Yeah sorry Epic Games, Sony isn't that stupid.

GungarYeah sorry Epic Games, Sony isn't that stupid.

its not about being stupid, that last line in the 2nd slide makes me think its more about burned bridges.

GungarYeah sorry Epic Games, Sony isn't that stupid.

Sony would lose nothing, on the contrary, get 88% of the price, instead of 70%. (they could even get a 100%)

If Horizon Zero Dawn didn't meet Sony's expectations I could very well see Sony inking the deal for future releases. Since upcoming Days Gone also foregoes any exclusivity with EGS, I guess Sony thinks they don't need the exclusivity bribe (for now).

Plus mere $200 mill for 4-6 Sony former exclusives that are also first party is laughable, imo. But again if HZD flopped, I think Sony would've considered it.

KhonjelIf Horizon Zero Dawn didn't meet Sony's expectations I could very well see Sony inking the deal for future releases. Since upcoming Days Gone also foregoes any exclusivity with EGS, I guess Sony thinks they don't need the exclusivity bribe (for now).

The question is, how much of a cut is Valve getting.
If it is 30%, Sony would surely prefer to leave only 12% to EGS instead.

Those fookers are the scourge of the Earth.

medi01Sony would lose nothing, on the contrary, get 88% of the price, instead of 70%. (they could even get a 100%)

Except that Sony wouldn't be getting 70% on Steam. They'd be getting 80% or more as Steam reduces their commission for games over a certain sales threshold.

In addition, Steam takes 0% of all sales of Steam game keys. Developers are allowed to generate keys and sell them elsewhere for 0% and still get the benefits that the steam platform brings.

Let's be honest here, it Sony had nothing to loose they sure as shit wouldn't have turned down that 200 million. The fact of the matter is EPIC game store is a vastly inferior platform with a much much smaller user base and a tiny fraction of the features.

If only they spent that money actually improving their platform instead of trying to fracture the PC market they might be able to attract more devs without needing to throw oodles of cash at them.

zlobbyThose fookers are the scourge of the Earth.

So is Steam, allowing garbage russian asset flips for 30 bucks.

evernessinceThey'd be getting 80% or more as Steam reduces their commission for games over a certain sales threshold.

So kind of them. I mean, so very very kind of them.
Except Sony could get lots of monez for giving exclusiveness to EGS.
On top of getting 88% (or more) from sales.
And even more money on top of it.

Horizon sold 2.6 million copies. Say on avg 30 euros, it makes only 78 millions, while EPIC offers nearly 3 times as much upfront.

It's a win-win.

As for "but don't customers lose".
Customers who are lazy enough to whine about getting a game client of a store, that pushes 1-2 free games every couple of weeks and fully integrates with GoG client, should stop being whiny bitches.

evernessinceIn addition, Steam takes 0% of all sales of Steam game keys

Oh, please.

evernessincespent that money actually improving their platform

Leave that dead horse.

EGS will do anything to get that green.

medi01So kind of them. I mean, so very very kind of them.
Except Sony could get lots of monez for giving exclusiveness to EGS.
On top of getting 88% (or more) from sales.
And even more money on top of it.

Horizon sold 2.6 million copies. Say on avg 30 euros, it makes only 78 millions, while EPIC offers nearly 3 times as much upfront.

It's a win-win.

As for "but don't customers lose".
Customers who are lazy enough to whine about getting a game client of a store, that pushes 1-2 free games every couple of weeks and fully integrates with GoG client, should stop being whiny bitches.


Oh, please.


Leave that dead horse.

It's 200 millions for 6 games not one and they aren't really paying anything since Sony knows they will get more than 200 millions with those 6 games, specially if they sell it also on Steam and not only on EGS that nearly nobody buys games in it.

Only EGS is gaining in that deal.

So Sony gives money to Epic then Epic gives money to Sony LOOOL

TheDeeGeeSo is Steam, allowing garbage russian asset flips for 30 bucks.

Don't know whats up with the Russian thing ( and don't want know either ) but yeah Steam is no better.

Tim Sweeny is a massive hypocrite. His Apple lawsuit is chock full of whining about how mean apple is for running their own app store and forcing exclusivity on their platform through it while throwing billions around trying to bring exclusivity to the EGS. Given how much money epic is losing right now on EGS, I cant wait for this saga to end up in flames.

Steam needs a proper competitor. EGS is not that competitor.

TheDeeGeeSo is Steam, allowing garbage russian asset flips for 30 bucks.

Stop searching for asset flips Sterling. This garbage doesnt pop up if you dont go looking for it. You are free to not buy it and go to good games instead.

medi01So kind of them. I mean, so very very kind of them.
Except Sony could get lots of monez for giving exclusiveness to EGS.
On top of getting 88% (or more) from sales.
And even more money on top of it.

Horizon sold 2.6 million copies. Say on avg 30 euros, it makes only 78 millions, while EPIC offers nearly 3 times as much upfront.

It's a win-win.

As for "but don't customers lose".
Customers who are lazy enough to whine about getting a game client of a store, that pushes 1-2 free games every couple of weeks and fully integrates with GoG client, should stop being whiny bitches.

