Friday, April 26th 2019
Epic's Tim Sweeney Says They'd Stop Hunting for Exclusives if Steam Matched Epic Games Store in Comission Rates
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has come out with an interesting commitment: that EPIC would stop hunting for exclusives in the PC platform is Steam were to match them in their 88% return to developers for each game sold. Being a developer themselves, Epic games have certainly looked into creating their own storefront as a way to escape the clutches of Steam's cut in the digital, PC distribution market (a move that had already been done by the likes of EA and Ubisoft, if you'll remember). A commitment to stop hunting for exclusives (and thus segregating the PC games offering across different platforms) is a clear indicator of Epic's mission with the Epic Games Store: to bring back power and returns to developers such as them (while taking a cut from the profits for themselves, obviously).
Check out after the break for the full content of Sweeney's remarks regarding their Games Store and the problem with Steam. I, for one, don't see much of a problem with virtual segregation of games across multiple PC-bound platforms - one of the strengths of PC gaming is actually the ability to install multiple applications that increase functionality, after all. But if the end game of all of this is simply to give more back to developers and Epic's move facilitates that by forcing Valve's hand in matching them for fear of drying profits - then so be it.
Source:
DSO Gaming
Check out after the break for the full content of Sweeney's remarks regarding their Games Store and the problem with Steam. I, for one, don't see much of a problem with virtual segregation of games across multiple PC-bound platforms - one of the strengths of PC gaming is actually the ability to install multiple applications that increase functionality, after all. But if the end game of all of this is simply to give more back to developers and Epic's move facilitates that by forcing Valve's hand in matching them for fear of drying profits - then so be it.
If Steam committed to a permanent 88% revenue share for all developers and publishers without major strings attached, Epic would hastily organize a retreat from exclusives (while honoring our partner commitments) and consider putting our own games on Steam.30% store dominance is the #1 problem for PC developers, publishers, and everyone who relies on those businesses for their livelihood. We're determined to fix it and this is the one approach that will effect major change.
Such a move would be a glorious moment in the history of PC gaming, and would have a sweeping impact on other platforms for generations to come.
Then stores could go back to just being nice places to buy stuff, rather than the Game Developer IRS.
The key "no major strings attached" points are: games can use any online systems like friends and accounts they choose, games are free to interoperate across platforms and stores, the store doesn't tax revenue on other stores or platforms (e.g. if you play Fortnite on iOS+PC)…
More "no major strings attached": if you play the game on multiple platforms, stuff you've bought can be available everywhere; no onerous certification requirements. Essentially, the spirit of an open platform where the store is just a place to find games and pay for stuff.
Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 25, 2019
224 Comments on Epic's Tim Sweeney Says They'd Stop Hunting for Exclusives if Steam Matched Epic Games Store in Comission Rates
2K Games did it because 12% on EGS beats the hell out of 30%->20% on Steam and 30% on GOG.
The Outer Worlds = Private Division
Private Division turning EGS exclusive is a no brainer. It's high risk from the get go because it is a new IP. EGS exclusive reduces that risk by getting guaranteed sales.
Private Division literally doesn't do "big IPs." They were created to publish games that are too small for AAA publishers to care and too big for indie budgets to handle.
Just to be clear: UE4 games get 12% on EGS, non-UE4 games get 17% on EGS. Borderlands 3 and The Outer Worlds are both on UE4.
Metro: Exodus is an odd ball being EGS exclusive but not on UE4. I think Deep Silver wasn't convinced it would reach the threshold for 25% on Steam ($10 million), never mind 20% ($50 million). I believe Metro is popular in eastern Europe where GOG is also more common (30% revenue share). Put it all together, 17% on EGS is attractive. Exclusivity is icing on the cake.
Remember AAA publishers were abandoning Steam last year before EGS started offering exclusives. For example, COD:BO4 was Battle.net exclusive. That was a big money maker for Steam gone. Not to mention PUBG was losing out to Fortnite.
Microsoft Store is layered DRM. EGS is DRM free unless developers add it.
