Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Darkly)
  • No Skin
Collapse

Chebucto Regional Softball Club

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. Epic reduce their cut to 0% for the first $1 million in revenue for devs on the Epic Games Store
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

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
games
224 Posts 109 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • ? Guest
    Implying review bombing is always warranted is as misguided as it gets. Games regularly get review bombed for something as trivial as having a non-white person for a protagonist.
    ? Offline
    ? Offline
    Guest
    wrote last edited by
    #221
    I don’t disagree that’s a problem, but that is not what I said or implied. That’s the reason Steam has other mechanisms for scoring and scaling reviews. There are plenty of valid reasons for “review bombing” that are organic and natural consequences of developer activity: like adding Denuvo a year after release, adding a launxher or login/account requirement after the fact, etc. Making reviews “invite only” is anti-consumer.
    ? 1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • ? Guest
      I don’t disagree that’s a problem, but that is not what I said or implied. That’s the reason Steam has other mechanisms for scoring and scaling reviews. There are plenty of valid reasons for “review bombing” that are organic and natural consequences of developer activity: like adding Denuvo a year after release, adding a launxher or login/account requirement after the fact, etc. Making reviews “invite only” is anti-consumer.
      ? Offline
      ? Offline
      Guest
      wrote last edited by
      #222
      If we dig just a bit deeper, it seems your issue is with the whole concept of not owning games, which is the very nature of Steam and its main policy, aptly called the **subscriber** agreement. Taking that out on game developers, let alone a competitor with more lax DRM practices, is also missing the first for the trees.
      ? 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • ? Guest
        If we dig just a bit deeper, it seems your issue is with the whole concept of not owning games, which is the very nature of Steam and its main policy, aptly called the **subscriber** agreement. Taking that out on game developers, let alone a competitor with more lax DRM practices, is also missing the first for the trees.
        ? Offline
        ? Offline
        Guest
        wrote last edited by
        #223
        That is absolutely an issue I have, but it’s a whole separate can of worms. One I could talk about all day. Right now I’m just comparing Epics meaningless, useless review system against Steam.
        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • rmdebarc_5@sh.itjust.worksR rmdebarc_5@sh.itjust.works
          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.
          pory@lemmy.worldP This user is from outside of this forum
          pory@lemmy.worldP This user is from outside of this forum
          pory@lemmy.world
          wrote last edited by
          #224
          And the thing is... Because Steam is better for the user, it becomes better from the developer. 70% of your game's Steam revenue will *always* be bigger than 100% of your Epic revenue. It's probably bigger than *300%* of your Epic revenue. That's why Steam doesn't need to buy exclusives or run loss leaders or try to lock you in with "free!" promos. Epic needs to pay developers up front to get them to *not* go to Steam, because in every case a dual Steam/whatever-else release is better than a whatever-else release. So Epic needs to pay the indie game studio that made a $10 game a million dollars for timed exclusivity, which allows the studio to not worry about losing their Steam revenue from selling 130,000 copies. Then they release it on Steam later anyway.
          1 Reply Last reply
          0

          Reply
          • Reply as topic
          Log in to reply
          • Oldest to Newest
          • Newest to Oldest
          • Most Votes


          • 1
          • 2
          • 8
          • 9
          • 10
          • 11
          • 12
          • Login

          • Don't have an account? Register

          • Login or register to search.
          Powered by NodeBB Contributors
          • First post
            Last post
          0
          • Categories
          • Recent
          • Tags
          • Popular
          • World
          • Users
          • Groups