talking about here? no one ever complains here.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 3, 2019)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> I am unsure of platforms would do a per copy contract as you explain here, if it fails both sides are out the money. I think it would make more sense if they did a time base contract for exclusivity.



Honestly, whats the difference?  We'll give you $20mil to only release on our store for one year vs we'll buy $20mil worth of your game if you release only on our store for a year?



DeathtoGnomes said:


> what are you talking about here? no one ever complains here.



Liked for this.


----------



## Basard (Apr 3, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> ...this might be the 21st century way video game publishing gets done.  Developers everywhere know the last five years have been a very crappy time to make a living creating video games.  EGS is providing a solution.



Well, here we go, that's the explanation I was looking for.  

I see Steam slicing their cut in half shortly, either that or I'd switch too.  I already have EGS installed, I just never use it--I got it for a free game a while back.   Now that I finally dusted off the EGS icon, I see why I still never use it--unless I can get a free game out of it.  I'm certainly not going to buy any games from EGS in the near future--unless, of course, hell does freeze over and I find something that actually appeals to me.  It's clunky and slow for only having a store and friends list.  The EGS roadmap looks good though, if you look ahead to the "we have no idea when this will be released" section--which includes the social overhaul.

I dunno, Steam's a beast of a platform, it's really hard to compete with, except on the cut they take.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 3, 2019)

Basard said:


> I dunno, Steam's a beast of a platform, it's really hard to compete with, except on the cut they take.



I agree with you on a lot of it with a big if.  IF you play multiplayer games.  Otherwise, you don't need any of that social stuff.


----------



## Crackong (Apr 4, 2019)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> it is your responsibility not to make false claims, when you already checked facts and have a source it is your job to post it if someone asks ( politely or not ), not bait others into flaming with "Google is your friend" comment, which makes you look bad.


That is something else.
If you check his reply.
He was clearly defensive by saying:

"Really? Do you have a source? 'Cause that's quite impressive, given Steam's utter and total dominance of digital PC games sales for the past 16 years - finding an untapped demographic like that is any sales rep's wet dream. " 

I felt he had a " Oh you are lying " hidden underneath and tried to accuse me doing false claim instead of truly asking for the source. 
If I am accusing someone doing a false claim I would at least google it before doing so, so I won't " falsely accused somebody doing a false claim " .
Maybe it is too much to ask for.

Now you understand why I had that "google is your friend" reply.
Feel free to express.
After all, I did not make a false claim.


----------



## Midiamp (Apr 4, 2019)

I'm just happy really that Steam faces real competition. As competition begets innovation, there's only one winner, and that's us, the consumer. The fallacy of not wanting another launcher is well... Pointless. I have Steam, Origin, uPlay, and Microsoft Store, no issue with all the games I played with. I just grow accustomed of having so many launchers. Times changes, and the way we do things changes also.

The only thing holding me back from using EGS is the payment option. I live in Indonesia, and the payment options they have right now are PayPal, which I don't have, and some third tier local payment gateways... One of them is to pay via carrier airtime with 26% fee, that's totally stupid.

My heart skipped a beat when they announced Anno 1800 exclusivity on EGS, then I realized it's also launching on uPlay, that's a sigh of relieve. One publisher that I'd be happy spending my hard earned money to is Ubisoft, as they have shown goodwill updating For Honor and Rainbow Six Siege through the years with meaningful updates.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 4, 2019)

Midiamp said:


> One publisher that I'd be happy spending my hard earned money to is Ubisoft, as they have shown goodwill updating For Honor and Rainbow Six Siege through the years with meaningful updates.


And Uplay has actually become a very good store and game launcher.  They've put alot of efffort into it, considering it was a steaming pile of poo when it started.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 4, 2019)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> I am unsure if platforms would do a per copy contract as you explain here, if it fails both sides are out the money. I think it would make more sense if they did a time base contract for exclusivity. You never can tell what the outcome will be. Gamestop losing its ass currently ( see home page article) might make sales worse early on. Its speculation, which is really 50-50 guessing.