The premise you hold on to is that 'exclusivity is bad' but I simply cannot stress enough how flawed that idea is. Its a perspective taken from the customer applied to a different end of the marketplace. For you as an end user there is no exclusivity because you are looking at two/multiple services that are free and open to access. The exclusivity only exists between EGS and Steam. The only one that should be throwing tantrums is Valve. Everyone else can just sit back, get popcorn and enjoy the ride, snagging any nice deals (such as EGS free game offers) that come along if you want to. Thát is where the customer benefits - and has had the opportunity to do so. The very idea that Valve needs customers to help them out here in correcting the market is preposterous - and it will be ineffective anyway. Publishers have smelled blood, and they won't let go of that scent. In the longer run, that 30% cut is not going to hold. Any publisher may very well be making up the balance: 'what if I just launch my own platform' versus the other options right now. Even comparisons to other on-demand digital distribution don't hold water wrt your premise on exclusivity: take Netflix and HBO. Paid services that each snag exclusives away from one another, all the time. The entertainment industry is built on exclusivity of content, front to back and top to bottom.
Bottom line, these changes to the market are already happening, stop blinding yourself and you may be able to spot them.
Last, as for the trickle down effect that was mentioned. YES it does apply to gaming as well. Nothing happens in a vacuum on the marketplace. When games get planned initially, the market is carefully looked at: 'do we have something to offer that is unique' 'is the timing right' 'what are we competing with'. If all those devs that release through EGS have more options to divide a budget (because that is what this is), they can simply offer more than a competitor could with the same amount of money. This is undeniable. Where that money truly lands remains to be seen, but any competing dev that wants to do 'bring more product' at the same price has an opportunity to do exactly that. People say 'but its just going into publisher's pockets' - YES. But not directly; rather indirectly: the business plan here, is that you offer more content for a price, and that will drive sales, and more sales = more $$$. And it gets better: more $$$ means a publisher can take more of a risk with the next project. That is a win-win business proposition, also for us as a customer. And there will always be someone, that is how the market works because everybody is cautiously looking at one another.
Anyway most of these games will be available on Steam after a year. Gamers just don't like to wait. This is why games get released buggy as hell and gamers buy them right away anyway or worse pre-order.
I mean, read what you just wrote and then read thisI bolded out the part where you basically admitted you can't understand the issue at all. Let's say I want to buy Borderlands 3 on release from [insert any non EG store], can I do it? No, I cannot. Means that if I want to play it I HAVE NO CHOICE but to buy it from EGS. Do you understand the issue with exclusivity bribes now and how us, the customers, are the ones who are being screwed by having our freedom of choice impacted?
Making games exclusive and throwing commission rates in the bag is a pitiful and disgusting move. If Epic starts providing a quality service with something that makes them stand out (like .iso downloads on GOG), I'll start thinking about installing their crapware.
www.tomshardware.com/news/epic-games-store-current-upcoming-free-titles,38217.html
I'm wasting time, that is indeed obvious, because you didn't even take the effort to comment on the very 180 degree turn you made in the posts I quoted of you. Instead, you fall back on this flawed argument that there are no deals for 'US' as customers, and for that... see link above. Or is free gaming not a deal to you, does it have to have a price tag to apply? Oh no, wait - its not a deal for you, because you choose to avoid EGS. :clap: So all things considered, nothing they could ever do would change your stance; even if they already did it, because you just won't see it.
Seriously man, I thought you were smarter than this? Did you ever think Valve was doing their Steam business for your enjoyment instead of their own pockets? Boy oh boy... the lack of reflection here is stunning.There is no victory or defeat here. There is only a basic understanding of the marketplace. You either have it, or you do not.
You do not have it - and you (and others) consistently choose to close your eyes to anything/anyone trying to explain it to you.
Instead you choose to fall back on the 'storefront choice is everything' argument, completely oblivious to the fact that no store has a basis to exist if it wasn't for products being available on it. Thát is why EGS snatched exclusivity. It is their unique selling point. It also applies to every other store: GOG has the unique selling points of 'no-DRM' and 'good old games'. Steam has its featureset advantage + large library of games.
