A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Epic reduce their cut to 0% for the first $1 million in revenue for devs on the Epic Games Store
-
> What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging. When they have absolute monopoly. Nintendo charges that much because only Nintendo provides Switch software. Microsoft charges that much because only Microsoft provides Xbox software. Sony charges that much because only Sony provides Playstation software. Apple charges that much because only Apple provides iOS software... despite the EU's best efforts. Steam and Android act like they're the only store that matters, for their platform. And it works. Because they are.Steams competitors are mostly GOG and Epic Games...
-
> What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging It's not what Epic charges. > Do you think a company that was by far in the lead over other stores dropping their prices further wouldn't increase their user base even further, making it even harder for competition? No one would care if they were a monopoly and also charged less than everyone else. Pretty much every monopoly discussion revolves almost entirely around their absurd commission rates.No it doesn't. Do you think GOG and Epic Games want Steam to undercut their rates because they can annihilate them in volume? Steam may not answer back at epics first million $ rate cut because Steam kind of needs them as competition.
-
It is hilarious. Epic tried getting users by giving them free games. But that didn't translate to increased sales. And now they are trying to woo developers to abandon Steam, hoping that way customers will be forced to buy from Epic. They don't understand that developers are on Steam _because_ customers are there. And what does a customer get when they use Epic over Steam?
-
I would rather buy a game on steam, or better yet on gog, than giving my money to a company that is trying to make store exclusive games a thing.So you want to give steam exclusive access to your money because epic wants it? Genius move, really. This won't go badly for you in the next decade.
-
This post did not contain any content.In this thread a bunch of monopolists tell epic to fuck off so they can keep feeding a monopoly that licenses drm keys to them.
-
So you want to give steam exclusive access to your money because epic wants it? Genius move, really. This won't go badly for you in the next decade.
-
Right?! Nobody ever talks about all the kids they got addicted to gambling. Bang up job, there.
-
In this thread a bunch of monopolists tell epic to fuck off so they can keep feeding a monopoly that licenses drm keys to them.
-
> 10 Bn for Steam revenue this year, by the way. So still far off anything resembling >50% market share on PC. Good to know they're still not a monopoly. > The money flows to Valve because Valve doesn’t need to make ANY games at all, pay for exclusives or do anything else. So Valve is not engaging in any anti-competitive behaviour as well as pumping resources into Linux support to break the Windows hegemony? Great! > Especially since the fanboys paint any attempt at competing against a monopolistic actor as an anticompetitive act, somehow. Yeah, these people are very strange. I mean, it's a fact that Microsoft is the convicted monopolist because of the grip Windows has on the industry, the same Microsoft that bought Minecraft, Bethesda, and Activision Blizzard King to become the world's single biggest games publisher and their Windows-exclusive PC GamePass is also growing (surely at least partially thanks to Microsoft "[continuing to misuse its Windows operating system monopoly](https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-us-v-microsoft-corp)" to promote their other services). And yet, there are people who put the sole Linux supporter in the same corner, as if that company had anything approaching Microsoft's market power. Not even the EU thought Valve was important enough. Microsoft, Apple, Google, ByteDance, and Meta are Digital Market Gatekeepers, not Valve.But nobody is complaining about Steam OS having a monopoly on PC OSs, the issue is with Steam having control of the PC gaming market. I am exhausted by humanity's ongoing inability to hold more than one idea in their heads at once. The world isn't made of good guys that play for your team and bad guys that play for the other team. Can people be adults for one moment at some point this century? Holy crap. Steam can ABSOLUTELY have a dominant position in one market while attempting to erode a competitor's dominant position in another market. Microsoft has a dominant position in the OS market that *should* be eroded by both competitors and regulators. That dominant position includes having about 75% of the PC OS market. Steam has about 80% of the PC digital distribution market for new releases. One of those facts isn't tolerable just because you've decided to make supporting a specific alternative in the OS market your entire personality. That's not how that works. Microsoft should be held back from the areas where it has dominance (and that includes keeping them on a very tight leash when it comes to aggregating more studios under their gaming division) and Steam should be kept on a tight leash when it comes to their dominant position on the gaming digital distribution space. Ideally by having other competitors not only survive but thrive and grow to prevent regulators having to intervene in the first place. Those two ideas are, in fact, entirely consistent with each other with no contradiction. I am imploring social media dwellers to stop treating every issue as a football match or get off the Internet.
-
This post did not contain any content.Sounds like it's time to play through the free games I got before epic folds like a card table and revoked my access to them. In a sane world, the library could host the people's digital store fronts with no cuts taken from the revenue. It is pur culture, we should preserve it.
-
Sounds like it's time to play through the free games I got before epic folds like a card table and revoked my access to them. In a sane world, the library could host the people's digital store fronts with no cuts taken from the revenue. It is pur culture, we should preserve it.
-
Steam really needs something like this. Even the first 100k would be a great start for boosting indie devs. Instead they do the opposite and reward the big players. >Steam actually reduces their cut as you hit certain milestones. For your first $10M in sales, they take that standard 30%. Hit the $10M mark, and their cut drops to 25% for sales between $10M and $50M. Push past $50M, and Steam only takes 20%.
-
Yeah yeah, what about making the EGS program not suck for customers? An overglorified browser running on top of unreal engine, no user reviews for games...
-
In this thread a bunch of monopolists tell epic to fuck off so they can keep feeding a monopoly that licenses drm keys to them.Steam is a monopoly because it is the only one of these platforms to actually be good.
-
No it doesn't. Do you think GOG and Epic Games want Steam to undercut their rates because they can annihilate them in volume? Steam may not answer back at epics first million $ rate cut because Steam kind of needs them as competition.
-
You are joking, right? The customer support alone (at the level at which it stands, which is very high for Steam) is well worth the price, especially for big players.
-
I dont think the curve would look like this without valves efforts to push linux, so i am a bit forgiving when it comes to them wanting money to do random research and development. So far they have always been making cool stuff with that money. 
-
EGS has reviews as far as I can tell. I still think Steam is better, but this is a welcome move out of them. Competition is a good thingI was talking about written reviews, not just a like/dislike (star) system
-
TBH I haven't seen evidence that layoffs generate capital. It just fudges cost to revenue ratios to emulate quarterly gains in hopes of appeasing shareholders.
