Epic Games says that it'll stop pursuing exclusive titles if Valve gives devs more of a cut

supersaiyandoyle · Apr 30, 2019

The only game that's Epic Exclusive that even looks remotely interesting is Borderlands 3, and if it's anything like the games after 1, I'll pass.

tech3475 · Apr 30, 2019

Sounds like a bluff.

I suspect the reason for all this is to establish themselves in the market as a rival to steam by basically forcing people to use it who may otherwise avoid it, especially with it being objectively inferior as a game launcher, only slowly introducing features such as cloud saves.

I can’t see them stopping this practice until they either think they’re established or they're giving up.

Even then, I could still see them using something like revenue share for the UE engine to entice exclusivity.

BORTZ · Apr 30, 2019

Sounds like PR virtue signalling to shift the focus away from their shitty business practices. Much like Blizzard "announced" that one of their ""digital video game characters"" was """gay""" to shift the public's attention away from the fact that Acti/Blizz was under a massive fraud audit.

brunocar · Apr 30, 2019

FAST6191 said:
Is it unsustainable? Valve being a private company we don't have hard numbers for them. We could try to zero in on some numbers based on expected play/download rates of things and hardware refresh cycles but I don't see the requirements being into the realms of "absolutely needs custom hardware and hardcore custom made storage setups designed for niche uses". Nothing outside the realms of what a reasonably competent tech company with reasonable means has at their disposal.

As far as less consumer friendly. Both are DRM services and download providers without an interest in allowing game resale. Six of one, half a dozen of another from where I sit. I would rather they both became download services with a sale frontend if they have to exist but if I have to live with them then if they are no different...

you dont seem very informed on how Steam's APIs work, they CAN be used as DRM, it doesnt mean it must be DRM, games like Streets of Rogue use the steam works API and yet are completly DRM free, you can run it without launching steam, its devs that chose to use it as DRM.

FAST6191 · Apr 30, 2019

brunocar said:
you dont seem very informed on how Steam's APIs work, they CAN be used as DRM, it doesnt mean it must be DRM, games like Streets of Rogue use the steam works API and yet are completly DRM free, you can run it without launching steam, its devs that chose to use it as DRM.

I was aware of that but even so what do the numbers say and even without it why would I let up on them?

diggeloid · Apr 30, 2019

This is some stupid shit. "If Valve takes pity on us and gives up one of their key competitive advantages so that our business model at least has a chance even though our actual business is doing shit right now, then we'll stop our assault on Valve's marketplace via exclusives, even though it's hurting us a lot more than them."

reddragon105 · Apr 30, 2019

x65943 said:
This is called a bluff

He knows steam won't call his bluff because it would mean losing tons of revenue

Therefore it is a safe bluff

Yeah, and at the moment most gamers have an established Steam library and would prefer to add games to it rather than start a new account at a new store, which is why the reaction to the Epic Store exclusives has been overwhelmingly negative despite the fact that it's selling the same games at the same price to the consumer but with the developer getting a bigger cut, which is all positive stuff but it's counterbalanced by the agressive way Epic is pursuing those exclusives and the fact that it's taking the choice of where to buy the games away from the consumer.
And I'd bet that most, if not all, Epic Store exclusives are just timed exclusives - as has already been confirmed with Borderlands 3. So Valve doesn't need to reduce its cut because it will be making money from these games anyway, from all the people who will just wait until they're available on Steam - and they'll probably still sell more copies on Steam even after months on the Epic Store, so for developers it will be a case of getting a smaller percentage of a larger number of sales, so more money overall.
I'm all for developers getting a larger cut, but this feels more like Epic trying to drive people towards their store.

brunocar · Apr 30, 2019

FAST6191 said:
I was aware of that but even so what do the numbers say and even without it why would I let up on them?

