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

BasardI'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.

kingsPeople 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!

BasardI 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.

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

FordGT90ConceptEGS 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.

rtwjunkieLol, then it shouldn’t be a complaint. :D

DeathtoGnomesI 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.

DeathtoGnomeswhat are you talking about here? no one ever complains here. :rolleyes:

FordGT90Concept...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.

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

DeathtoGnomesit 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.

MidiampOne 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.

DeathtoGnomesI 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.

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

Greg LubanovThe 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 RoseIt’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

moproblems99Honestly, 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?

DeathtoGnomesif it was only this simple.

CrackongThat 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.

moproblems99I 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.

moproblems99I 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.

FordGT90ConceptEGS 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.

DeathtoGnomesdont 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.

neatfeatguySo 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....

DeathtoGnomesso 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?

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

Goodness 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.

rtwjunkieNo, 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.