- Joined
- Jun 24, 2006
- Messages
- 41,701
- Reaction score
- 21,722
This. I'm keeping it to Steam and GOGYou can quickly bloat your pc full of bullshit at this rate.
Nvidia
Steam
Bethesda.net
Origin
Etc etc etc.
Stop the madness!!
This. I'm keeping it to Steam and GOGYou can quickly bloat your pc full of bullshit at this rate.
Nvidia
Steam
Bethesda.net
Origin
Etc etc etc.
Stop the madness!!
Acknowledged, but how does this factor into the AAA breakoff developing today?
https://www.gamereactor.eu/articles/715363/Opinion+Why+is+Steam+Issuing+Tax+Breaks+for+the+Rich/
This is not a "tax break". This is a distribution/licensing fee. Clickbait headline in that respect, but go with it.
Steam isn't the problem. The issue is that the major game developers have grown so large now that they no longer need Steam. They are marketplaces unto themselves. Many anticipated this when EA's Origin arrived. They have a million ways to advertise their games, they can afford their own servers, negotiate their own corollary licensing contracts (as with Windows via Microsoft), and they have the technical means to deliver their own content and support in-house.
From a certain point of view Steam has something of a monopoly, so one could choose to perceive this as another form of competition to join GoG, for example, but one wonders what will become of Valve if they become another glorified platform to sell indie games. That's why I find the musing in red the most intriguing despite that I am disheartened by the prospect.
If Steam begins to charge a subscription fee, and provide perks only to subscribers, similar to the Xbox Live marketplace for Gold members, or the Playstation Network, then perhaps that could be one way of fighting back. Of course, the only truly effective way I see this working is if they prohibit online play for games they sell without a subscription.
This means PC gamers will end up paying for something that previously was a free service; an especially bitter pill considering the community has long mocked console players for this very burden.
Same here. I want to get one of the games just released at the Epic store but I'm not interested in having another launcher on my system. I believe it's a timed exclusive so I'm just going to wait until it's available on Steam. Requiring their launcher is going to cost them my business and it sounds like yours and others as well.You can quickly bloat your pc full of bullshit at this rate.
Nvidia
Steam
Bethesda.net
Origin
Etc etc etc.
Stop the madness!!
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Epic and other AAA game publishers are increasingly emboldened to diverge from Steam. Steam can't rely on the Source Engine alone to maintain market supremacy. After all, the Unreal Engine swallows Source, and it isn't just AAA games we're talking about.Like you iterated after, its doesnt apply to them because of their own creations.
Epic Games proposition is directed towards those to use or already license the Unreal Engine.
I like this idea, but the only way it works is if Wix is willing to perform this service in exchange for crumbs, and even then, not likely. That's why these other publishers/developers are breaking off. Wix might be a very appealing model to indie developers, but the big boys don't want to share revenue, anymore, and they won't be interested even in very generous early offers for revenue sharing because they will have no interest in investing in a market whose revenue streams they don't wholly control. Otherwise, at some future date, Wix may decide to arbitrarily change the contract, and up the fees. No point in risking that.Technology in this form doesn't usually regress, I envisage there will be a much more dynamic and less proprietary solution on the horizon.
For example, what if a service like Wix created tools specifically designed to help developers create a fully customised online store for their product? Not terribly far fetched.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Epic and other AAA game publishers are increasingly emboldened to diverge from Steam. Steam can't rely on the Source Engine alone to maintain market supremacy. After all, the Unreal Engine swallows Source, and it isn't just AAA games we're talking about.
World's 15 Largest Video Game Publishers
Who's next?
Take-Two? No more GTA, 2K Sports, Civilization, or even the RIP'd Bioshock on Steam.
Bandai Namco? No more Dark Souls, Divinity: Original Sin, or Project CARS.
Ubisoft? No more Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Tom Clancy, Watch Dogs, The Crew, or even South Park.
Warner Bros.? No more Batman, Lord of the Rings, or LEGO.
Bethesda? No more Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Doom, Prey, Rage, Dishonored or The Evil Within.