what? i dont understand you

FAST6191 · Apr 30, 2019

brunocar said:
what? i dont understand you

You went off about how Steam does not have to be a DRM system and it is devs that choose it.
I then wondered why if a vanishingly small number of devs opt not to use it and instead use its other meagre offerings then why I would care? Moreover Steam has so much other nastiness in its history which would eclipse that, even if I did consider it notable in this.

brunocar · May 1, 2019

FAST6191 said:
You went off about how Steam does not have to be a DRM system and it is devs that choose it.
I then wondered why if a vanishingly small number of devs opt not to use it and instead use its other meagre offerings then why I would care? Moreover Steam has so much other nastiness in its history which would eclipse that, even if I did consider it notable in this.

what the hell, meagre offerings? epic launcher doesnt even have achivements yet, let alone master server hosting, well documented APIs, the steam workshop (torchlight 2 can be bought in nearly all platforms, but steam is the more popular thanks to workshop), its easier for indie devs to publish in, valve doesnt take money from key sales unlike epic, region locking is not optional, etc.

gamesquest1 · May 1, 2019

the way i see it is competition is good.....buuuutttt bribing people to not sell on a specific platform is the opposite of competition, if epic believes they offer a better service for consumers and developers people would naturally shift over to using them without any arm twisting, i dislike the process of bribing people to damage the competition, same goes for timed PS4 exclusive, but at least there you have a slightly better argument of the bribe maybe just being used to speed up development on one platform at the expense of the other, but in this case that argument is out the window

why not just offer the same rate as steam and use that 18% difference to always have games 18% cheaper than on steam, then your actually benefitting end users and giving them a reason to shop with you, maybe even if they split the difference and give dev's an extra 8% and reduce all prices by 10%, right now end users have zero benefits and only negatives by switching to EGS.

i think thats probably one of the main reasons people are hating on EGS, because what's the bloody point from an end user perspective, yay the publishers get more money........and? does anyone think this will be translated into actual developers getting a wage increase? or will it just be gobbled up by publishers, shareholders and CEO's

Nerdtendo · May 1, 2019

Sakitoshi said:
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 would still be wrong even with your changed comment

FAST6191 · May 1, 2019

gamesquest1 said:
the way i see it is competition is good.....buuuutttt bribing people to not sell on a specific platform is the opposite of competition, if epic believes they offer a better service for consumers and developers people would naturally shift over to using them without any arm twisting, i dislike the process of bribing people to damage the competition, same goes for timed PS4 exclusive, but at least there you have a slightly better argument of the bribe maybe just being used to speed up development on one platform at the expense of the other, but in this case that argument is out the window

why not just offer the same rate as steam and use that 18% difference to always have games 18% cheaper than on steam, then your actually benefitting end users and giving them a reason to shop with you, maybe even if they split the difference and give dev's an extra 8% and reduce all prices by 10%, right now end users have zero benefits and only negatives by switching to EGS.

i think thats probably one of the main reasons people are hating on EGS, because what's the bloody point from an end user perspective, yay the publishers get more money........and? does anyone think this will be translated into actual developers getting a wage increase? or will it just be gobbled up by publishers, shareholders and CEO's

Does it count as a bribe? Functionally it seems like Epic are acting as a secondary publisher/investor. The devs/original pubs are not being forced to break a contract or the law, or make a choice based on things other than merits or other free choice...
Beating it on price is a viable plan too, and I would like to see such a thing but at the same time this also seems perfectly valid. As far as business goes I reckon there is a stronger case for driving your userbase numbers up via this than some spillover from the cheap bastard set.

I dislike exclusivity in games, not that it means that much in this instance (in one instance you are playing on a generic windows PC, in the other a generic windows PC -- no new hardware, subscriptions, cross platform woes...), and would happily see it vanish tomorrow in all forms but the differences here seem fairly minor and trifling when all is said and done.

gamesquest1 · May 1, 2019

FAST6191 said:
Does it count as a bribe? Functionally it seems like Epic are acting as a secondary publisher/investor. The devs/original pubs are not being forced to break a contract or the law, or make a choice based on things other than merits or other free choice...
Beating it on price is a viable plan too, and I would like to see such a thing but at the same time this also seems perfectly valid. As far as business goes I reckon there is a stronger case for driving your userbase numbers up via this than some spillover from the cheap bastard set.

