Yup, regional pricing is good on Steam. But I have a feeling that they might readjust it later.Good regional pricing there. $10 for normal and $15 for definitive. For comparison, it's $40 on EGS for normal.
Good guy Epic make games cheaper.
Yup, regional pricing is good on Steam. But I have a feeling that they might readjust it later.Good regional pricing there. $10 for normal and $15 for definitive. For comparison, it's $40 on EGS for normal.
Good guy Epic make games cheaper.
So a few days back EGS announced that devs could use they own payment method for in game purchase, that seems cool, surely Epic was doing that to help other devs.
![]()
Exclusive: Epic submitting Fortnite for Android to Play Store in hopes of special billing exception
In launching on Android last year, Fortnite could not be installed by simply going to the Google Play Store. Rather, the battle royale game...9to5google.com
So Epic wants to be on Play Store but not pay the 30%, maybe Google will help out poor Epic.
Oh
Epic said:Epic doesn’t seek a special exception for ourselves;
Epic said:We believe this form of tying of a mandatory payment service with a 30% fee is illegal in the case of a distribution platform with over 50% market share.
Steam Direct is 100$ but Epic is a consolidated publisher so it wouldnt need to get the game approved through it, so it would be 0$ to publish a game. Apple grants 0 exceptions, heck they went on a battle with subscription services in their platform over the 30% such as Spotify!Next step is Fortnite wanting to be on Steam but not paying the fee, so making millions for free (well, $1000), lol? Did Apple grant that?! I guess they could work around it by not having transactions in those versions at all, but having people unlock those for their account via a constantly advertised web store? Though it I guess defeats the point of wanting the attention from people who don't normally use other storefronts but just whatever is on App Store/Google Play store.
So what then stops all games from being free with in-app DLC content unlocking meaning they can all use all the stores for (near) free should that be adopted?
There's pretty much no way to classify limits that separate Fortnite micro transactions from things like that unless they make it so only pure cosmetics get a pass (so anything with even miniscule statistics doesn't which would obviously cause an uproar from all the developers that do have statistics in their DLC and why shouldn't they also get a pass and so on) but then why should the service provider be less "greedy" than the developer/publisher that sells such things?
You might as well call the fee a "single player campaign tax" at that point, like such games aren't already hard enough to come by depending on the genre (plus, yes it's risky, but you'd have the odd developer trying to still take advantage by making their single player game f2p with advertising "support-the-developer" cosmetic DLC, or if small statistic improvements are allowed then an RPG could give you an accessory of +1 conversing which is the only way to increase that beyond 0 for actual dialogue skill checks required to move past the intro, with that statistic and equipment slot devised solely for that purpose, and so on).
To be fair, taxation is theft.
No because it's a walled garden just like Sony.Is Epic also calling out Apple?
Just curious because Tim's displeasure with relative open platforms like PC and Android is interesting.
Epic has already released the Epic Games Store on mobile (it is where their gacha game is currently failing to get traction). I think it is more likely they just want to lower player acquisition cost on Android as much as possible now that their playerbase is slowly decreasing.This is just an Epic PR stunt - they knew Google would say no and the whole "illegal" thing is a talking point. The next step is to now release the Epic Games Store on Android because Google left them with no choice.
Sweeney has been shit-talking Google for a while now, and it's probably because they're ready to launch at the Keighleys or something.
Being in the top 20 for a few hours wasn't really that much of an achievement. super-niche titles can get into the top5 on their launch-day.Ashen already dropped significantly in Steam's best selling list. There's also no promotion at all on the store page...
The way I see it is they are making demands of Google that they know Google can't or won't accept. Maybe if Google did call their bluff they would be put in a bad place and need to then release Fortnite on Google Play - I just don't think that was ever the intent. Meanwhile, we do know they've been working on an Android version of EGS, as it's been in their roadmap since the beginning. However, it is only available to Epic games right now, not third parties. The EGS will properly launch when they start getting other games on their store.Epic has already released the Epic Games Store on mobile (it is where their gacha game is currently failing to get traction). I think it is more likely they just want to lower player acquisition cost on Android as much as possible now that their playerbase is slowly decreasing.
Still, any secondary store on mobile will always fail to gain traction to become mainstream unless they get some mobile OEMs to bundle the store with their phones, at which point, they might as well just have their own store (such as Samsungs). Amazon tried with a ton more money and time to spend and failed, Epic based only on a hit title wont make it.
