Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Epic Games Officially Rolls Out Their Own Game Store Alternative To Steam

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    As a consumer, we don't really want more than 1 place.. it does not help that it's a ONLINE store and we literally only need to sit on our ar$e and click our way to purchase items. I mean if there are so many online stores I have to take more time from my free time and look for the items I want. Screw the game-developers that would gladly like to hear that there are alternative platforms to deliver their games, I need just one place so I can have everything there and not care for the consequences of what can happen.

    All sarcasm aside, Valve has broken laws to get what they wanted (not intentionally as far as I know.. it has more about the before-times of the "return an item" policy), and I mean terms for the Steam platform to exist in said country.
    Last edited by Sethox; 12-04-2018, 11:40 AM.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
      It is not a tax, those who sell more have no obligation to pay more. If anything, Valve should put the cost at 10% for everyone. 10% is a lot of money, when you are doing NOTHING other than managing a website with a desktop client.
      Why would it be a "obligation" to pay more, just because it's a tax? You're saying that like it's an obvious truth and a law of nature.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
        Sadly, Valve enjoyed a monopoly with fat profit margins for years without really thinking about the future. They stopped making quality games, they stopped really improving their engines, and they kept fleecing their clients. As a result, alternatives became viable...

        I suppose this explains why Valve cut down on their royalties recently...
        Engine part is not true, they also not only keep getting more and more money - they spend it on things like Proton and DXVK. Would you expect Ubisoft, EA or Epic doing something similar? Even GOG don't do this.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
          Engine part is not true, they also not only keep getting more and more money - they spend it on things like Proton and DXVK. Would you expect Ubisoft, EA or Epic doing something similar? Even GOG don't do this.
          Ubisoft and EA, yeah don't see them investing into open source tech. CD Projekt with their GOG, could have done that, they use wine wrappers for some of games they have.
          But in the end GOG is not at the same margin level as Steam to invest into marginal market. Heck, they still do not have their Galaxy client available for Linux, if you have a lot of linux games on GOG it is pain to install/uninstall and update'em.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by Azpegath View Post

            Why would it be a "obligation" to pay more, just because it's a tax? You're saying that like it's an obvious truth and a law of nature.
            A tax is based on the social contract of each nation, citizens pay for their nation's needs according to their ability. Obviously richer citizens should pay more because in the end, they rely on that nation's laws in order to be rich in the first place... If no national order existed, not to mention infastructure etc, the rich 1% would have been slaughtered long ago by the working class they keep exploiting since forever... So to pay more if they are rich is the least they should do...

            Comment


            • #16
              The problem with all this stores is, that if they suddenly go bankrupt or otherwise just close the shop you lose access to all your games.

              So why should I trust the Epic store? Valve have shown that Steam isn't just an experiment and will probably not just vanish. Can we say the same thing about the Epic store?

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by RussianNeuroMancer View Post
                Engine part is not true, they also not only keep getting more and more money - they spend it on things like Proton and DXVK. Would you expect Ubisoft, EA or Epic doing something similar? Even GOG don't do this.
                WTF i am reading?

                Engine part is not true? How come? Source 2 isn't that great.

                As for their "investment" on Proton/DXVK, you must be joking, right? You seriously are joking... Tell me you are joking...

                Dude, do you even begin to realize how much money they have made over the years just by sitting pretty and collecting royalties? We are talking billions of dollars here... All with almost no investment on their part.

                And you want to tell me the fact that they employ what, 10 linux devs in total, is a big expense? Get real...

                If Valve was really serious about the Linux effort, things would have been much better by now...

                Reality is Valve has not been investing into anything, really. They don't make games, at least not AAA ones.

                Let's hope they at least have plans in store for a console and some exclusives, otherwise they are going downhill fast.

                It is the digital world. Applications can be replaced in an instant if something is more attractive...

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

                  Just think, all Valve needed to do was implement a progressive royalty system. 10% up to $100,000, 15% between 100,000 and 1,000,000, 20% for anything above that.

                  There you go, Valve. A random stoner on Phoronix just solved the problem of losing developers to other platforms.
                  Lol, you mean regressive royalty system, when useless garbage pay 30% and AAA developers only 20%? Well, according to recent news, they've already done this.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    So, I'm going to write something that will probably be *wildly* unpopular:

                    Having an effective monopoly leads to strong standardisation across the ecosystem in question (see systemd and Linux), which frees up resources to focus on what matters (the game/application rather than the plumbing/distribution channel).

                    Because Steam has been the de-facto digital storefront for the past 10 years, we are able to use Steam on Linux for PC, a platform that is effectively a niche within the PC niche (PC sales are *dwarfed* by the units moved on the mobile and console side).

                    And because of the revenue Steam has generated over the years, Valve was able to invest into various stuff such as Vulkan and DXVK to be able to bring more games to Linux.

                    Now, what are the odds that the alternative digital storefronts (EA et. al) will target *anything* but Windows in the short to mid term? That's right, close to zero.

                    Dear Valve: Good job losing the developer mindshare you so labourously built up. Now you'll end up screwing over Linux too even if that was never your intent. =/

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post

                      It is not a tax, those who sell more have no obligation to pay more. If anything, Valve should put the cost at 10% for everyone. 10% is a lot of money, when you are doing NOTHING other than managing a website with a desktop client.

                      The reason Valve used to get 30% was because 10 years ago retail stores cost a lot to distribute games, but now that digital distribution is more widespread and there are alternatives there really is no justification. If anything, i believe even a 5% cut should be very lucrative by 2018 standards. Webservers and bandwidth are cheap these days...
                      Valve operates a multi-OS storefront, stores & distributes the games & relative updates and DLC, hosts user produced game mods, and more. While 30% is indeed high and absurd, simply using a lower percentage and going with it won't work as well because it'll either be another needlessly high number for Indie Devs or not high enough to cover the resources and staff needed for Big Devs.

                      They need to operate in a progressive manner because a game with 10,000 users doesn't use near the bandwidth and resources as a game with 1,000,000 users. Big Name Studio releasing a game might have hundreds of thousands to hundreds of millions users and that's a shitload of bandwidth and resources. Little Name Studio will have a fraction of those users unless it gets lucky and becomes the next Cuphead.

                      By doing it progressive, you only pay Valve more as you gain users and profits so Valve can appropriately manage the back end; update storage when necessary, pay more people to run their servers so you actually have a place to sell stuff, cover bandwidth from advertising and users streaming videos related to the game, host and moderate forums/reviews/etc.

                      It's a business and they have to make a profit. Treating everyone equally screws either the big studios or the little studios. There is no one magic number that is fair to all. Progressive allows the smaller companies to do more with their profits to become a big company and lets the big companies cover all the extra resources they use.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X