I dislike exclusivity in games, not that it means that much in this instance (in one instance you are playing on a generic windows PC, in the other a generic windows PC -- no new hardware, subscriptions, cross platform woes...), and would happily see it vanish tomorrow in all forms but the differences here seem fairly minor and trifling when all is said and done.

when you have finished games pulling out of steam just before release....yeah i would class that as bribery, they didn't do anything to help development, they just swooped in last minute and said "hey, want a little pile of cash to screw over our competition" if i saw them funding new projects then sure, thats perfectly fine, i wouldn't expect nintendo to help in the development of a game and then sell it on other consoles....they could, but i wouldn't blame them for not doing so, but this just seems like little bribes to executives to go with a less popular option to line their own pockets, i saw a few comments from devs saying that they didn't want to go with a EGS exclusive deal but they were forced by upper management

ultimately it just smells like a backhander deal to a few interested parties than any sort of consensus of a desired direction by developers and publishers as a whole

anyway my main point is just that if you have to pay for an exclusivity deal it kinda stands to reason you know your store front isn't able to compete on merit and you can only win by taking away competition....sure its a totally valid way of doing business, but not something i would consider good or fair, that also said, i totally understand the desire of EGS to do so to gain market share, but as a consumer and not an invested party it has no positives for me at all

FAST6191 · May 1, 2019

gamesquest1 said:
when you have finished games pulling out of steam just before release....yeah i would class that as bribery, they didn't do anything to help development, they just swooped in last minute and said "hey, want a little pile of cash to screw over our competition" if i saw them funding new projects then sure, thats perfectly fine, i wouldn't expect nintendo to help in the development of a game and then sell it on other consoles....they could, but i wouldn't blame them for not doing so, but this just seems like little bribes to executives to go with a less popular option to line their own pockets, i saw a few comments from devs saying that they didn't want to go with a EGS exclusive deal but they were forced by upper management

ultimately it just smells like a backhander deal to a few interested parties than any sort of consensus of a desired direction by developers and publishers as a whole

anyway my main point is just that if you have to pay for an exclusivity deal it kinda stands to reason you know your store front isn't able to compete on merit and you can only win by taking away competition....sure its a totally valid way of doing business, but not something i would consider good or fair, that also said, i totally understand the desire of EGS to do so to gain market share, but as a consumer and not an invested party it has no positives for me at all

I am still pretty far from bribe, be it legal sense of "common understanding" sense, and if it plausibly allows a post launch patch fest/new features jam or keeps lights on then even better. Forgot to add to the list above then I don't know what, if anything, Valve had done for the games in question or if they could otherwise could have said to have been snubbed by the move -- the steam logo on a trailer is functionally just a PC logo for most these days the same way the Windows one might have once been one and it is hardly like being on steam is a mark of quality.

If you are going up against a business with something dominating the field (and Steam is essentially a monopoly) then generally to achieve traction you have to market your way into it. This falls under that from where I sit.

Positives. Right now, sure. Future. I am hoping Steam gets taken down a peg or three.
Negatives. Other than sticking your email and a new pass in another account to add to the list... we are down to technicalities and personal preference.

Frederica Bernkastel · May 1, 2019

I thought that it was Sweeney Todd who blew off steam by giving people hair-cuts for a price, but turns out that it's Tim Sweeney who's blowing off Steam for giving people hair-cuts on price.

Pluupy · May 4, 2019

Sakitoshi said:
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.

Implying people can't just own both Nintendo and Playstation consoles.

Stop with the tribalism.

Active Member

Well-Known Member

DO NOT SCREENSHOT

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

Alex

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

Nabnut

Your friendly neighborhood idiot

Techromancer

Nabnut

Techromancer

Well-Known Member

_(:3」∠)_

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum