These would be 226k sales at full price. I admit I have no idea how easy it is to reach that threshold though.
News Epic Games Store
- Thread starter Blizniak
- Start date
Considering Control seemingly hasn’t done very well, maybe it was a good move for 505.
At the very least, they clearly had no faith in it.
At the very least, they clearly had no faith in it.
Well that's my shenmue 3 refund request in 
Control will be everywhere before Steam, Stadia, gamepass, a bloke at the local shops will probably have a car boot full of copies...
As far we know if they don't reach the threshold dictated by this 9.5M€ they don't see any more money from Epic. So we are talking about 150k copies sold at 60€
Modern Day Game Distribution.
Buy new, or wait 4-6 months to find it in every discount & junk bin.
That's the new trend of indy development. It once stood for independent from publishers, today they rather bind themselves to publishers like epic again to be able to go independent from costumers.
edit: By the Way, Bloodstained is on Game Pass (PC & Xbox).
Excuse me now, I need to cross it off from my Steam Wishlist. Wanted to buy it during the next steam sales, but where is the sense in that.
/s
Last edited:
Thank you so much for this.Batman AK DRM vs DRM free
3900x/2080Ti/Crucial MX 500/32GB DDR4 3600c14
CPU locked to 4250MHz, to ensure consistency between tests (Ryzen 3000 fluctuates a lot). Still not reaching GPU limit though, so probably not needed.
Settings
Maxed out at 1440p with nvidia stuff
-I did 10 runs each, as there is actually a lot of variance in minimums here
-There was an outlier in Steam run 6 (minimum), I chose to no include it (just the minimum). I was to lazy to waste even more time tbh...
-Epic Version was run without the EGS client in the background. (Just click on the BatmanAK.exe, no further sorcery needed)
Minimum FPS Maximum FPS Average FPS Epic 1 Epic 2 Epic 3 Epic 4 Epic 5 Epic 6 Epic 7 Epic 8 Epic 9 Epic 10 Average Steam 1 Steam 2 Steam 3 Steam 4 Steam 5 Steam 6 Steam 7 Steam 8 Steam 9 Steam 10 Average Difference [%]
8% Difference is not insignificant if you ask me.
Fuck denuvo
And given that Remedy just got a fraction of that... unless they planned to sell 1500 copies I dont know how it makes sense
Congrats on the money. Now they got those they don't need mine.
IDK, $10.5 USD sounds like a lot to me for doing absolutely nothing. You were already developing a game and planning for release. "Here's a free $10m on top of whatever you sell."
I don't see businesses NOT taking that. It's counterintuitive to the idea that there is no such thing as too much profit
Deleted member 113
Guest
done and done
and a sincere "get fuuuuuuucked" to everyone involved (ysnet, deep shit, and tim)
Everyone who knows me knows I've always been crazy about the Shenmue series.Well that's my shenmue 3 refund request in
I followed the series since it was announced. I read every article I could find about the games before they launched. I was at the store on day one to pick up my copies of the games (for the second game, I actually had to travel 20 km or so to get a copy, because my usual store had a delay with their delivery).
I have multiple versions of the games, rare demos, Japanese promo materials, soundtracks, merchandise, and throughout the years, I just couldn't keep my mouth shut about the games.
When this campaign started, and despite being a bad time for me financially, I dropped a few hundred $ to help make Shenmue III.
The crap they pulled pretty much killed my interest in the series.
Like with Phoenix Point, I found what all parties did pretty disrespectful, to say the least. As for the developers, first they came asking for fans to help fund their games and studios, and then, as soon as someone waves a few $ at them, they couldn't care less about backers, nor in honouring their promises.
Naturally, the only thing I could do, as someone with some degree of self esteem, was to ask for a refund:
My only regret is that I also dropped a decent amount of $ on a fan documentary about the Shenmue series, and for that one I can't do anything about it.
The good news is, after I receive my refund, my gaming purchases for the rest of the year should be mostly covered.
I think it's a very good thing whose adverse effects are mostly brought about by an industry that is hell-bent in abusing every inch we give them. Being unable to resell digital goods has been an anomaly for decades and I'm glad it's finally getting addressed. As for the consequences, I don't recall the second-hand physical game market being such a herald of the apocalypse - nor was piracy.Braking News? Or am I the only one who missed it?
-----
The Tribunal de Grande Instance (Paris) decided that EU citizens have the right to sell their digital Steam games if they wish to do so. Valves current user agreement is violating EU law in that regard.
Valve already objected the ruling.
If the ruling gets confirmed the online distribution market would change dramatically, not just for Valve but also for Sony, Microsoft, epic, Ubi, apple, Amazon etc.
Sorry, only got a German source
Französisches Gericht: Steam muss Weiterverkauf von Spielen zulassen
Valve muss es EU-Kunden erlauben, auf Steam erworbene Spiele weiterzuverkaufen. Das hat ein französisches Gericht entschieden. Valve will das Urteil anfechten.www.heise.de
I get the feeling that there is a scare surrounding this news that is mostly predicated on some strange, defeatist Stockholm Syndrome of acceptance of game publisher's reaction to it. That reaction is more concerning to me than the news themselves if I have to be honest..
Everyone speaks about the big fat publishers. What happens to smaller indie studios/devs if the ruling gets confirmed?
Nobody aint selling stuff everyone can get on Fanatical bundles
This could also effect your right to pass on or inherit digital movies, music, games, books, software. It would also effect your right to Windows 10 and maybe even to your digital cosmetic DLC. Lootboxes would be very different in that scenario.
Let's also not forget that game selling was important last generation and even when this console generation started. Remember when Microsoft wanted to lock things up, how everybody rioted and Sony even made a short pr video about "lending" games. It wasn't just about lending games, it was also about being able to sell them. Costumer rights being taken away was bad and sony was good.
But now people are worried because the EU started to think that digital rights should be handled similarly? High european Curts are trying to strengthen our consumer sides and we are supposed to be worried because of indy developers? Why was everybody against Microsoft and now people are afraid of us maybe getting rights that everybody was afraid to loose 5 years ago on the console side.
I don't get it and I don't care about developers. Let them earn money, I don't want anybody to suffer from evil work conditions and they need to organize into unions asap imo. But other than that, I'm not going to be worried about my consumer rights being possibly strengthened because indy developer number 9345671 could loose some sales. Hate me for it, I don't care. They don't care about my financial situation either.
Let's also not forget that game selling was important last generation and even when this console generation started. Remember when Microsoft wanted to lock things up, how everybody rioted and Sony even made a short pr video about "lending" games. It wasn't just about lending games, it was also about being able to sell them. Costumer rights being taken away was bad and sony was good.
But now people are worried because the EU started to think that digital rights should be handled similarly? High european Curts are trying to strengthen our consumer sides and we are supposed to be worried because of indy developers? Why was everybody against Microsoft and now people are afraid of us maybe getting rights that everybody was afraid to loose 5 years ago on the console side.
I don't get it and I don't care about developers. Let them earn money, I don't want anybody to suffer from evil work conditions and they need to organize into unions asap imo. But other than that, I'm not going to be worried about my consumer rights being possibly strengthened because indy developer number 9345671 could loose some sales. Hate me for it, I don't care. They don't care about my financial situation either.
The same thing as with used physical games and piracy : probably nothing. Or possibly another thing : people can resell their yearly CoD copy and buy into indies the rest of the year, possibility directly from them because they care. Either way I think the effects can be really good for the industry on top of being amazing for consumers.
My concern is more how the industry reacts to this. Having actual ownership over my digital games is obviously good.
In regards to caring about indies, honestly I am suspicious of indies because they are ultimately just trying to sell a game, yet act like they are friends with the community and foster unethical relationships with the pundits.
In short they’re not really gonna put my interests first yet try to earn my sympathy via pleading poverty or whatever other sob story they give when they’ve willingly entered a cutthroat industry as entrepreneurs.
Now I’m gonna stop here before I sound more like a GG’er, when clearly I’m not.
In regards to caring about indies, honestly I am suspicious of indies because they are ultimately just trying to sell a game, yet act like they are friends with the community and foster unethical relationships with the pundits.
In short they’re not really gonna put my interests first yet try to earn my sympathy via pleading poverty or whatever other sob story they give when they’ve willingly entered a cutthroat industry as entrepreneurs.
Now I’m gonna stop here before I sound more like a GG’er, when clearly I’m not.
The comparison of digital goods to physical items is insanely stupid and people need to stop doing it because it makes for a piss-poor argument.
They're inherently different types of goods and transactions.
The worry is that this move is ultimately cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Congrats, you're going to "own" whatever games are currently in your Steam library.
Enjoy never being sold a game ever again and your future of game subscriptions and rental licenses.
Yeah, I don't think its pure coincidence that since the EU ruled that you can resell software licences for things like Windows, MS Office and Photoshop in spite of the EULAs claiming that you can't, that there has been a movement in productivity software away from single purchase ownership towards ongoing subscription services.
Exactly. I'm not sure how many people here use professional software, but for any of us that do, the last few years have been an absolute annoyance. Perpetual software licenses have now transitioned to yearly subscription fees, and it SUCKS.
Need the full suite of Adobe services? Oh whoops, you can't buy that anymore. You can pay $53 a month though! Need AutoCAD? How about $1,600 a year? How about the full Office suite? Either pay $150 for one computer, or $10 a month for six users. Use a specific composition app like Ulysses? Enjoy a $40 a year subscription. The list goes on and on.
It's the worst. People think GaaS sucks? SaaS sucks even harder in a lot of cases.
I'd be happy if stuff I use was €40 a year instead of several orders of magnitude higher lol
Oh for sure, stuff that's $40 a year is like small-scale photoediting or compositional programs. A lot of the high end packaged stuff is now hundreds or thousands of dollars a year, and even more once you get into enterprise level packages for stuff like healthcare SaaS.
AFAICS, the rule of thumb boxed product -> ongoing subscription fee formula is
(old boxed price / 2) = new annual subscription fee
I don't know what I did to you but please be civil, this was unfriendly to read. I understand they aren't the same type of goods and transactions but in essence they are the same : games. Yes, there are differences in the ease and frictionless way you can transfer ownership but at the end of the day, to me, the end result is the same.
Besides, the second part of your argument, saying that we should be against having rights because companies are going to react like assholes is not compelling to me. Simply because they are going to be greedy doesn't mean I have to give in. You are free to do what you want but you can't pretend to know the way it will pan out with absolute certainty either.
I mean if publishers want to make the game industry crash then I say go for it, do a SaaS only and see what happens.
Either one or two broad subs with lots of publishers succeed, or the publishers silo themselves off and the whole edifice collapses.
Industry’s crashed anyway. We’re just going through the motions at this point. A healthy industry wouldn’t need an exploitative sugar daddy like Epic paying 9m Euros a pop for big games.
Ignoring the entire pipeline process for how an end-product is being delivered to you and then just focusing on the end-product being the same is again, such an incredibly horrible argument that it actually handicaps the argument for better digital rights.
Yeah, I too can stick my head in the sand and say "THIS THING THAT ISN'T THE SAME IS TOTALLY THE SAME TO ME," but that doesn't make it any more or less true. It would just make me a goober.
A digital good has zero friction in its purchase and delivery methods, as well as zero degradation over time. That inherently makes it an incredibly different good that can't be treated the same way as a physical good. Because reselling a digital good is the exact same as distributing the original digital good. There is zero difference between the two. That is not the case for real-life objects, where exhaustion and first sale doctrines make much more sense.
Sure, again, you can cut off your nose to spite your face, but that doesn't mean it's an intelligent decision.
We know how it's going to pan out because we've already seen this shit happen in software. It's the same shit all over again, except the tech companies were smarter, saw the writing on the wall sooner and started moving to subscription models years ago. There have been rumors that companies like Apple and Amazon are thinking of dropping MP3 support, and this is just going to hasten that decision for all digital content distributors (games or otherwise).
Let's try a quick thought experiment with an example game: Inside was an acclaimed, short puzzle-adventure game that you can reasonable finish within 4 hours.
If digital resale is allowed, the first purchaser could finish the game within 4 hours, and sell it to someone on the other side of the globe instantaneously. Let's be generous and say the time to sell was around 1 hour. So within 24 hours, the game could have conceivably changed through nearly 5 different users' hands, crossing through the USA, Russia, Sweden, Brazil and Australia all within that one day. And within a week, a single copy could have gone through 30 or more players' hands. All of this is happening instantaneously, without any cost to the seller or buyer, and without any degradation of the original product. Comparably, if you sent a physical good to 30 countries, the item would be a ratty, dinged up, valueless piece of total shit by the time it hit buyer #30.