If it fails, EGS is out money.  No doubt EGS bases its estimates on what they think will actually sell in the exclusivity period.  As long as EGS is right, it's money that will come back to them during the exclusivity.  EGS isn't a publisher; it's a distributor.  The way they structure exclusivity fits the model of distributing.  Sales forecasts are something they do regardless if it is exclusive or not.  Handling the money from sales is another thing they do regardless of exclusivity.

Yes, what EGS is doing is very, very risky, which is why I don't think they can keep this up forever, especially with AAA games; however, for the time being, it is worth it for them to build their notoriety.  Exclusivity is effectively a marketing campaign for the games and EGS itself.



Basard said:


> I dunno, Steam's a beast of a platform, it's really hard to compete with, except on the cut they take.


Which is the only thing publishers care about.  No money = no more games.



Edit: Incase ya'll forgot, Steam responded to Epic Games Store at the end of last year:
https://www.geekwire.com/2018/valve...spur-controversy-among-indie-game-developers/
They adjusted their pricing schemes to make Steam more attractive to AAA publishers (judging by how many still jumped ship for EGS, it didn't work) but in doing so, they trampled the indie developers.


			
				Greg Lubanov said:
			
		

> The 30% cut that Valve takes from Steam sales is supposedly ‘earned’ by the large audience and exposure that they provide. But their algorithms heavily favor games that are already popular, so most devs on their platform get less, and now, pay more.





			
				Mike Rose said:
			
		

> It’s just such a tone-deaf move by Valve. The number one thing devs ask me at conferences, without fail, is “do you think Valve are still within their right to ask for 30% anymore?”. My answer is always “Kinda, they do X, Y and Z which is really cool”
> 
> This has changed my answer


...hence why EGS is booming.  Steam has become antagonizing to publishers.


Also keep in mind that whenever you redeem a key on Steam, Steam didn't necessarily get money for it to cover distribution costs.  Steam changed their policies to attempt to crack down on this problem back in 2017:
https://hardforum.com/threads/valve...r-steam-keys-due-to-shady-developers.1942197/

Steam may not be able to afford to reduce their revenue-share much because they're supporting an entire second hand/gray market industry that isn't funding them.  Steam has no means at present to police and enforce the distribution fees and...if they tried, it could trigger an exodus of publishers to competitors.  EGS obviously has some kind of plan to deal with that problem (likely by getting directly involved in the key generation process) so abuse isn't rampant.

Every time you buy a Steam key from Humble Bundle, GreenManGaming, Fanatical, etc., Steam doesn't see a cent of that:
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/keys

In the case of Humble Bundle, they take 5% of the sale for themselves and that's it.  As far as Steam is concerned, it's basically robbery because Steam is still eating the distribution cost.


----------



## kapone32 (Apr 4, 2019)

The EPIC store can only be good for the consumer it is not unlike GOG just focused differently. Steam is nice but there is a reason I have GOG (DRM). I never liked Uplay until they got Humble Bundle to give customers a Uplay key for their games and then I got free games like Watchdogs and Assassins Creed 1-3. I also like the fact that it is not stupid like Origin. There is a caveat to all of that though. I don't order new releases from Steam anyways. Green Man Gaming and the Humble Store have made buying new games from Steam redundant. I also like fanatical (formerly bundle stars) and their $2 and $3 bundles. My favourite thing by far for buying games though is the Humble Monthly. I don't even look at Steam sales anymore. There is nothing wrong with a free game every 2 weeks.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Apr 5, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Honestly, whats the difference? We'll give you $20mil to only release on our store for one year vs we'll buy $20mil worth of your game if you release only on our store for a year?


if it was only this simple.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 5, 2019)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> if it was only this simple.



I get ya but in the end, either case is a big risk for Epic.  If the game doesn't sell well, they are out money.  I am pretty sure the publisher's are only accepting these deals because there is a lot of safety mechanisms for them because there just wouldn't be a ton of motivation for them otherwise.