Question for you: If the EGS is such a sweet deal for developers, and they can make so much more money, why is it the only time a game shows up there exclusively is when epic pays for it? How come any game that releases exclusively on EGS sees a release on steam the very instant the deal is expired, and usually sees a large increase in playerbase?

If EGS was such an amazing deal epic wouldnt have to bribe developers for exclusivity. It doesnt matter if your commision is 5%, if nobody uses your garbage platform (STILL doesnt have a shopping cart in 2021 LMFAO) people wont sell product there. And lets be frank here: paying for exclusivity is one of those toxic parasitical business deals that should have stayed on console, we dont want that garbage on PC.

You want to take on steaem? Fine, build a better platform, and I'll gladly use it. But dont try to buy your way into the club, its disgusting.

evernessinceIf only they spent that money actually improving their platform instead of trying to fracture the PC market they might be able to attract more devs without needing to throw oodles of cash at them.

This.

If games were allowed to be sold in both Steam and Epic stores and each store freely competed in terms of price AND platform usefulness (which is TRUE competition and thus would benefit users) THEN I **might** believe their BS about this being about user choice. As it is, it is nothing but a battle for dominance which ends up actually hurting those who prefer the Steam store for whatever reason (i.e.; most gamers at this point in time).

Furthermore, if after all this time and with all the competition going on, the Epic platform STILL didn't catch up to Steam in terms of functionality, imagine how much worse it would be if Epic actually became dominant.

Because I intensely despise Epic's MO and because I really don't trust a game launcher where 40% of the capital is owned by a Chinese company (which basically means the CCP is controlling the strings) I choose not to buy ANYTHING from them.

I rather wait a year for a game to become available on Steam at a discount (as I did with Metro Exodus, for instance), and if it never does, well, in that case tough luck for the game developer/publisher and his choices, as he will never see the color of my money.

TheinsanegamerNIf the EGS is such a sweet deal for developers, and they can make so much more money, why is it the only time a game shows up there exclusively is when epic pays for it?

Because EGS is a "major game store" wannabe, with much smaller user base.

TheinsanegamerNIf EGS was such an amazing deal epic wouldnt have to bribe developers for exclusivity.

The shortsightedness of this statement hurts.

What I see in these comments is a tendency from many ignorant individual to enforce and encourage monopolistic store (Steam) which is far from "proper" compared to EPIC, just because they are used to it.

I bet if Sony made their own store, they will offer $200 Million for EGS to bugger off.

TheinsanegamerNTim Sweeny is a massive hypocrite. His Apple lawsuit is chock full of whining about how mean apple is for running their own app store and forcing exclusivity on their platform through it while throwing billions around trying to bring exclusivity to the EGS. Given how much money epic is losing right now on EGS, I cant wait for this saga to end up in flames.

Steam needs a proper competitor. EGS is not that competitor.


Stop searching for asset flips Sterling. This garbage doesnt pop up if you dont go looking for it. You are free to not buy it and go to good games instead.

Question for you: If the EGS is such a sweet deal for developers, and they can make so much more money, why is it the only time a game shows up there exclusively is when epic pays for it? How come any game that releases exclusively on EGS sees a release on steam the very instant the deal is expired, and usually sees a large increase in playerbase?

If EGS was such an amazing deal epic wouldnt have to bribe developers for exclusivity. It doesnt matter if your commision is 5%, if nobody uses your garbage platform (STILL doesnt have a shopping cart in 2021 LMFAO) people wont sell product there. And lets be frank here: paying for exclusivity is one of those toxic parasitical business deals that should have stayed on console, we dont want that garbage on PC.

You want to take on steaem? Fine, build a better platform, and I'll gladly use it. But dont try to buy your way into the club, its disgusting.

Indeed, hard to beat steam overall on everything, platform, chat, content, etc. etc.

How is the GoG 2.x cross-platform coming along??

TheinsanegamerNSteam needs a proper competitor. EGS is not that competitor.

EGS is the closest one so far Uplay is all about its own games, so is that one from Electronic Farts, um I mean, Arts. GoG is in a league of its own but still not a real competitor vs Steam.

zilulWhat I see in these comments is a tendency from many ignorant individual to enforce and encourage monopolistic store (Steam) which is far from "proper" compared to EPIC, just because they are used to it.

Feel better now for calling others 'ignorant' just because they don't share your opinion? lol

This has nothing to do with supporting a monopoly - I would have nothing against Epic (other than being basically owned by the Chinese) if it actually competed with Steam in a fair and clean way, i.e.; on price AND quality. Let the user choose freely based on that.

But that is not what they are doing, they are trying to FORCE users to their store by withholding popular games from other stores for a year. YOU may call that fair competition, I do not. You claim others are ignorant, but you're the one supporting an abusive manipulative behavior while simultaneously offering excuses for it.

Guys, you still don't get it?

This is a war for digital distribution pie. We're not eating that pie. Stop thinking it matters. This is competition and its good, it invigorates gaming and brings bigger budgets to the actual game.

Publishers of games don't 'die' or 'change' because of digital distribution store fronts. EGS has no stake in that and neither does Steam. They both benefit from the biggest most varied libraries so everyone has something to buy and shovel some percent to distributors.

