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

​

 

[DarknessPlay3r]

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”

Epic has been a sustainable business for quite some time now. However this is the first time they have managed success on this level. 88% is laughable, simply due to what's offered for that cut of sales. They missed the boat when it comes to the online store front so now they have to do things like this to build the base on which to stand.

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.

You have to realize Epic doesn't care about the customer once they have their money from them. Which in some ways is true in all business, however Epic has a bad history of doing/saying things that let this fact shine through brightly. In their history they also have a bad habit of treating it's customers like pirate scum that affects actual paying customers. That along with countless other issues leaves people with a bad opinion about Epic as a business that will be distributing games people want.

It's understandable that they want to retain profits to the best of their ability but alienating and pissing off your customer base isn't the way. Take Borderlands 3 for example, a smart play would be to sell it for more on steam (to help compensate for lost revenue) and then put it on sale for less on the Epic store because they own the store front. Choice is always important, no one want's to be forced into anything. Instead they want to force people to choose their store front. To that I say good luck...

 

[SG854]

Epic has been a sustainable business for quite some time now. However this is the first time they have managed success on this level. 88% is laughable, simply due to what's offered for that cut of sales. They missed the boat when it comes to the online store front so now they have to do things like this to build the base on which to stand.


You have to realize Epic doesn't care about the customer once they have their money from them. Which in some ways is true in all business, however Epic has a bad history of doing/saying things that let this fact shine through brightly. In their history they also have a bad habit of treating it's customers like pirate scum that affects actual paying customers. That along with countless other issues leaves people with a bad opinion about Epic as a business that will be distributing games people want.

It's understandable that they want to retain profits to the best of their ability but alienating and pissing off your customer base isn't the way. Take Borderlands 3 for example, a smart play would be to sell it for more on steam (to help compensate for lost revenue) and then put it on sale for less on the Epic store because they own the store front. Choice is always important, no one want's to be forced into anything. Instead they want to force people to choose their store front. To that I say good luck...

All businesses have to care about the customers or they loose customers. Just pay attention to the complaints here about Epic, or your own points you made and you’ll see why it’s important for a business to care about satisfying the customers.

Getting money and stop caring is a bad strategy if they want any people to continue to use their store front.

 

[Kioku]

All businesses have to care about the customers or they loose customers. Just pay attention to the complaints here about Epic, or your own points you made and you’ll see why it’s important for a business to care about satisfying the customers.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Getting money and stop caring is a bad strategy if they want any people to continue to use their store front.

Right, it's important.. But not to Sweeney...

 

[SG854]

Right, it's important.. But not to Sweeney...

He’s going to have to change if they want to do well. They already have a large user base of 40 million people each month mostly from Fortnite. Which is really impressive for a new store front. They have the attention, they have a good cut for developers, they just need better execution.

 

[Xzi]

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.

Seriously? That's your take away? It should be, "EGS is appealing for publishers, repulsive for customers." Buying up third-party exclusives doesn't exactly win you a lot of positive attention from customers. None of the other launcher-storefronts did this, not even EA's Origin, and certainly not Steam.

EGS does not even work in many countries right now. Their 'offline mode' barely functions too, and will kick you out of single-player games if you lose connection. Too many problems to list, really. Epic can't compete with Steam until they can at least compete with Origin, UPlay, Battle.net, etc.

 

[Commodore4eva]

That would be great if Valve takes Epic Games offer or forced condition. However, the share holders and investor's are gonna be against it at Valve. Moreover, Valve will probably offer payment privately which will be rejected by Epic immediately. If NDAs aren't signed Epic will put them on blast for taking that action.

 

[Kioku]

That would be great if Valve takes Epic Games offer or forced condition. However, the share holders and investor's are gonna be against it at Valve. Moreover, Valve will probably offer payment privately which will be rejected by Epic immediately. If NDAs aren't signed Epic will put them on blast for taking that action.

What logical reason would Valve have to "accept" such an awful bluff? Steam works. It just WORKS. You want a surefire platform where your game can reach a massive audience? Steam. Even Uplay has purchases through Steam as a bit of a proxy. The 12% cut is a bribe at this point and is a sour attempt at undercutting the corporate giants. It wouldn't be so bad, honestly, if Sweeney were truly pro consumer. He's not. Epic is not. Gearbox (Pitchford can choke on it) is not. This has nothing to do with us, the consumer... And EVERYTHING to do with a child hoping to get his way by thrashing around.

This whole drama revolving around the EGS is just a sign of the times.

 

[Raestloz]

What logical reason would Valve have to "accept" such an awful bluff?

None, there's no logical reason for Valve to do it

Epic is trying to paint themselves as the good guy, that's literally the only reason they'd even say something remotely similar to this. The only weapon Epic has is money, and Epic is desperately trying to make consumers not look at all the FREE features Steam has:

1. Free cloud saves
2. Working offline mode
3. Linux support (including Proton)
4. DualShock 4 support
5. Game streaming
6. Family sharing
7. Mod integration system (Workshop)
8. Forums, media sharing
9. Dedicated game download servers
10. Game versioning
11. Online multiplayer framework
12. Online chat

Which is why the only thing Epic ever say is about money. The moment anyone mentions the features Steam has, Epic lost.

 

[71r3n]

Haha that comin from E.A? Nah thx, just dont playany game that comes through E.A Store or crack it. Easily done.

Dont get it how ppl even think about this. E.A is a bitch.

 

[Daggot]

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

*publishers
FTFY!

 

[Silent_Gunner]

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.

And to add to that, they're owned by TenCent, which is essentially owned by the Chinese government, who instituted a social credit system. Because fuck free will, amirite?

 

[Rolf12]

And to add to that, they're owned by TenCent, which is essentially owned by the Chinese government, who instituted a social credit system. Because fuck free will, amirite?

That's something of a far cry.
First, that's many steps up the ownership ladder.
Second, what does anyone who hasn't lived in China know about it other than what English-speaking media says?
Third, in which country is valve located and how are this countrys ties between corporations and government?

 

[Foxi4]

People never learn that more competition on the market is better. Yes, it's mighty convenient to run just one launcher, but you know what's even better than convenience? Not having to deal with a monopoly in the digital retail space. The Epic store came out of nowhere and really stirred the pot, I fully expect them to really improve the overall PC landscape, if only by prodding Valve and forcing them to fix their own store.

 

[Xzi]

People never learn that more competition on the market is better. Yes, it's mighty convenient to run just one launcher, but you know what's even better than convenience? Not having to deal with a monopoly in the digital retail space. The Epic store came out of nowhere and really stirred the pot, I fully expect them to really improve the overall PC landscape, if only by prodding Valve and forcing them to fix their own store.

More real competition would be great. Unfortunately, EGS is not competitive with Steam by any measure. And third-party exclusivity severely limits the customer's buying options, it's the opposite of promoting competition.

EGS is what? The eighth or ninth launcher-storefront released that's supposed to dethrone Steam? The only way it's stirring the pot at this point is by driving people to piracy.

 

[Foxi4]

More real competition would be great. Unfortunately, EGS is not competitive with Steam by any measure. And third-party exclusivity severely limits the customer's buying options, it's the opposite of promoting competition.

EGS is what? The eighth or ninth launcher-storefront released that's supposed to dethrone Steam? The only way it's stirring the pot at this point is by driving people to piracy.

Does it though? I don't think it does. I don't particularly care which icon I have to click to run my game, I only care about getting it cheaper and earlier - EGS fulfills those needs. If you don't want it on your Epic launcher, vote with your wallet and wait for the Steam release, I don't see the problem.

 

[Xzi]

Does it though? I don't think it does. I don't particularly care which icon I have to click to run my game, I only care about getting it cheaper and earlier - EGS fulfills those needs.

Cheaper, not so much. EGS doesn't allow third-party key redemption, and it seems like they're keeping games at MSRP for as long as possible. They haven't shown any inclination for regular sales like Steam yet, either.

And while you may not care about basic features like library sorting or functioning offline support, these have long ago become standard features for all of EGS' competition. The result of inconveniencing customers is always going to be lost sales.

 

[Foxi4]

Cheaper, not so much. EGS doesn't allow third-party key redemption, and it seems like they're keeping games at MSRP for as long as possible. They haven't shown any inclination for regular sales like Steam yet, either.

And while you may not care about basic features like library sorting or functioning offline support, these have long ago become standard features for all of EGS' competition. The result of inconveniencing customers is always going to be lost sales.

You didn't catch my drift. Steam and other retailers, by the virtue of having access to the software later, will have to sell it at a discount price. Things like this have to balance out.

 

[Xzi]

You didn't catch my drift. Steam and other retailers, by the virtue of having access to the software later, will have to sell it at a discount price. Things like this have to balance out.

The publishers set the pricing, though. So there are no guarantees in that regard.

 

[Foxi4]

The publishers set the pricing, though. So there are no guarantees in that regard.

They won't have a choice in this regard but to discount the product if they intend to sell it, no force is stronger than that of the free market. Expect more sales, more bundles and more deals, across the board.

 

[kuwanger]

Epic is desperately trying to make consumers not look at all the FREE features Steam has:

1. Free cloud saves
2. Working offline mode
3. Linux support (including Proton)
4. DualShock 4 support
5. Game streaming
6. Family sharing
7. Mod integration system (Workshop)
8. Forums, media sharing
9. Dedicated game download servers
10. Game versioning
11. Online multiplayer framework
12. Online chat

(2), (5), and (10) are mostly jokes, IMHO. Real "working offline mode" would mean consistently working offline. Epic might be worse is that regard--although so far every free EGS game has worked for me on Linux without EGS. (3) is the best thing so far for me, but it doesn't work well with (1)--cloud saves with Proton are a crapshoot. I can't speak for (4) or (11). (6) is nice in theory but in practice "family sharing" is handled as one giant mutex lock (ie, only you or family can play games in the library) which makes it somewhat worthless (not entirely, but close). (8) and (12) are basically the same thing, and honestly Steam's chat function sucks pretty terribly. Really, Steam's whole UI sucks. (7) is one of the real nice highlights...for the few games that really support it well; for the most part (7) competes against DLC which means it's mostly a non-starter. (9) seems like an odd statement since there's internet wide caching services that I imagine most game stores could use if they don't want to run their own.

Basically, I wouldn't say your list is worthless. It's just, a lot of the list is really subpar in my opinion. I generally dread using Steam as a UI and don't enjoy much of how it functions. Yes, there are much worse interfaces. That's not really saying much. Most of what Steam has is what Facebook has: the network effect. It's never been to me that Steam Client has been especially great. It's just that for a long time there was no one, Steam offered just enough DRM to get buy-in without being onerous, and now we're seeing a lot of other companies trying to usurp it for their own cut. Maybe Netflix would be an even better analogy. Or Microsoft and feature parity. So, I guess as much as I have such a low opinion of Steam Client, I do agree with your list as a whole. *shrug*