All of that said, I am pretty sure there is only a lot of talk and not a lot of walk on the general issue of Epic Games exclusives.


----------



## DeathtoGnomes (Apr 5, 2019)

Crackong said:


> That is something else.
> If you check his reply.
> He was clearly defensive by saying:
> 
> ...


so now you are a mind reader.... obviously you just dont get it. You post clearly looks like you were lying and/or speculating, at first, there was no posted proof to back up your claim, at first. Using a smartass reply that "Google is you friend" makes you look like any child still in high school with a relatively new account with no reputation. Get it yet?



moproblems99 said:


> I get ya but in the end, either case is a big risk for Epic.  If the game doesn't sell well, they are out money.  I am pretty sure the publisher's are only accepting these deals because there is a lot of safety mechanisms for them because there just wouldn't be a ton of motivation for them otherwise.
> 
> All of that said, I am pretty sure there is only a lot of talk and not a lot of walk on the general issue of Epic Games exclusives.


dont go speculating that, unless you know for sure the reasons they are doing it. Sure, money is always a motivation, but at this point with EGS ( being still relativly new to platforms ), its probably more about keeping customers, and to keep them, using EGS which could only comes from high profile exclusivity deals.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 5, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I get ya but in the end, either case is a big risk for Epic.  If the game doesn't sell well, they are out money.  I am pretty sure the publisher's are only accepting these deals because there is a lot of safety mechanisms for them because there just wouldn't be a ton of motivation for them otherwise.


EGS is bearing all of the risk that publishers normally would with a game launch.

Imagine if EGS bought exclusivity for a game like Mass Effect: Andromeda that was a massive flop.  EGS could have lost hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 5, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> EGS is bearing all of the risk that publishers normally would with a game launch.
> 
> Imagine if EGS bought exclusivity for a game like Mass Effect: Andromeda that was a massive flop.  EGS could have lost hundreds of millions of dollars.



I think you keyed in the reason these decisions are happening so late.  I wonder if Epic is requiring a working product that they can test out to make a decision before these investments.  That way, they could see if the game delivered at launch has a chance to bomb like ME:A or be successful like I am assuming Metro was.  Metro Exodus is a fantastic game by the way.  Although, honestly, the only reason I purchased it is I figured the RDR2 will be coming to PC eventually and CP2077 will be out sometime in 2020 so if I didn't play it now I likely wouldn't



DeathtoGnomes said:


> dont go speculating that, unless you know for sure the reasons they are doing it. Sure, money is always a motivation, but at this point with EGS ( being still relativly new to platforms ), its probably more about keeping customers, and to keep them, using EGS which could only comes from high profile exclusivity deals.



Possibly but now that UE4 is built into the launcher, it will have some relevance in some circles.  Remember, there are other parts of the world that don't have first world problems like we do.  They may see Exodus for $49.95 on Epic or $59.99 on Steam and that may be all it takes.  That and with Tencent being Chinese, I'm sure they could pull some weight in China.

Publicity helps but I think they just need to be a cheaper alternative.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 5, 2019)

I doubt that's the case because games like Rebel Galaxy 2 were announced as exclusive long before launch.

Games like Metro Exodus...it's likely that the publisher was wavering.  To turn down all of the other distributors for instant gratification is a huge decision for them.  Short term that proposition always makes sense but long term, it could be very bad because EGS exclusivity means less market exposure.  Sweeny said Metro Exodus talks were in the works for "months" but it was really a last minute decision that the publisher went with exclusivity.

It's a big, tough decision with a lot money on the line.  It's natural that such decisions are put off to the last minute.  The decision between exclusivity or not may come down to getting a loan or signing the contract because there's not enough cash flow.


----------



## Valantar (Apr 5, 2019)

neatfeatguy said:


> So many people are so hung up on Steam because, as you said, Steam was pretty much the first digital platform to stick around for so long. People have so many games tied to Steam and friends on Steam that it is the one program they want to keep using because of such a thing. Then, one day....