I like this idea, but the only way it works is if Wix is willing to perform this service in exchange for crumbs, and even then, not likely. That's why these other publishers/developers are breaking off. Wix might be a very appealing model to indie developers, but the big boys don't want to share revenue, anymore, and they won't be interested even in very generous early offers for revenue sharing because they will have no interest in investing in a market whose revenue streams they don't wholly control. Otherwise, at some future date, Wix may decide to arbitrarily change the contract, and up the fees. No point in risking that.
I get that, and I love the idea, but what I'm pointing out is that the main incentive here over a store like Steam is that these developers/publishers would get to keep a larger portion of their revenue stream by building their own store on Wix. Presumably, though, they would have to share some % of revenue with Wix as part of an ongonig licensing scheme. So when they are capable of generating their own stores, themselves, what is the incentive to share any revenue at all? They can eat the whole cake.Wix was just an example, it could come from anywhere. But, for instance, Wix already has a service to create online stores, free of charge.
I get that, and I love the idea, but what I'm pointing out is that the main incentive here over a store like Steam is that these developers/publishers would get to keep a larger portion of their revenue stream by building their own store on Wix. Presumably, though, they would have to share some % of revenue with Wix as part of an ongonig licensing scheme. So when they are capable of generating their own stores, themselves, what is the incentive to share any revenue at all? They can eat the whole cake.
Ergo, this would only be attractive to them if Wix took such a low cut, and provided such an efficient model, that it was cheaper for the developers despite giving up some revenue to use Wix instead due to the cost overhead of building & maintaining their own stores. Nonetheless, as I pointed out, unless they can sign some sort of contract in perpetuity, this doesn't prohibit Wix from upping the cost to use their service platform in the future (unless Wix could somehow get them to sign one of those 100-year contracts governments sign like this service was the Panama Canal). Even then, that isn't bulletproof, because let's be honest, companies break contracts all the time, and brave their chances in court.
So I don't see what Wix brings to the table that Steam does not, and obviously Steam is already bleeding these major companies who don't need them.
So I don't see what Wix brings to the table that Steam does not, and obviously Steam is already bleeding these major companies who don't need them.
Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that Epic and other AAA game publishers are increasingly emboldened to diverge from Steam. Steam can't rely on the Source Engine alone to maintain market supremacy. After all, the Unreal Engine swallows Source, and it isn't just AAA games we're talking about.
I didn't realize Source2 was free of charge, and I'm assuming you mention this because its use requires signing onto the Steam store in order to use it, but I linked that in order to demonstrate how little respect interest it generates. I don't know why you just brought up Frostbite, and I understand Unreal's model. Otherwise, I'm not sure what about this changes the truth to anything I wrote. You were the one who brought up game engines. I didn't see that as the impetus for exodus by these AAA developers.Source2 is an engine developed for Valve game IP's thats made free of charge to outside developers if they choose to use it. While Frostbite is an in-house game engine for EA. Unreal Engine is strictly developed for outside game developers to license.
I don't know why you just brought up Frostbite, and I understand Unreal's model. Otherwise, I'm not sure what about this changes the truth to anything I wrote. You were the one who brought up game engines. I didn't see that as the impetus for exodus by these AAA developers.
Well, yeah, that's just more feeding my speculation in the OP. These other major companies are now opposing Steam.For context with game engines to their uses.
Its clear to me that Epic Games portal pricing structure is designed for Unreal Engine licensees. Ran into some reports last night that Epic Games are(allegedly) backdoor paying developers to use their online store and additionally requiring them to sign an online store exclusivity agreement.
Red October destroyed hardware vendors, too. I think this probably has more to with that tech fallout for the stock market in general, and probably also investor speculation with Tencent looming as the elephant in the room. I'm not sure how that is linked to Steam's troubles.When it comes to TripleA game companies. Information i ran across last night was also troubling. Ones we view as TripleA that are publicly traded. All lost nearly 50% of their stock value in the past six months.
Well, yeah, that's just more feeding my speculation in the OP. These other major companies are now opposing Steam.
The Division 2 will release on the Epic Store, not Steam (Jan-9, 2019)Opposing Steam isnt their intended goal. To be viewed as such it'll need to be a coordinated effort on the same portal to directly counter Steam. Instead we have fragmented portals relegated to their owned IP's.
You were wrong...again.
Opposing Steam isnt their intended goal. To be viewed as such it'll need to be a coordinated effort on the same portal to directly counter Steam. Instead we have fragmented portals relegated to their owned IP's.
You inadequately construed what i wrote and morphed it into something else. Here is what i said which was specifically pointed at a sub-topic of our discussion:
That civil conversion we had two months ago youre now trying to torpedo by bending it to mean something else.
You can borrow my crystal ball anytime, bud.You inadequately construed what i wrote and morphed it into something else. Here is what i said which was specifically pointed at a sub-topic of our discussion:
That civil conversion we had two months ago youre now trying to torpedo by bending it to mean something else.
Tim Sweeney promises more cooperation if Steam ups its revenue share.
Epic Games threw a grenade into the world of digital distribution when it revealed its own storefront late last year, complete with a better deal for developers than anything offered by Steam, the longstanding king of PC gaming. The Epic Games Store has a revenue-share model of 88 percent for developers and 12 percent for Epic, handily outpacing Steam's standard split of 70/30.
This has given Epic an edge, and the company has lured a slew of high-profile developers away from Steam, complete with plans to launch their titles exclusively on the Epic Games Store. The list includes Super Meat Boy Forever, Metro: Exodus, The Division 2, Borderlands 3, Detroit: Become Human, Afterparty and the final season of Telltale's The Walking Dead. Many of these games will eventually hit Steam and other platforms, but they'll be exclusive to the Epic store for a long while first.
However, this could all change. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney tweeted a challenge to Steam on Wednesday night
Five months down the road and there's little point any longer in denying that Epic is posing a serious threat to Steam, and not just as a "fragmented portal relegated to its own IP", not only by virtue of all the games it has drawn away from Steam, such as Metro Exodus, which is not developed, published, nor built on the Unreal Engine owned by Epic, but also by inspiring other startups with their success like Discord who are willing to offer a more favorable revenue split to developers in exchange for a seat at the table.Valve, the company behind Steam, has long been unchallenged in the digital marketplace and its revenue split is a testament to this fact. The company's 70/30 model has been the norm across the industry for at least a decade, and Valve hasn't been forced to update that figure until recently. Just before the Epic Games Store was announced, Valve revealed a new revenue ratio for Steam -- but it only affects a handful of ultra-successful developers.
Today on Steam, any game that makes more than $10 million earns developers 75 percent of its revenue, while titles that earn more than $50 million net its creators 80 percent of all subsequent earnings. Of course, this move doesn't do much to appease independent and mid-tier developers, who can earn 88 percent of all revenue on the Epic Games Store. Even the new Discord store offers a split of 90/10.
Steam is still a clear leader in digital distribution, offering more games than any other PC platform and serving as an entrenched, trusted service for millions of players worldwide. However, the Epic Games Store's existence has already pushed Valve to update its revenue-sharing policies, if only slightly, and Sweeney's challenge could look appealing as Steam attempts to stay on top.
"Such a move would be a glorious moment in the history of PC gaming, and would have a sweeping impact on other platforms for generations to come," Sweeney wrote in a follow-up tweet. "Then stores could go back to just being nice places to buy stuff, rather than the Game Developer IRS."
Polygon said:Metro Exodus has sold two and a half times more copies on the Epic Games Store than Metro Last Light sold in the same amount of time on Steam. This proves, according to Allison, that “it’s really about your game, not so much about the store [you sell it on].”
While Metro Exodus runs on the developer's own 4A Engine, were it powered by Epic's Unreal Engine 4, the engine licensing fees would have come out of Epic’s 12 percent cut instead of being added on top of Steam’s 30 percent revenue share.