Or forget actual reselling transactions. It would be trivially easy to create a verified lending library system wherein you get on a waitlist for the license to be "sold" to you temporarily. Sure you'd have to wait in line, but once the pool of "sellers" (lenders) of day one purchasers coalesces, other interested "buyers" (lendees) would never have to do anything other than wait for a few days to play.
So what happens to the game industry? There's a couple obvious outcomes, almost all of which are fairly negative.
- Like the software industry we move from perpetual license purchases to recurring license purchases, either monthly or yearly (this is the most obvious future solution especially for big AAA titles).
- We see an escalation in the GamePass/Apple Arcade subscription models as the primary method of consumption, so that we don't even remotely "own" our games (this is the most obvious future for small indie titles).
- Games will include more "Battle Pass" or "Prime Status" subscription upgrades to effectively gate content (this is the most obvious future for GaaS/ongoing titles).
- Games will increase in price and no longer see deep discounts (and possibly no discounts ever). Because if users can buy a game and instantly sell it, why would anyone ever offer sales? We would just buy on a weekend sale discount, finish it, then resell it at or slightly below the sale price, and undercut the developer's normal price when the sale ends (this is the future for everyone in general).
Xbox will be a service, Playstation will be a service, Uplay, Origin etc. The transformation processes have already begun. Them going down this road has nothing to do with the EU or our court rulings. If they see the opportunity to milk us they'll do it.
If you look at the movie, TV or music industry. They are still selling us hard copies on Blu-Ray, DVD or CD, despite the digital rental services dominating the market. The game industry will keep on selling us stuff just the same way.
Nvidia, Intel and AMD will still sell you hardware despite cloud computing taking off in the future.
I think most people are overreacting. All we have to do is to keep buying stuff.
Just as with movies/show streaming there will be to much competition, people won't subscribe to everything for 200€/month. one-two subscription services and the rest will be bought old-school.
yeah, it's pretty much this ... i seriously doubt the EU ruling had anything to do with that
what really (probably) happened was that they all saw they can get much more money out of people if they do subscriptions instead of regular yearly (or once every few years even) infusions of cash whenever they finally release whatever they're working on
People will eventually get tired of subscribing to fucking tons of services.
Also, hipsters will always be a thing. I legit believe we will have big box PC releases again, sometime.
Also, hipsters will always be a thing. I legit believe we will have big box PC releases again, sometime.
edit: rereading all that stuff with the french ruling, doesn't that just say that Valve/Steam cannot forbid to resell the license? Not that they have to actually create a service to do so? If that's the case I suppose they're just opposing the legalese of Steam ToS which will result in a big bag of nothing even if the final ruliing is against Steam.
People will be able to resell their accounts legally but that's that?
I admit the way some titles were framing it and how the discussion was evolving it seemed like Steam and potentially stores would have to actually allow the resale of games but the ruling just seems to claim they cannot ban or prevent it.
In that case I agree that it doesn't seem particularly major, it's just a slap in the face of the usual EULAs/ToS that prevent the resale of accounts which invevitably still happens, now it's just not punishable.
People will be able to resell their accounts legally but that's that?
I admit the way some titles were framing it and how the discussion was evolving it seemed like Steam and potentially stores would have to actually allow the resale of games but the ruling just seems to claim they cannot ban or prevent it.
In that case I agree that it doesn't seem particularly major, it's just a slap in the face of the usual EULAs/ToS that prevent the resale of accounts which invevitably still happens, now it's just not punishable.
Last edited:
@Control exclusive
We actually don't know if the monetary amount is for 60$ guarantee or 88% of it.
It could be like other historic sales guarantees from the industry just ~50% or lower, which doubles the amount needed to get money after the guarantee.
Don't know about Epic, but any other corporation would be stupid to guarantee the full MSRP amount per copy lifetime. There are sales to take into account. If Epic is doing a Control sale and sells Control for 20 bucks, they would lose an additional 40 bucks per copy sold!
A sales guarantee is to negate risk, and getting upfront money in exchange for lesser payout per copy. (traditionally)
Sony doesn't pay MSRP for PSN freebies
Microsoft doesn't pay MSRP for GwG
We actually don't know if the monetary amount is for 60$ guarantee or 88% of it.