Yep. I don't get it. Sure, I have ... like 350 games in my Steam account. I also own games on a bunch of other launchers, and when I include what I've gotten through Xbox Live Gold and Playstation Plus, keeping track of which games I own and where is ... not easy. I have quite a few triplicates or even quadruplicates across various launchers and platforms. Most of these have of course been either free or in bundles where I've bought it for some other part of the bundle. In the end, I don't mind. Heck, I even have a third-party library app on my PC to keep track of what I own and where - but that's mainly due to my ever-growing backlog of both owned and wishlisted games and avoiding buying something that I already have in one of all of these libraries. Would it be more convenient if they all came from the same source? Sure. But I'm not willing to support a monopolist just to avoid some minor inconveniences. The effort required is minimal, and is more than worth it if the result is a more fair market.


----------



## Crackong (Apr 6, 2019)

DeathtoGnomes said:


> so now you are a mind reader.... obviously you just dont get it. You post clearly looks like you were lying and/or speculating, at first, there was no posted proof to back up your claim, at first. Using a smartass reply that "Google is you friend" makes you look like any child still in high school with a relatively new account with no reputation. Get it yet?



I see,
" Somehow the fact of a statement ties to his account reputation. "

Goodest logic.

After all, my claim is legit , it is nothing to do with my account "Reputation".
If you don't like / speculating someone's comment, please do your own fact check before accusing it.
That's simple.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 6, 2019)

Crackong said:


> I see,
> " Somehow the fact of a statement ties to his account reputation. "
> 
> Goodness logic.
> ...


No, it is forum and internet protocol and courtesy to provide a source for statements of fact you make.  Its not other people’s job to go on a hunt to verify what you say.


----------



## Crackong (Apr 6, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> No, it is forum and internet protocol and courtesy to provide a source for statements of fact you make.  Its not other people’s job to go on a hunt to verify what you say.


Thanks for your advice.
I will do so , next time, to prevent false accusations. 

Please check #136 and #143 for why I said it in #148.
I was replying to Mr. DeathtoGnomes  's logic mixing facts with so called "account reputation" .
Thank you.


----------



## 95Viper (Apr 6, 2019)

Enough back and forth bickering.
Get back on topic.

Thank You.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 6, 2019)

My problem with Anno 1800 is...I don't really want to go back to the middle ages.  I have 2270 and 2070.  I played 1440.  I just can't get hyped about 1800.  I'm sure it's a fine game but...


----------



## vega22 (Apr 6, 2019)

Epic used unreal tournament to test the platform. Test sales, modding and the social side.

Fortnight then made them a fuckton of cash which they are plowing back into their business.

Publishers are seeing it as a good move and indy Devs are following suit. Gamers just don't see how they benefit yet....


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 6, 2019)

Years down the road, I think it should translate to bigger (more DLC) or higher quality (more polish) games.  They have 13-18% more resources to put into making games higher value.


----------



## moproblems99 (Apr 6, 2019)

vega22 said:


> Publishers are seeing it as a good move and indy Devs are following suit. Gamers just don't see how they benefit yet....



What everyone needs to learn is that not everything benefits them.  Sometimes things happen and benefit other people while you stand there and watch.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 6, 2019)

I hope they start to jack prices up on steam. Let the end user eat that cost. 

See how many still feel like gaben is the saviour when they need to pay 18/25% more for the same game.