'Let's say I want to buy BL3 on ...' - yes, that is exactly why stores use exclusives - they work because you wanted to buy BL3, and now you might do it on a different store than you're used to, thus giving you a chance to experience and get used to it as a place to buy games. Epic also employs other ways to entice you to come over; such as the free games mentioned above. If that feels to you as 'getting screwed' then you still don't understand the market. You're getting screwed every day, such is life as a consumer in a capitalist society. Nobody denies that. The best you can do, is pick up some fruits of that labor, such as those free games. Or: you can sit in a corner with an angry face saying NO to everything, which seems to be your preference. I've also been in that position for a few years... trust me when I say it won't help you one bit - it tends to make you a bit grumpy, too.
You can or cannot agree with that exclusivity, but its a fact to deal with. No amount of customer backlash is going to change that (deals were made, contracts signed), and we know gamers are impatient, young and very much not true to their word online. You can rest assured you won't be effecting any sort of change. The only effect you have, is that you'll play things you want to play later. If that sits well with you, then that is fine, thát is the market at work. You are given choices as a customer, and you make them. Simple. Nobody ever said you get to choose between only the nice things - in fact, that hardly qualifies as a real choice, but rather just a preference, like what menu item to choose for dinner.Sensible and passionate don't generally go too well together, in case you haven't noticed. Do you know what 'passionate' stands for on a marketplace? Gullible, easy prey to keep making money off. In your case, that is what Valve is thinking about you right now. They didn't even have to issue a press release to keep you tied to their platform, let alone change anything in their 30% cut or the price for you as a customer. Easy. Prey.
Sensible, that is doing what's best for you as a customer, what aligns best with your needs and wants. If that is a Steam monopoly, by all means, do as you do. If it is not, excluding one store by default is counterproductive and not sensible. It directly harms your long term outlook because Steam is already damaging the market in several ways through its dominance - new, smaller players such as EGS have to resort to exclusivity deals to even make a dent. And here, I think we can agree: those deals are not preferable in a general sense. That is also what the guy above here got stuck on. I'm already way past that, honestly, this discussion has also moved way past that a few pages ago.
That is what this really all boils down to, the idea that you can or cannot have things your way all the time. I'm convinced you cannot. You still think you can and somehow also think you should, because 'its logical'... they call that entitlement, and its a sign of the times. You can reflect on that with all the passion you have.
That is wrong. I check financial statements of the big Publishers a couple times a year and most of them are making huge net profits. I don't know about Indies though. I don't keep up with them. Also, as you said, Sweeney is doing the exclusives and the 12% cut solely to build up his store. He doesn't care about helping out his competition (other Publishers). He must think PC gamers are pretty gullible to make a statement like that and think PC gamers would believe it.
You can't explain anything to anyone cause you are not understanding the issue. My previous post underline to you (in bold at that) what is the issue and why people are outraged by EGS practices. THEIR FREEDOM OF CHOICE is impacted by a corporation. Corporation makes the choice you should be making on a personal level. The corporation therefore is threatening you with its actions (as it steps onto your freedom) so what do you do? You pick up a weapon to defend it... weapon in this case being the internet.
And of course I don't have it. When a guy who can't even make logical analogy sais so it must be true. Afterall, it is such a difficult concept... making money in any way possible as long as its legal, wow, deep, deep concept. So hard to understand, my brain nearly overloaded.
Yours certainly did though cause you grasp basic concept of it, but do not realize that it is in hands of customers how much those companies can get away with when trying to make as much $$$ as they can. But it is ok, belive that noone understands free market but you, I am sure it will allow you to feel special.Alright, great I fall back onto the main issue with exclusivity deals... you know, the VERY PROBLEM of this entire debate. The sole reason why people are "rising up arms" against Epic.
Do you see anyone complaining on GoG removing DRM's? No, because it actually helps everyone. They gave themselves a goal to follow and people want to support them in that so they use their service so their project grows naturally.
Do you see anyone complaining about Steam featureset? No, because it helps everyone. Again, Steam features helped MANY people and made access to for example game modding much simpler for alot of people. One could write a dissertation about all good that Steam has done for gaming industry. With all that said, Steam simply grows because people like what valve is doing.
Do you see Steam/GoG try to shove anything down anyone's throat? No, because they jsut provide something good and people start using it naturally. Noone forces them to.
