Tim Sweeney has been actively defending the policy of Epic Games acquiring all sorts of exclusives for its new storefront. The most recent comment from the CEO is a bold one this time; he claims that if Valve were to increase the revenue share that developers earn on Steam, Epic would back down from hoarding exclusive titles, and would even consider putting Epic-made games on Steam as a sign of extending an olive branch. Currently, Epic Games offers an 88% cut, as opposed to Steam's 70%, though the latter slightly changed their policy last year, to offer 75% once a game sells over $10 million, and a further 80% for titles that clear a $50 million earnings threshold. While Sweeney is vocal on his policy against storefronts imposing such a large percentage on developers, a 70-30 split tends to be the norm when it comes to the industry--which means unless Valve is willing to take such a massive profit cut, we won't be seeing Sweeney's claims come true any time soon.

If Steam committed to a permanent 88% revenue share for all developers and publishers without major strings attached, Epic would hastily organize a retreat from exclusives (while honoring our partner commitments) and consider putting our own games on Steam.

— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 25, 2019

​

 

[Rune]

So basically Epic are going to pretend that they do what they do, to help the developer. And act like they've got nothing to gain themselves from exclusive deals. Ok then.

 

[arceus]

Tim Sweeny is such a dumbass and only says shit to get publicity for his company. I'd like to see him go over 88% and then come back and talk to me like the horseshit he is and then tell me if he still wants Valve to go higher. He'll probably say yes because he wouldn't know how to run a company if it came up and hit him in his skull.

If Valve were to actually do this then they would have made the world's dumbest business decision in the world. They'll lose a shit ton of profits. What he's saying is to basically go higher than Epic's current "88% cut". 90% or higher is something that no company or even person would go for unless they are the dumbest company or person alive.

And he shouldn't be talking for somebody who's company is currently being buried in a shithole and even possible debt. Fortnite's being fucked like no tomorrow, the Epic Store is an epic failure...oh god I can go on forever.

tl:dr

 

[Deleted_413010]

So basically Epic are going to pretend that they do what they do, to help the developer. And act like they've got nothing to gain themselves from exclusive deals. Ok then.

If THIS is how they define help then i'd love to see what they define not helping as. The only thing their doing is putting themselves in a shit lot of debt. Sooner or later all the exclusives from the Epic Store will be moving to Steam and those other stores.

 

[kuwanger]

Steam's cut isn't a flat percentage, it goes down with higher sales.

Ah, yea apparently they recently (Nov 30, 2018) announced a sliding scale towards 75/25 at $10 million and 80/20 split at $50 million*. This happening literally a handful of days before the Epic Store opening (Dec 6, 2018) tends to imply this was done in response to Epic's Android launcher in August 2018. Clearly they've already gotten their response.

It also provides far more services and support for developers than what is made apparent to the consumer.

While I won't disagree with this, and perhaps they work on the "let major AAA studies support it all with the now-20% cut". It's still pretty clear that what Steam does offer to developers for a lot of major developers isn't really a lot. How do I know? Because EA, Ubisoft, and Epic all opened their own stores with the former two mostly exclusive to their own brand content. If Steam was pretty close to market efficient then it'd be an overall loss to self-host everything; develop your own store software, forums, market stuff; etc. Now, admittedly maybe EA and Ubisoft thought they'd be able to drag in more outside content and they'd get to take an ~30% cut; that of course implies that they see it as a good revenue source even being a minor player and not mostly revenue neutral at those levels.

I'd guess Epic's strategy is to try to offer low rates and buy exclusive access to gain market share while taunting Steam for headlines leveraging their Fortnight revenue. It's by design that they're hemorrhaging cash in the short term for hopefully long term stability. They're not a Disney or a Microsoft that could, if they choose, run a loss for a decade. The real question is could they keep the store afloat with a broad enough base at a 12% rate so long as they weren't paying for exclusive deals? My guess is maybe yes; it'd probably be revenue neutral, though (not counting their own software).

* Which is a nice way of saying, once you make $50 million in sales, Steam will only take $10 million. :/

 

[Xzi]

It's still pretty clear that what Steam does offer to developers for a lot of major developers isn't really a lot. How do I know? Because EA, Ubisoft, and Epic all opened their own stores with the former two mostly exclusive to their own brand content.

EA split over the fact that they didn't want Steam taking a cut of their microtransactions. You can buy nearly every UPlay game on Steam still, so Ubi didn't really split away from Steam as much as the others. Ultimately it's just the nature of greed. No launcher-storefront other than Steam can boast more than ~10 games worth buying and playing, yet they were all expecting to become the next juggernaut of PC gaming anyway.

 

[Deleted_413010]

You can buy nearly every UPlay game on Steam still

Honestly this is good. If Tim wouldn't be so cheap and literally put themselves in debt to try and make themselves better than Steam then we wouldn't even be having this conversation right now. My point is that if they put games from the Epic Store on Steam but using their launcher then they would get more business. I still refuse to use their launcher from that event of taking Steam account details.

uPlay actually isn't the worst platform...i've used it. I've also used Origin...so both are fine. Epic Games is the only problem I and probably everybody else on earth have.