----------



## 64K (Apr 8, 2019)

A former Valve developer Richard Geldreich had some interesting things to say about Steam's 30% cut (although their cut could go as low as 20% if the game generated revenue over a certain point). I don't know what terms he left Valve on and he may just have an axe to grind but here is what he had to say:

"_Steam was killing PC gaming. It was a 30% tax on an entire industry. It was unsustainable. You have no idea how profitable Steam was for Valve. It was a virtual printing press. It distorted the entire company. Epic is fixing this for all gamers._"

"_I think gamers are going to remain mad for a long time, as these exclusives won’t stop anytime soon. Could last 1 year or more. Steam will be for indy/2nd tier/shovelware/porn, Epic and other launchers for AAA. This seems to be where the market is heading at the moment._"

When asked about the lack of features on EGS he said:

"_I think they hear gamers loud and clear on that. They really should have added more features to EGS before launching. I think what’s likely is that Sweeney will push his team to add features to EGS until it’s somewhat at parity vs. Steam’s key features. The exclusive backlash will only cost them a few percent of sales (maybe 5-10%?)_"

https://www.dsogaming.com/news/fome...s-fixing-it-30-cut-made-valve-a-lot-of-money/


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2019)

@64K Well, did you really need someone to tell you that? Everybody running app stores is rolling in it. Apple, Google... It's why Microsoft still tries to push their store, too.
However, besides the store Valve gave us SteamWorks which, as much as I hate it, actually lowers the costs of developing a title. For indies, that's a huge plus. Valve _tried_ to build a gaming console. They actively support gaming on Linux, despite the platform's minuscule market share. So yes, they charge a lot. But they don't simply sit on top of a pile of money. As usual, there's more than one way to look at this...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2019)

bug said:


> But they don't simply sit on top of a pile of money.


Yes, they are.  The ventures you describe maybe cost a hundred million at most.  Meanwhile Steam is estimated to be raking in over $1 billion/quarter.  Most of that money is going to lining GabeN's wallet.


----------



## 64K (Apr 8, 2019)

Newell is indeed wealthy. The last estimate of his wealth is just under 4 billion dollars. He can afford to lower Steam's cut and that is what he should do or lose the money anyway by Epic getting AAA exclusives.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Yes, they are.  The ventures you describe maybe cost a hundred million at most.  Meanwhile Steam is estimated to be raking in over $1 billion/quarter.  Most of that money is going to lining GabeN's wallet.


Spoken like a true socialist.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2019)

64K said:


> Newell is indeed wealthy. The last estimate of his wealth is just under 4 billion dollars. He can afford to lower Steam's cut and that is what he should do or lose the money anyway by Epic getting AAA exclusives.


The fact he only half-assed the last change (detailed on the last page of this thread), I'd say Steam isn't feeling much pain from EGS yet or Steam isn't technically ready to handle a major change (e.g. no infrastructure to reduce rates for new titles).



bug said:


> Spoken like a true socialist.


I think you're the first person to ever accuse me of being a "socialist." 

Valve makes ridiculous profits for only having ~360 employees.  Their costs are low, their revenue is high.  They're also not investing it in anything public at least and, because it is privately owned and GabeN presumably owns 100% stake, the money is going to him.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I think you're the first person to ever accuse me of being a "socialist."
> 
> Valve makes ridiculous profits for only having ~360 employees.  Their costs are low, their revenue is high.  They're also not investing it in anything public at least and, because it is privately owned and GabeN presumably owns 100% stake, the money is going to him.



That's what socialism does: it tells other people what they should do with their money (and property, in general) 
And that wasn't an accusation, but rather a remark.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2019)

I don't care what GabeN does with his money; I just don't care to give him mine.  I want good games and GabeN does little to further that goal (he did a decade ago, not today).  In fact, as Richard Geldreich pointed out, Steam is becoming a place good games avoid because it's drowning in garbage.


----------



## 64K (Apr 8, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Valve makes ridiculous profits for only having ~360 employees.  Their costs are low, their revenue is high.  They're also not investing it in anything public at least and, because it is privately owned and GabeN presumably owns 100% stake, the money is going to him.



From what I've read Newell owns over 50% of Valve (controlling interest) but I don't recall reading who owns the rest.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> *I don't care what GabeN does with his money*; I just don't care to give him mine.  I want good games and GabeN does little to further that goal (he did a decade ago, not today).  In fact, as Richard Geldreich pointed out, Steam is becoming a place good games avoid because it's drowning in garbage.


