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
-
Sure, I'm just saying Epic is not any better than Valve in that regard. They're just in a different position.
-
Steam is, in my opinion, way better for the user (even if it may be worse for the developer). Epic lacks features that are important to me like reviews, the ability to view your library in a browser, warnings about DRM, Linux support, a hole bunch of features to discover games, a workshop, big picture mode. Additionally, in my experience at least, their official launcher under Windows is a buggy mess compared to steam.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 thing
-
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%.Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates. But if they drop their rates they get accused of being anticompetitive and monopolistic. So if they do something similar like Epic, they'll go back to using their monopoly over the market to keep competitors down.
-
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 thingThe way Epics reviews work are awful, though. They are trying to be really attractive to developers but they aren’t attractive enough to USERS. For example, you have to be INVITED to review games on Epic. The system is automated and will occasionally ask for a review after you close a game, assuming you’ve been playing long enough. They claim it’s to avoid things like “review bombing”, but that’s a cop-out to shield bad developers/publishers from the repercussions of their actions (like when Denuvo was non-consensually added to Ghostwire Tokyo a year after release).
-
This post did not contain any content.Cool, still fuck em though
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
Here's a different take, as a game dev: Epic actual employs quite a few people who work with Linux. The Unreal engine (and even, to a certain degree, editor) has native support for Linux. The reasons they're not including Linux support in their store front are two fold: 1) There aren't enough pure Linux users to matter - 0.1% of an already small user base is negligible. 2) The only serious Linux user base in gaming relates to the Steam Deck, a product that pushes a rival (and the dominant) store front. While Valve's move to push Linux gaming is brilliant for us gamers, it also kind of cements us in their camp. There is absolutely no reason for Epic to support Linux in anyway, and it absolutely supports their bottom line to attack it. And, no, it isn't because of any David v. Goliath tale of a little guy standing up to a brute: it's because a fellow giant has decided to ally itself with Linux, and all of us have - invariably - been shuffled into their camp. I think the Epic Games Store has a place in this world as a niche storefront with limited visibility but higher access to sales profits as a result of that. They'll never grow to the size of Steam, and that's okay. The largest storefront in the world supports Linux not just on its platform, but by developing tools for everyone that makes Linux gaming viable. That is enough, IMO.2 is only true because they refuse to support it, and it's going to be great to see them walk back everything they said once it's too late. More handhelds are going to launch with official steamOS support, and a new batch of steam machines will come eventually, with a much better support. In the same way they tell how to side load an apk in android, they can could tell you how to install heroic on the deck. Hell, through 10-20 K to heroic and they will make it for you simple.
-
GOG and Itch are both great services. Epic is run by a psychopath and working hard to create the walled garden they themselves have been railing against. That's why EGS can go to hell but I'll gladly buy from the others.
-
From the POV of steam, you want the big releases to happen on your platform and take your cut even if its a bit smaller. In the end people change platforms for the big releases. Its the main reason I haven't fully switched to GOG yet, it doesn't have the major releases I want (or gets them late like Kingdom Come Deliverance 2). You can spread idealism, but I rather stay realistic.
-
This post did not contain any content.And yet, still, they can go fuck themselves.
-
Cause that would probably get abused for things like money laundering, since Steam is open for everyone who wants to sell a game unlike Epic’s store. You can just set up a shell corp that releases shitty shovelware and buy the game from yourself with steam cards you bought from the store with your dirty cash. And then you’d get all your money back ready to be taxed and laundered.
-
Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates. But if they drop their rates they get accused of being anticompetitive and monopolistic. So if they do something similar like Epic, they'll go back to using their monopoly over the market to keep competitors down.> Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates. ...those are not different sides? The only reason they can charge such absurd rates is because of their position in the marketplace.
-
This post did not contain any content.How are they affording this? It can't be a sustainable model, right?
-
How are they affording this? It can't be a sustainable model, right?Fortnite, and it's not. The store loses them hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
-
Yeah. And that's a fantastic showcase of the bar you need to hit to not be effectively toiling in the Steam mines. Assassin's Creed, FIFA, Call of Duty? Not big enough. Still have to deal with Steam. It takes being *significantly bigger than the entire Epic store* to even consider not doing Steam on PC. And none of those is even close to having a viable platform for third party releases outside of Epic, which is perhaps the last one standing on that front and currently not managing to get a foothold. And judging by the rabid fanboy backlash anytime they try to do something nice to attract devs, not even finding a path towards one at any point in the future, either. That's a bad look for competition on the PC market. There aren't that many Fortnites or Minecrafts coming in the future. Gaming investment is drying up and gaming is becoming a cash business, rather than an investment business. And the cash flows to Valve.> Assassin’s Creed, FIFA, Call of Duty? Not big enough. Still have to deal with Steam. They don't have to. OK, maybe Microsoft has to because they are the actual monopolist and making the Activision Blizzard franchises available on storefronts other than Microsoft's own is to keep the watchdogs away. Also, none of the franchises are exclusive to Steam, so Steam has no monopoly. > It takes being significantly bigger than the entire Epic store to even consider not doing Steam on PC. That sentence makes no sense. Fortnite is exclusive to EGS, therefore it cannot be "significantly bigger than the entire Epic store". Steam has no policies that forbid offering games on other stores, Epic has policies that makes certain games timed exclusives to EGS. What makes EGS unattractive compared to Steam is the simple fact that Epic chooses to most prominently display their own games on EGS. Valve does front page banners, fests, that window that opens with every Steam launch, etc. and goes out of their way to make everything from big launches as well as solo dev indie games discoverable. Epic has it in their own hands to make EGS more than the Fortnite launcher. They could promote other EGS games inside Fortnite but they don't. They host concerts inside Fortnite but nothing to promote 3rd party EGS games, for examle.
-
Fortnite, and it's not. The store loses them hundreds of millions of dollars per year.That's the kind of competition I want. Not a plucky newcomer with fresh ideas, but an industry titan able to burn more money than some companies ever see in an attempt to undercut the competition. They surely aren't factoring this as a deficit to recoup when they pull a massive reversal after securing market dominance. That's never happened in the history of capitalism. Epic can huff my huffables.
-
> Steam keeps getting slammed from both sides. They keep getting accused of being a monopoly, , while also getting accused of their rates. ...those are not different sides? The only reason they can charge such absurd rates is because of their position in the marketplace.What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging. 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? They already have active legal cases against them for monopolizing.
-
What they had been charging was about what other stores have been charging. 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? They already have active legal cases against them for monopolizing.> 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.
-
Sure. They also chose not to have their own layer of controller translation or their own game recording backend. Linux is 2% of the market even on Steam with official support. DRM-free means DRM-free for everybody. I would like more official Linux support, but I'll take good unofficial support in the meantime. There's no workaround for monpolistic positions or mandatory DRM-free policies.> I’ll take good unofficial support in the meantime. And that unofficial support is brought to you by Valve's contributions to Wine, DXVK, RADV, LibSDL,... > There’s no workaround for monpolistic positions Considering that the only monopolist in PC gaming is Microsoft, the workaround for that Windows monopoly is to spend money on products that make non-Windows PC gaming better and currently that's almost exclusively Valve.