Amazon tried hard to pùsh Android store for years and ended up bailing out because it just wasnt possible to grow after a level, even trying to pay manufacturers to put their store in the devices. All the things you are talking about for possible growing the stores are things that Amazon tried to do, and was not succesful to.The way I see it is they are making demands of Google that they know Google can't or won't accept. Maybe if Google did call their bluff they would be put in a bad place and need to then release Fortnite on Google Play - I just don't think that was ever the intent. Meanwhile, we do know they've been working on an Android version of EGS, as it's been in their roadmap since the beginning.
Combine the two and it seems obvious to me that Epic is going after Google. Sweeney has already been laying the groundwork with talks of a monopoly and how the company is acting illegally and now we have this latest PR stunt.
In regards to Amazon, they have their own hardware that they bundled their store with - obviously they'd like to be dominant on Android too, but any Android users they have is just a minuscule boost to their ecosystem of low cost Fire devices. Epic is in a different position and will need to find other ways to get people using EGS on Android. That might involve moneyhatting high profile exclusives, or promotiong cross-buy between PC and Android as a feature, even going as far as paying OEMs to include the store on their devices.
And I don't buy the argument that OEMs could just do a Samsung and make their own store. Samsung is a lesson in why they shouldn't do it, and they've all probably weighed it up and decided it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean the OEMs won't take cash from someone to include their own store with their phones - there is a long and storied history of manufacturers bundling bloatware with their devices.
The difference is Amazon tried to be an all-purpose app store on Android. EGS will be a game-only curated store. I can see the appeal of having a store with only big budget games that you can also play on PC, at least a differentiator compared to Amazon's offerings.Amazon tried hard to pùsh Android store for years and ended up bailing out because it just wasnt possible to grow after a level, even trying to pay manufacturers to put their store in the devices. All the things you are talking about for possible growing the stores are things that Amazon tried to do, and was not succesful to.
I could see this being just a stupid PR move, but I dont see any viable path to make EGS store a thing on Android.
There's nothing fair about taxes. Forcing sovereign citizens to pay for a service they do not want (or use) under threat of incarceration is abuse. The rich pay more, yet the poor pay too much (proportionally speaking); the decisions on who benefits are all over the place too. Also the tax law is insane, taxing people when they make money, buy goods, gift goods, and even die; meanwhile corporations have all kinds of loopholes that allow them to get away with tax evasion.And who is paying for Schools, roads, and all the other government provided community services? It is the fairest system out there. Do you want to pay for every mile on the road? Do you want the white community in your city to pay for the school through "donations" and only allow whites to go to it (because it is a private school and they can decide who will go to it) If everything has to be paid by the individual, the poor would be less mobile, would have less chances in life. Racism would be more prevalent because the people who finance community services can decide who can use those.
Sure, but aside from "Forcing sovereign citizens to pay for a service they do not want (or use) under threat of incarceration is abuse." there really isn't much else to say, one either agrees or disagrees with that statement; the rest of my post is just my unhinged ranting on how taxes are actually stupid (in the way they're currently implemented, granted) and should be abolished anyway.Taxes as a whole being theft is a wholly different argument to unfairly distributed taxation, you can't conflate the two to reinforce arguments for one or the other.
If one pops up I'll post in it, there's a lot I wanted to say on the topic of wage slavery too, but I honestly don't have the time to moderate such a thread.Also, maybe make a thread about it in off topic.
The way I see it is they are making demands of Google that they know Google can't or won't accept. Maybe if Google did call their bluff they would be put in a bad place and need to then release Fortnite on Google Play - I just don't think that was ever the intent. Meanwhile, we do know they've been working on an Android version of EGS, as it's been in their roadmap since the beginning. However, it is only available to Epic games right now, not third parties. The EGS will properly launch when they start getting other games on their store.
Combine the two and it seems obvious to me that Epic is going after Google. Sweeney has already been laying the groundwork with talks of a monopoly and how the company is acting illegally and now we have this latest PR stunt.
In regards to Amazon, they have their own hardware that they bundled their store with - obviously they'd like to be dominant on Android too, but any Android users they have is just a minuscule boost to their ecosystem of low cost Fire devices. Epic is in a different position and will need to find other ways to get people using EGS on Android. That might involve moneyhatting high profile exclusives, or promotiong cross-buy between PC and Android as a feature, even going as far as paying OEMs to include the store on their devices.
And I don't buy the argument that OEMs could just do a Samsung and make their own store. Samsung is a lesson in why they shouldn't do it, and they've all probably weighed it up and decided it's a bad idea. That doesn't mean the OEMs won't take cash from someone to include their own store with their phones - there is a long and storied history of manufacturers bundling bloatware with their devices.