It could be like other historic sales guarantees from the industry just ~50% or lower, which doubles the amount needed to get money after the guarantee.
Don't know about Epic, but any other corporation would be stupid to guarantee the full MSRP amount per copy lifetime. There are sales to take into account. If Epic is doing a Control sale and sells Control for 20 bucks, they would lose an additional 40 bucks per copy sold!
A sales guarantee is to negate risk, and getting upfront money in exchange for lesser payout per copy. (traditionally)
Sony doesn't pay MSRP for PSN freebies
Microsoft doesn't pay MSRP for GwG
As we both agree that publishers will keep on selling things, consumers will have the opportunity to either buy a new game for 69.99€ or subscribe to a service for 15€/month.
I'm pretty confident that most people are going to choose the subscription service over digital or retail versions. Some people will buy the game though and only some of them will resell it.
Let's play this out.
You are paying 70€ for a game you are planing to sell in a month, or two. You are competing against other sellers and against a 15€/month subscription service. For how much would anybody buy your version? 60€ is surely still to much, but would be a nice deal for you. 50€ are probably still too much for many people who weren't interested in the game on day one, but it would be a bad deal for you, You paid 70€, got 50€ back and paid 20€ to own the game for a month. Subscribing to the service would have been cheaper.
So you are going to keep the game for two months and maybe sell it for 35€? That's maybe an attractive price for other people, but subscribing for two months would have been just 30€ and this way you paid 35€ for owning the game for two months.
You can also wait 6-12 months and sell it for 5-10€, once it reached 20€ on retail stores anyway. That doesn't sound thrilling either, might as well hold on to it now.
What I'm trying to say: People are over blowing the impact of this. Most people won't buy and than sell the game after 2-3 months, because subscribing to "Game Pass" or "Service by Uplay" will still be cheaper.
What this will change though is your ability to give your version to a family member for free, maybe to your son/daughter (important to me), your right to inherit your fathers digital book, music and movie library after his death (not that anybody is looking forward to that day), your right to donate digital movies and games, your right to pass on your digital libraries after your death.
This is very important and goes hand in hand with your right to sell those digital stuff.
You will also (probably) only be able to sell those game on the corresponding stores. I'm pretty sure Microsoft and co. will ask for a nice "extra" for the transfer of "rights". You may be selling the game for 35€, but the person buying it will probably have to pay 20% on top of that.
It's more than that.
I asked one of our meta lawyers about this (I like to listen to more intelligent people than me), so I'll quote him:
This is the puddles core: The definition of what they are selling us: Products and not licenses.
The court didn't say anything about how "transfers" have to be done or anything else (afaik). And as Alexandros further stated
So yes, you are correct: we don't know anything until the EU legislative moves, especially about how transfers have to be handled.This is a win but we have a long way to go until it actually matters to us. Valve will appeal the ruling and even if they lose again, the only way game companies will be forced to provide a means of reselling digital content will be if legislation is drafted at the EU level. I believe that it will happen eventually because it simply makes sense. There was a similar ruling by the European Court of Justice in 2012:
This is a win but we have a long way to go until it actually matters to us. Valve will appeal the ruling and even if they lose again, the only way game companies will be forced to provide a means of reselling digital content will be if legislation is drafted at the EU level. I believe that it will happen eventually because it simply makes sense. There was a similar ruling by the European Court of Justice in 2012:
Top EU court upholds right to resell downloaded software
First-sale rights stronger in the EU than in the US.arstechnica.com
But it has to become law to be fully enforceable and that hasn't happened yet.
But the courts are saying: People are allowed to do what they want with their products and you are selling them products and not licences.
And if I may add: that's a good thing for us Europeans,
Last edited:
They uphold your right to resell, but that's that you can resell lawfully, not that Steam/Valve has to actually create a framework to let you do that, it means you can go to ebay and sell your steam account and the buyer will be unpunishable.
Nothing changes as that happens already and the people caught in my experience are in the minority.
edit: unless with "activable" they mean that
Nothing changes as that happens already and the people caught in my experience are in the minority.
edit: unless with "activable" they mean that
In that case I'll go back to saying that smaller stores like JAST/Mangagamer are either going to block those countries or go out of business since I doubt they have the resources to both comply and then take the revenue loss.
