• Tim Sweeney- If Valve commits to permanent 88/12 cut, we will stop exclusivity
    281 replies, posted
It does show valve isn’t exploiting the cut though. Epic isnt standing against loot boxes, or crunch. They plot both. Why do you think they’re less scummy? Or exploitative?
Dude... The fuck?
Huh. So 30% cuts are child labour now?
I hate all the people who say this is great for the industry and all that shit. They really need to research into it a bit more instead of spouting ignorant nonsense. Honestly the only thing I think Valve could potentially do to match Epic is to offer services to developers for different price points. Put your game barebones onto Steam and they only take a 12% cut. Want the full set of features and offer your game for sale in developing countries etc, charge them 30%. This way the developers will see what Valve is offering vs Epics barebones store.
no. i don't I was just seriously astounded at the unapologetic shitpostery going on. Sorry if i was being unclear.
How many indie games make it onto the Epic store at all that aren't already media darlings? If you're not a well known indie title you're not getting that exclusivity deal. You're also not getting on the platform itself.
What you're saying is nonsense hyperbolic crap. It's classic misdirection.
No it isn't. Epic does this because they print money with Fortnite, and even that isn't a safe bet for the long run. And devs are going for epic just because of the money upfront. It amazes me how people are bothered by dev cuts more than not getting the features they should have.
Not really, the creators of the original XCOM(A BIG NAME IN THE INDUSTRY) ran a crowdfunder and the media hyped it.
I can't tell if this is your corporate humping habit talking or naivety
No it wasn't. It had a very successful crowdfunding campaign and is headed by the father of the XCOM series.
… Neither is valve. Or are we forgetting the TF2 crates predating lootboxes? You're right about the crunch thing though. Valve doesn't do that. You kinda need projects to push out on deadlines in order to have crunch time, I mean.
Yeah, it's a point about how this isn't something new, isn't something that Valve did to just tear money away from developers. It's a standard from before Valve, that they didn't create, that the existence of didn't hamper the industry at all. It's entirely irrelevant to the other bullshit you tried to associate it with. Fucks sake, employees washing their hands when they leave the bathroom is standard too. But it's not fucking relevant to the conversation or at all related to the subject of revenue splitting.
XCOM is one of the gold standards for strategy games, with the ones from Firaxis insuring the series as a household name in gaming.
Of course Valve doesn't have crunch, Valve doesn't make video games anymore
It would really put Epic in a spot where people would be laughing at them instead of being pissed at them if Valve counteracted this weird ultimatum with an actual game announcement. But you know, valve time, flat structure, etc. I fucking swear, if Steam turned out to be a flop or just a mild success then Valve would have been bought out a long ass time ago. They're worse then Double Fine I would say that, but double fine released a literally unfinished game... touche...
They're ditching Valve because Epic is paying the millions in straight cash, backed up by guaranteed sales. They're not doing it because of the revenue share. In fact no one even talked about the revenue share until Epic gaslit the whole situation. EA and the others made their own storefronts because they could and they could simply have a captive audience where they only answer to themselves.
Lootboxes aren't an industry standard, nor are microtransactions. Those are things forced down our throats and sadly accepted. The 30% cut has been there since forever, and nobody contested it until Epic showed along waving fortnite cash promising loads of things for exclusivity deals. Devs like Epic's deal because they get a shitload of extra money upfront, to the point of not caring about anything else. Epic's deal isn't sustainable forever either.
Sold nearly a million copies at least, even if it was all half price(30 instead of 60) it's blowing past Valve's cut reduction line. And thats the low end of the sales number since we can't verify how many total. Steamspy says 2-5 million. Meanwhile Phoenix Point was fully funded by a crowdfunder. Where are all these indie games again that are having trouble getting visibility and sales, but show up on the Epic store?
Yes, that's exactly why they're doing it. Ubisoft doesn't even need to release it on another storefront because, as you said, they have their own. And they're not "niche" either. So yeah. They absolutely did do it because they got paid for it. We're not talking about all strategy games. We're talking about XCOM and Phoenix Point. Stay on topic.
This should be linked to as much as the Janus Vesta post. It's so simple why people are upset over the EGS, those in support of the EGS seem to either ignore this point or argue it with incredibly bad faith.
Fuck off Tim.
Considering that they can only really offer these deals and probably their so toted 12 percent cut via their fortnite money printer, which gave them around 2.4 Billion fucking dollars to toss around by the end of 2018, they can afford to have their store operate at a loss since they lack something like a good 70% of features that steam offers, and when their printer runs out of ink they'll be hiking up their cut in the end like everyone else. Not to mention, the '30% cut' steam makes is, in reality, is averaging around 20%, due to upkeep costs for services provided, third party purchasers who make up around 28% of game purchases for headline titles, along with other stores taking their cuts from steam keys. Not to mention a much touted pro to that lower cut epic offers, lowered prices, is basically never going to happen for any large release. Have fun paying up to 20% more due to processing fees, regional pricing, or whatever else they can get away with.
It was a safe assumption on an online store's operating margin. Granted, time has changed, and everybody want things to be better, fairer for all sides. However, neither side has or declined to show proof on new rate's feasibility. So the argument ends there. I am unsure where you are trying to bring this conversation to, but I'll humor you. You are right on EGS bringing in a few niche games, by all right, most high profile indies can be considered as such. They are making deals with almost every facet of genres to draw people in. Many other developers were denied entry. We do not know how much they are giving to AAA publishers to secure their exclusivity. There is no public nor accurate data on rely on how well EGS games are selling. Furthermore, they (AAA games) are multi-platform. I think most publishers are more than willing to give it a try, given that nobody knows how bad the outrage impact sales. Any major publisher big enough to manage their own store will try to evade any form of distributor cut. They have their own channels for mass marketing and exposure. They don't need any other store. I don't know what any of this information leads to. What are you trying to prove?
In fact just to expand upon this a bit, the fact Ubisoft is releasing on any store other than their own shows the revenue share doesn't matter because no other store is giving them the 100% profit of their own store.
Strategy games are niche, but in that genre, XCOM and Phoenix Point are well known and have gotten plenty of media coverage. The point being made, whether it's accurate or not, is that you probably won't be able to get an independent game on the Epic Store unless you're getting a decent amount of publicity. If you're a no-name independent developer who is just starting out, getting the media coverage that is required probably won't be very easy.
Jerk of the year award goes to this retard.
In other words, only indie games with clout or media connections benefit from EGS.
Yeah I guess if your point of comparison is a fucking Call of Duty or Battlefield game, then yeah maybe XCOM looks niche. But then if you compare XCOM to 90% of the games on Steam, XCOM looks like the holy fucking grail. But the XCOM games aren't niche no matter how you try to argue it. They're a very popular, very well received franchise. Your turn: What about the 30% split itself is the issue? What makes the 30% split exploitative or problematic. Not, "Well because devs are going for a different split." Only the 30% itself. Can you actually articulate a reason?
Being a mess with a lot of games in it of varying qualities from "Genre-defining" to "Trash someone made in five minutes", there are a lot of games bogging down Steam. As such, a lot of titles get buried. Devs often have to dedicate resources to spreading word of mouth and for smaller indie guys, that's incredibly hard. Almost makes the offer of a smaller userbase but a larger cut an incredibly tempting offer.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.