Hence why we should eat the rich. The world doesn't need them anyhow, building their undeserved fortunes on the backs of the working class through force.The problem of "forcing people to pay for a service they do not want to use" will always benefit the rich people who create their own separate services not to pay for the communal services while the communal services die down as they work on economies of scale that get hurt when people are given the chance to not pay it.
Pretty sure the revenue list updates either every day or manually, as RDR2 also took like 1 day for it to appear on top sellers lolMechwarrior 5 came out today.
It's on place 16 on EGS, behind the beloved Rune II.
Well done Piranha Games, well done.
Meanwhile, Boneworks VR a niche game on niche hardware is number one on steam.
Pretty sure the revenue list updates either every day or manually, as RDR2 also took like 1 day for it to appear on top sellers lol
Sergey said it's once a week, actually
This is surely helpful in finding new releases and things people are excited about.
Sadly, I think we've already seen how things will go.Well, now that Hades is on Steam, we'll see how things go. I certainly won't be buying it. Their attitude toward the PC platform in having taken these deals is unacceptable, and this is the consequence I wish for them to hear in the only language they seem to care about.
Sadly, I think we've already seen how things will go.
As soon as the game launched, the majority of my friends list ran to purchase the game.
As usual, it seems people are bothered by these practices, but not enough to skip a fricking videogame.
Release a game a year later, for pretty much the same price (or higher, under the justification that it has more content now; any developer that updates their games with new content, say the Grim Dawn developers, should start increasing the price of their games, even if it's years after launch), and people will still buy it.
Because, just think of the poor developers!
The guys that took these deals really got the best of everything: they got a significant amount of funds from Epic, possibly some more funds from sales on their platform, a lot of free publicity from the exclusivity deal (and the "backlash" that followed; I say "backlash", because let's face it, by now it's clear it was less of a backlash, and more of a twitter "hissy fit", since most people never followed through with their boycotts or promises of "ignoring" the developers), they got to have a second launch (after the exclusivity period was over), with healthy sales (as if the game is not a year old product), and they'll surely get the usual later income from discounted sales + bundles.
Meanwhile, those indie developers who didn't "win the Epic lottery" are left with barely any publicity/visibility, and struggle to get any sales on they one and only launch, let alone a year later.
People complain about industry practices, like microtransacions, pay-to-win mechanics, platform/retailer exclusive content, and whatnot.
But, they end up supporting all these. Why would these developers, or publishers, change anything, if no matter what they do, people will keep purchasing these games and content?
Is that supposed to be any "consolation"?But at least your friends didn't purchase Hades from EGS. While Supergiant becomes better from the exclusivity deal, Epic doesn't if the majority of people still buys the game on Steam.
This is where I am as well.In case of Hades, there were no switcharoony or anything, the game was announced as EGS 1 year exclusive from the get go.
My personal thoughts ar every simply and I know some of you will agreed with it: I want to play games, but not on EGS, so I will wait till they hit Steam to buy them.
This is where I am as well.
The only exceptions are when developers screw over their customers(ie: Phoenix Point), or act like jerks(ie: Ooblets).
Is that supposed to be any "consolation"?
I really don't feel like it is.
So, supposedly only one of two entities majorly profited from a shitty practice. I say supposedly, because I still believe the only lesson developers and publishers will take from this is that the best scenario is to continue to release exclusively for a year on the EGS (thus, a win for Epic), and launch elsewhere a year later.
How is that any good? Am I supposed to cheer for a developer who engages in a shitty practice?
I really don't get why people are all like "let's all go and buy this game a year later, to show it sells better on Steam".
Again, this is rewarding a developer who engaged in a shitty practice.
Why isn't everyone going "let's support other developers, who treat me well as a customer, and don't pull crap like this" instead?
No, those developers don't get any of the support, sales, and publicity. No one cares about those games. People wait to get those games on bundles for next to nothing, or when it's 80%-90% off on a sale.
But Supergiant, now there's a company worth supporting. Here, there's not even a publisher to blame (like people like to do with other EGS exclusives, where when it's a highly anticipated game, the developers are never to blame, and never had any say, and it's all the publisher's fault).
Even people who usually skip games that launch on Early Access (not even if they are already content complete, and just missing some polish and tweaks) are running to buy Hades!
Honestly, I don't know why this thread got 160 pages of "indignation" about all this EGS crap.
Many of the people who posted here already went and bought either, or both, of the former EGS exclusives, so again, what's the point?
Let's admit (most) people couldn't care less about any of this, and whatever these developers/publishers do, people will still flock to purchase these games.
We need numbers though. Right now people are like "steam fanboys who boycott EGS is just a very loud minority".