Last edited:
I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I believe you are still missing the point.
First, this isn't about now, the ruling isn't even active atm.
Courts are saying that a company isn't upholding European laws and that their User Agreement is partially wrong and void: digital games are products and not licences and Valve isn't allowed to hinder you from selling products that you bought from them.
We have to differentiate between an account and products that are entwined to accounts here. This ruling, as I understand it, still doesn't allow you to sell your account. But it forbids Valve to hinder you from selling products that are on that account. It also changes the legal standing of your games. They are no longer licenses, but products. Nothing else and this has currently no impact on anything!
This is often how democracies work. The judicial power decided that something is not going according to the constitution or set of laws. The next step is for the legislative (eu parliament) to make rules so that there are clear definitions how things have to work. Will this result in us being allowed to resell games on an individual basis? account wide basis? on ebay? exclusively on the markets we bought them from? I don't know, nobody does currently.
So no, you can't sell your steam account on ebay now. Valve can still ban that account, if they want to and everybody needs to calm down a bit.
It will take years before something changes. But it will (most probably) change and if it allows me to inherit my games library to my kids one day. I'm happy that all the money I've spent isn't going to be completely wasted, but just 99% wasted.
That's what I have been saying though? They are opposing the ever-present legalese clause in any EULA/ToS ever created, which changes nothing for now.
It will change everything.
If it gets confirmed of course
I can't do anything with a license, I can just use it for myself.
I can do everything I want with a product. Inherit it, donate it, give it away, sell it, borrow it, change it etc.
it changes everything the moment they say "you have to provide customers with a way to do that".
Otherwise you have a right with little avenue to be taken advantage of.
edit: nvm I can't think of a way there are no repercussions
Otherwise you have a right with little avenue to be taken advantage of.
edit: nvm I can't think of a way there are no repercussions
Last edited:
Obviously Zkenir, but that's what I'm trying to explain to you for the last couple of posts. The courts opened the possibility for new laws (or "rights" as you say it), to exist. Even better: They're forcing the eu parliament to deal with the problem at one point in time. If the ruling gets "confirmed".
I don't have any new rights right now, but I surely will in a couple of years. They might be great or they might be useless, i don't know yet.
There are a lot of good things about the eu, but it is one slowly moving apparatus and not every outcome is good.
I agree and disagree.
Yes, subscription services are the future regardless.
But also yes, rulings like this on digital resale could hasten and extremize that future.
It’s like when politicians talk about bringing some kind of manufacturing industry “back home” to their country. Is that alone going to cause that industry to be automated? No. Would it amp up the process by magnitudes? Absolutely.
I think if the subscription landscape looks like the movie/TV, where every single content creator is trying to make their own service, that’s true. People are already getting sick of the idea of having to subscribe to CBS All Access, Peacock, Hulu, Prime, Hulu, Netflix, Disney+ and half-a-dozen more. And they’re turning back to the high seas.
But I think the nature of games will tend towards larger content aggregating subscriptions rather than that. Most studios can never really create enough content to justify creating their own services, and will either be bought out by bigger studios, or tack themselves onto subscription services offered by those larger studios.
People have raised some valid points on the possible consequences of a law that forces companies to allow the resale of digital content. My disagreement mainly lies with the principle of denying customers a fundamental right based on the fear of possible negative consequences. For me the most important question is: "Do customers have the right to sell a product that they bought?". I can't conceive of any answer other than "yes". At the most basic level, before taking into account the type of product or any possible complications, I can't think of any reason why the seller should retain any kind of power over the product I bought once the transaction is completed.
So in my opinion, customers being able to sell products that they bought is one issue. The way that this will be implemented in the case of digital content is another. It is inconceivable to me that just because we're not sure right now how to handle the latter, we should ban the former. The basis of the discussion should be "customers should be able to resell their property, now let's talk about how to do this so that content creators aren't disproportionally affected".
So in my opinion, customers being able to sell products that they bought is one issue. The way that this will be implemented in the case of digital content is another. It is inconceivable to me that just because we're not sure right now how to handle the latter, we should ban the former. The basis of the discussion should be "customers should be able to resell their property, now let's talk about how to do this so that content creators aren't disproportionally affected".