And yet your response when I pointed out Valve does more for gaming than just Steam, was that they're not doing nearly enough


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 8, 2019)

bug said:


> Spoken like a true socialist.





bug said:


> That's what socialism does: it tells other people what they should do with their money (and property, in general)
> And that wasn't an accusation, but rather a remark.





bug said:


> And yet your response when I pointed out Valve does more for gaming than just Steam, was that they're not doing nearly enough


You are clearly clueless. These are not socialist remarks.  Ford is as big a capitalist as I am.  The point here is that as CONSUMERS we feel that Steam is not doing enough to keep us loyal to his brand that doesn’t seem to be competing very well any more.  

I truly worry that your sight is so poor you cannot see that Steam is resting on its laurels for 8 years or so.  They have forgotten how to be competitive, which is part of capitalism.  They have to EARN our money.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2019)

rtwjunkie said:


> You are clearly clueless. These are not socialist remarks.  Ford is as big a capitalist as I am.  The point here is that as CONSUMERS we feel that Steam is not doing enough to keep us loyal to his brand that doesn’t seem to be competing very well any more.
> 
> I truly worry that your sight is so poor you cannot see that Steam is resting on its laurels for 8 years or so.  They have forgotten how to be competitive, which is part of capitalism.  They have to EARN our money.


Well, I see all that. I was just saying, there's more to Steam than the usual reasons we like to bring up to hate the service. Not sure how that makes me clueless, but ok.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Apr 8, 2019)

bug said:


> Well, I see all that. I was just saying, there's more to Steam than the usual reasons we like to bring up to hate the service. Not sure how that makes me clueless, but ok.


By saying Ford’s remarks were socialist. No big deal.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2019)

bug said:


> And yet your response when I pointed out Valve does more for gaming than just Steam, was that they're not doing nearly enough


Well then let's rewind and go point by point...


bug said:


> However, besides the store Valve gave us SteamWorks which, as much as I hate it, actually lowers the costs of developing a title. For indies, that's a huge plus. Valve _tried_ to build a gaming console. They actively support gaming on Linux, despite the platform's minuscule market share. So yes, they charge a lot. But they don't simply sit on top of a pile of money. As usual, there's more than one way to look at this...


First let's define what SteamWorks actually is:
https://partner.steamgames.com/


> Steamworks is a free suite of tools available to any developer to use in their game or software on Steam. Here is a small sampling of the available features:
> -Matchmaking
> -Steam Inventory Service
> -Anti-cheat technology
> ...


Let's take an indie game, Consortium as an example.  They don't use matchmaking because it's single player, they don't use inventory service because there's no cosmetic or pay to win crap in it, they don't use anti-cheat technology because no multiplayer, there's no in-game economy nor microtransactions because Interdimensional Games loathes the idea as much as gamers do, there's no "management of user-generated content" because the game wasn't intended to be modded, and although it uses the "per-user cloud storage" it fills in in less than hour because it auto-saves like a boss.  So of everything SteamWorks offers, they only use one thing, and it added cost to production, not lowered it.

For indies producing shovelware, yeah, sure, SteamWorks is fantastic.  For indies not producing shovelware, it's an afterthought at best.  Think of all of the games that patched in mod support years after game launch, for example.

Remember: indies that aren't in it just for cash place a lot of importance on market exposure.  This means putting the game on GOG, PS4, XB1, and Switch where SteamWorks isn't helpful.  That's fundamentally why SteamWorks is a lot less valuable to indies than you think it is: they are thinking beyond Steam.


Oyua "tried to build a gaming console" too.  It flopped.  Like Valve's, but lets be honest, Oyua tried harder than Valve did.  Valve basically just created a design document that if an OEM made a machine that complied with it, Valve would slap their branding on it.  It was never really anything remarkable nor costly.


Valve (along with GOG and everyone else) rode the coattails of AMD's GPUOpen initiative as far as Linux is concerned.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2019)

I give up.