Do you see people complaining about exclusivity bribes of Epic? Yes because it hurts everyone and helps only Epic. Epic is not trying to create something good here. They do not have a goal like Gog, they do not expand their featureset like Steam, they try to FORCE people to use their software. See the difference?
Hmm I wonder, why people are standing up against it... God one knows, weird stuff right there...
Epic practices ARE NOT HELPING ANYONE, quite the opposite. I seriously have no idea how hard it is for you to understand such simple thing. Just analyze those few sentences 100 times, maybe you will grasp it and see the difference between proper practices that should be supported and shitty practices that should be frowned upon.Actually it might only push me to pirate the game or to not play it at all rather than trusting a shady company accused of spying multiple times over the years. I don't have a spine of a snail like you do with your "EA is bad but i still play their games. But i do not support them"(rofl) and rather than being part of the issue, prefer to vote with my wallet.
Also, read again what i wrote about CDP and GoG and Witcher 3( you know, the part that completly invalidates necessity of exclusives in the first place). Then come back and explain to me, if exclusives are so necessary, why Witcher 3 was not GoG exclusive? Afterall this is how you get customers appearently. If you can't however, just stop babbling.Great practice, kudos to them. Now explain why they won't employ more practices that are good for customers and market in general? Whhy instead they are trying to FORCE people to use their store?Not understanding the market? Cause I stand against shitty practices rather than support them? Well fuck me. I guess it is better to let any company do whatever the fuck they want and never speak against them, Vayra style.
Saying no to everything? Because I say no to companies that bring nothing good to gaming industry? The fuck?
Do you see me saying bad stuff about GoG? No, quite the opposite.
Do you see me bash Steam? Nope, cause they just do what they've been doing for a very long time and they are not trying to grab "exclusive deals". They just provide solid service.
Do you see me bash EA/Activision? Fuck yes, cause both of those companies are cancer of gaming industry (reasons are countless)
Do you see me bash Epic now? Fuck yes, cause their exclusivity practices are hurtful to consumers by limiting their choice of service provider. They make the choice for gamers.
See the difference? No? Then you are dumb as a brick.
Yes? Great, then you should realize that you do not understand the issue.
Do you really think that anyone would say a word if Epic just had their store and kept selling games there like everyone else? Noone would give a shit and there would be no issue.Right, shitty trend promoted by singular company is rising up. It screws gamers over. Lets just sit and watch rather than make a sound as per Vayra's advice.
This is the exact attitude that allowed MTX's to go out of hand in the first place.
This is the attitude that allowed on disc DLC's to be sold etc... Oh and speaking of, was not backlash so hard that EA and their likes backed out of it?Weird...
What was the deal with Battlefront again? Oh right, community backlash so bad that EA got in the shitter...
Community can't do shit appearently, we should just bend over and ask for harder ramming per your advice.
3 deals were signed, sure, does not mean community should keep silent and not try to prevent more of that crap in the future, or make devs think 10 times before they whore themselves out.
Also, I am all for new things and competition when they are good for the industry. As I said before multiple times. Shitty practices that are slippery slope and might force other stores to bribe devs I and many others ARE STRONGLY AGAINST. You can bend over and ask for deeper ramming if you so wish, but not everyone has a spine of a snail and accepts any dildo corporations try to shove into people ass just to get some $$$.
You have a point and I fully agree with it - no you shouldn't take everything for granted and its good to make a stand on things you don't agree with. I believe I've said as much, in almost every post I made the last few pages - I take care to note that everyone is free to make a choice, and that this is what being a customer on the marketplace is all about. That is how we exercise power. I'm also saying: pick your battles, you won't be winning each one. And I say: when its clear you won't be winning, its best to be pragmatic about it - and I am convinced the large majority does it that way; proof is in the very things we did not manage to ban from gaming; like you said: MTX, lootboxes, etc. etc. You named Battlefront 2 - great - but the lootbox is still very much alive.