I simply cannot understand why this is so hard to grasp. Its one of the last simpler things in this world. Platforms are everywhere and all they do is move business to internet. The more that becomes a norm, the faster we can get to competitive serrvices for it. Right now, a few early birds lead the show and define the prices and the rules, which is unhealthy. Not just for gaming.

This also relates to the gatekeeper function of platforms. We need an open discussion on what they should be allowed to define for developers and users, and to what extent they are responsible for gatekeeping in the sense of security. You can rest assured that discussion can only happen if there are more players in the game, the actual proof is in front of us right now.

JcRabbitI rather wait a year for a game to become available on Steam at a discount

And this is also absolutely fine - this is what consumer choice looks like. You choose to wait, and others do not. This will shape the market going forward.

Consumer choice is NOT 'I can buy every game I want at every store I like'. Exclusivity of product on sale is common in every single type of business. From Apple to Nike, any bigger brand has authorized and preferred resellers and sales channels and you don't always even get to apply.

Vayra86Consumer choice is NOT 'I can buy every game I want at every store I like'.

I don't agree, sorry, I think THAT is EXACTLY what consumer choice is ALL about. :)

Vayra86Exclusivity of product on sale is common in every single type of business. From Apple to Nike, any bigger brand has authorized and preferred resellers and sales channels and you don't always even get to apply.

Ok, but then if you are Epic don't pretend that it is for the good of the consumer, or because Steam is a monopoly and monopolies are evil. That is nothing but PR spinning, those are not, and will never be, the true reasons - they just want a piece of the pie like you said (actually, the whole pie if only they could).

Problem is, they do it in a way that forces gamers to either install a mediocre platform they don't want or wait a full year for a new AAA title. They could instead compete in terms of price and/or the quality of their platform, and this would not hurt the gamers in any way, shape or form, but that is not how they chose to do it.

It is their prerogative to do it this way and mine to vote with my feet and my wallet, which is - and in this I agree with you - as it should be. Each choice has consequences.

However, it puzzles me how some people defend practices that are (IMO) abusive and manipulative and hurt those who want nothing to do with the Epic store. Yes, despite being the consequence of a choice I made, it still pisses me off that I have to wait a year to play a certain game lol.

Epic are (again IMO) no better than Steam. Just because they are currently the underdog does not make them 'the good guys'. In fact, I think Epic would be a LOT worse than Steam (or at least just as 'bad') if the situation was reversed (but with a much lousier platform eheh).

This said I also think a 30% cut is disgraceful in this age of digital distribution, regardless of how good your platform is.

Vayra86Guys, you still don't get it?

This is a war for digital distribution pie. We're not eating that pie. Stop thinking it matters. This is competition and its good, it invigorates gaming and brings bigger budgets to the actual game.

Publishers of games don't 'die' or 'change' because of digital distribution store fronts. EGS has no stake in that and neither does Steam. They both benefit from the biggest most varied libraries so everyone has something to buy and shovel some percent to distributors.

I simply cannot understand why this is so hard to grasp. Its one of the last simpler things in this world. Platforms are everywhere and all they do is move business to internet. The more that becomes a norm, the faster we can get to competitive serrvices for it. Right now, a few early birds lead the show and define the prices and the rules, which is unhealthy. Not just for gaming.

This also relates to the gatekeeper function of platforms. We need an open discussion on what they should be allowed to define for developers and users, and to what extent they are responsible for gatekeeping in the sense of security. You can rest assured that discussion can only happen if there are more players in the game, the actual proof is in front of us right now.


And this is also absolutely fine - this is what consumer choice looks like. You choose to wait, and others do not. This will shape the market going forward.

Consumer choice is NOT 'I can buy every game I want at every store I like'. Exclusivity of product on sale is common in every single type of business. From Apple to Nike, any bigger brand has authorized and preferred resellers and sales channels and you don't always even get to apply.

The problem I see coming out of this is that publishers will put even more pressure on developers to crank out games ahead of schedule and likely with day 1 patching (plus several more following that first), and giving the games lower review ratings than necessary. Sure the budgets might be bigger but at a cost, either to gamers or developers, or both. Studios will have to have top notch quality, if not it could lead to gamers avoiding a particular game studio in the future, and snowballing into even weaker sales. Pressure from distro-plats™ ( :p ) driving prices do... STOP, Its all a viscous circle really, well all know the layout.

These talks did not succeed with Sony bringing their exclusive titles such as Horizon Zero Dawn and Days Gone to both Steam and the Epic Games Store. Epic Games did succeed in securing some smaller titles as exclusives for their store including Predator: Hunting Grounds and ReadySet Heroes

The original article on PCGamer, does not state this anywhere. It does not speak to the talks not succeeding, as per the document stating, "Awaiting Feedback". I also noticed that no part of the PCgamer source, states that HZD and Days Gone were what the $200M was for. In fact, the article explicitly states that it is unknown if the amount was for one title, multiple titles and/ or which titles specifically.
Essentially, I'm asking if you're aware that this information to some degree contradicts the source you've linked?
If I'm mistaken, apologies.