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

[rtwjunkie]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

Lol, then it shouldn’t be a complaint.

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

 

[moproblems99]

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?

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

Liked for this.

 

[Basard]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

I 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.

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]

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.