My problems with this current one is the way people take a stand, the argumentation they use for it, which is flawed and/or outright media spin and blatant lying as even YOU still mention 'spyware' but research did not confirm that at all - something that happens a lot lately and must be met with caution -, and the underlying problem that is at the core of it that they fail to see. Note; its not about developers taking a higher cut. Its about a healthy marketplace, and yes, contrary to what you may be convinced of, that means you need multiple players on it. EGS is, alongside GoG & Steam, one of the very rare players that are publisher-independent in their content. If you speak of corporation chokeholds: EGS is eliminating one just as much as you say it creates one. Its not black and white and EGS is not the evil-do-it-all here, and this topic contains countless examples of that - when I and others point those out, the response we get is 'they're just carrots' and 'EGS only does it for their own good'.
You still didn't get that nuance, and you're still hurling personal insults my way. I've ignored most of them, but your last post is taking it too far.
Do you see the trend? Both you and @oxidized need to get personal and make many posts with lots of question marks - rhetorical question marks - that only underline your lack of understanding. For some reason, I have no need to do this towards you. You can try to figure out why that happens like it does, another nuance for you to discover.
Also, about EA, its just another example of me being flexible. And yes, I am open to a developer (Respawn) that is continually pushing pretty solid games out. Or is Titanfall another 'corporate chokehold' to you that must be boycotted? Man, you must live in a pretty small, sad and lonely world...
If it makes you feel better, I nicked Apex Coins from EA and bought the battle pass for it, because they had a bug/exploit in their launcher they didn't bother to fix for ages. Still playing Apex for 0,00 EUR, still costing the company money instead of giving it to them ;) Pragmatism.
Last point I'll be making towards you in this topic, is this:You're really pro-gamer here aren't you? This, right here, confirms literally everything I've been saying the last few pages: the vocal minority in this matter consists mostly (there are lots of valid reasons to avoid EGS... its really not that difficult) of temper tantrum loudmouths that fail to put their money where their mouth is. In fact, they fail to put their money period, they just go out and pirate the things they don't get their 'way' in. Its the same thing as having to hurl insults when you don't get your way. Its called entitlement and generally not considered a positive quality.
Painful, I say.
TL;DR: Indies love the idea because it gives them a risk-free cushion they'd otherwise not have.
store.steampowered.com/app/501300/What_Remains_of_Edith_Finch/
Blind to shitty business practices? No, I categorize them differently, I think I've been repeating that quite a lot in this topic, the only difference of opinion we have (which is fine...) is that I don't see how these practices are all that shitty for the customer. There are no customers losing out on anything, except perhaps their key unlocked through EGS when it should have been Steam (the pre orders). That is inherent to the risk you take when you pre-order - the fine print clearly reads 'subject to change' as to what it gets distributed through and in the very same way you have a right to cancel the purchase until the product is delivered. After all, you purchased the product and the product is the game. Not the storefront. If that were the case, you'd have lost your right to reimbursement the moment EGS signed the deal.
See, there is just law to protect you here and regulation on the marketplace to do the same, plus customer rights you can easily throw into the mix should anything go wrong. But it doesn't really matter. Maybe you just don't like Sweeney's face, and that alone can be sufficient reason to avoid EGS. All that I ask from people who partake in this discussion is to call things what they are and stop dragging in nonsense to make a point (and casually ignore any arguments that counter your ideas - look at your response to free games). Especially when the better half of that nonsense is already debunked. Trying to paint EGS as the evil company with underhand business practices is just simply, utterly and blatantly wrong. And there have been countless examples (free games just being one of them, and only a very minor one) already of the presence of EGS having a positive influence on the marketplace.
All I really ask is for people to open up to that a bit more. Just being able to recognize that this is about many shades of gray rather than a black and white good/evil 'Steam vs EGS' battle. And again, we may not like every decision every company makes all the time, such is life. If one misstep is enough to have people boycot a whole store, and if you are truly consistent about that (the majority here, is certainly not, proof everywhere), it won't take very long until all you can play is Minesweeper.
Really, all I read in the opposition here is a lot of lies and my bullshit sensor is screaming loud - not from you by the way, but from many others, I think its clear who - because most of these people either will cave to EGS at some point, or they already did, or they simply never were going to buy anything anyway. Those are the people saying they will pirate it then anyway - when in fact, they already did just that shortly after launch.