 

[Xzi]

uPlay actually isn't the worst platform...i've used it. I've also used Origin...so both are fine. Epic Games is the only problem I and probably everybody else on earth has.

Epic are the only ones who have seemingly gone out of their way to make the customer experience as terrible as possible. They didn't even bother to include a shopping cart or a method of sorting your games library. Origin and the others aren't quite to the level of polish that Steam has, but at least they aren't nearly as bad as EGS, either.

 

[Sakitoshi]

It's mostly publishers making the decision to take money from Epic for exclusivity deals. It doesn't benefit the developers in any way to limit their sales to a single platform. 88% of jack shit is still jack shit, and EGS fails to give games the type of promotion that Steam does.

only because consumers don't want to betray steam, but offer them some juicy games and deals and they'll leave it behind.
look how quickly people jumped ship from nintendo to sony in the past generations and now with the censorship incident they are jumping back. they just need a (good for them) reason to do so.

 

[Deleted_413010]

Epic are the only ones who have seemingly gone out of their way to make the customer experience as terrible as possible. They didn't even bother to include a shopping cart or a method of sorting your games library. Origin and the others aren't quite to the level of polish that Steam has, but at least they aren't nearly as bad as EGS, either.

To tell you the god damn truth I have never once in my entire freaking life tried out the EGS. I know what its fucking like to use it just by what everybody's saying. Its like I have inside people just telling me everything wrong about it.

Here's a little tip for you Tim if your looking at this shit: If you want a successful fucking platform like Steam then stop being lazy, stop making empty comments that you don't really mean then get off your ass AND LISTEN TO FEEDBACK! DO YOU THINK FEEDBACK WAS MADE BY THE CONSUMERS FOR YOU TO JUST SIT THERE BLATANTLY IGNORING IT? NO! LISTEN TO YOUR DAMN FEEDBACK. YOU'VE PROBABLY GOT A BACKLOG OF OVER A MILLION PIECES OF SHIT YOU COULD LOOK AT AND USE TO MAKE YOU MORE SUCCESSFUL. I don't think i've ever met a bigger dumbass than you. Everything you say I take with a grain of shit. Its all lies. All you do is lie. I don't believe a fucking word you say and I never will. So you can go to hell. When your company dies or when I hear of news about your money and investors and shit falling down i'll be sitting here laughing my ass off saying "I told you so".

 

[Xzi]

only because consumers don't want to betray steam, but offer them some juicy games and deals and they'll leave it behind.

Nah, if they want EGS to compete in the long-term, they're going to have to do so on a feature by feature basis. Free games and big discounts happen on Steam all the time, so those alone aren't going to be enough to attract people to an inferior platform.

 

[bodefuceta]

Steam is cancer but chinese alternatives are not the solution

 

[Deleted_413010]

Steam is cancer but chinese alternatives are not the solution

How is Steam cancer? Please share your knowledge with me

 

[Xzi]

How is Steam cancer? Please share your knowledge with me

Some people are anti-DRM absolutists. Personally I think the benefits of Steam outweigh the negatives of its non-intrusive DRM by quite a bit, but GOG is a solid option as well.

 

[arceus]

How is Steam cancer? Please share your knowledge with me

lenny spammers :^)

 

[bodefuceta]

How is Steam cancer? Please share your knowledge with me

DRM is immoral and absolutely no fees are neccessary.

 

[Viri]

Even Sony, Microsoft and our precious Nintendo takes a 30% chunk.

Also, they give you free online, which none of the big three do. Free cloud saving, which Sony and Nintendo do not. Allows you to change your name online as many times as you want, none of which the big three do. Sony and Microsoft do allow name changes for free once or twice, then they charge you. I can probably go on, but that's all I have off the top of my head.

I actually dislike the whole store wars on PC, lol. I remember being hyped for Epic store, but then their way of competing was just buying exclusives. They don't offer the same features as Steam does, and they aren't offering the same games for a discount. None of the Epic exclusive games even interest me, and if they did, I'd just wait. Why would I want to use a bare bones client?

 

[Hells Malice]

I read the comments and is like if people don't want devs to receive money for their hard work.

It's more that most people understand the benefits of steam. 30% may sound like a lot but at the end of the day, putting a game on Steam likely means you get a fuckton more sales. Steam has a massive, massive userbase. It eclipses everyone. It's just a no-brainer. If it wasn't worth it, devs wouldn't do it. But it is. Steam does a whole lot more than just let them put a game on their storefront. What Valve does costs money, that money has to come from somewhere. It's not rocket science.

 

[driverdis]

I read the comments and is like if people don't want devs to receive money for their hard work.

I read it more as “it is not cheap to have a whole dedicated ecosystem like steam with their own CDN, app, tools for developers, and lots of consumer level stuff like achievements and a friends system”

 

[Sakitoshi]

looks like I'll need to change my comment to:
I read the comments and is like everyone works for steam and don't want them to lose any money.

 

[Kioku]

Dig bick Sweeney huffing and puffing again? Shocker.