----------



## TheOne (Apr 8, 2019)

Sweeney could take some of his Fortnite capital and encourage developers to use Vulkan and support Linux.


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2019)

TheOne said:


> Sweeney could take some of his Fortnite capital and encourage developers to use Vulkan and support Linux.


You mean like this? https://steamcommunity.com/games/221410/announcements/detail/1696055855739350561


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 8, 2019)

Unreal Engine 4 supports deployment to Linux.  The launcher and UE4 dev kit doesn't support Linux yet.


----------



## TheOne (Apr 8, 2019)

bug said:


> You mean like this? https://steamcommunity.com/games/221410/announcements/detail/1696055855739350561



More of along the lines of native support, like what Steam was promoting when they started working on their Steam Machines and SteamOS.


----------



## xenocide (Apr 9, 2019)

FordGT90Concept said:


> In fact, as Richard Geldreich pointed out, Steam is becoming a place good games avoid because it's drowning in garbage.



You can thank the community and Indie Devs for that.  Once upon a time Steam was a curated marketplace, and then people (Developers and Consumers alike) accused them of being bad faith gatekeepers to the PC Market.  So they rolled out Green Light, and those people complained it wasn't good enough.  So they relaxed their rules to the point where a lot of crap can now get on the platform, because that's what developers and consumers had consistently told them they wanted.  Either you have an open marketplace and trudge through shovelware or you have a curated marketplace and accept that certain games aren't good enough to get on it.  But people wanted schrodinger's marketplace, and that's just not practical.


----------



## bug (Apr 9, 2019)

TheOne said:


> More of along the lines of native support, like what Steam was promoting when they started working on their Steam Machines and SteamOS.


That's an uphill battle. Devs don't really like lower level APIs. They do complain when a higher level API isn't flexible enough for their needs, but won't really do the legwork required by a lower level API. If they did, we would have never moved past C/C++.
Getting things translated to Vulkan means at least a few developers will get first hand experience. It that goes well, they'll work from there.

But the real kicker is, it's not the PC that will push Vulkan adoption. It's Android. That's where you'll hit bottlenecks sooner and that's where I expect Vulkan will becme mandatory first. Still, it's going to take time.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 9, 2019)

Yup, UE4 supports Vulkan on Android...not Windows/Linux.  It's been hacked in for the latter group but not an officially supported, "you should deploy this" feature.


----------



## TheOne (Apr 9, 2019)

bug said:


> That's an uphill battle. Devs don't really like lower level APIs. They do complain when a higher level API isn't flexible enough for their needs, but won't really do the legwork required by a lower level API. If they did, we would have never moved past C/C++.
> Getting things translated to Vulkan means at least a few developers will get first hand experience. It that goes well, they'll work from there.
> 
> But the real kicker is, it's not the PC that will push Vulkan adoption. It's Android. That's where you'll hit bottlenecks sooner and that's where I expect Vulkan will becme mandatory first. Still, it's going to take time.



That is why I suggested he could use his Fortnite funds to help motivate the expansion into linux, Sweeney, like Gabe, was unhappy with the idea of a Windows UWP walled garden, seems like it would be a worth while investment.


----------



## vega22 (Apr 9, 2019)

bug said:


> You mean like this? https://steamcommunity.com/games/221410/announcements/detail/1696055855739350561




That was to benefit steamos more than anything.


----------



## bug (Apr 9, 2019)

TheOne said:


> That is why I suggested he could use his Fortnite funds to help motivate the expansion into linux, for someone, who like Gabe, was unhappy with the idea of a Windows UWP walled garden, seems like it would be a worth while investment.


Yeah, I have no opinion on that.
I'm a developer and thus I love Linux. But how much someone ought to push gaming on Linux with its sub 1% of the desktop market share, is beyond me. Especially considering OpenGL gaming didn't go that far and OpenGL is much easier to do and much better understood.
Of course, the geek in me wishes all you have posted to have happened


----------

